1100 B. C.), some years after this supremacy came to an end, would seem to show that the prestige of the god had not entirely ceased at that time. Nevertheless, in spite of these efforts, there does not seem to have been any permanent influence made upon the religions of Canaan by the Egyptian religion. A study of the place names does not show any. Certainly the literature of the Old Testament does not betray any.

This lack of influence of the Egyptian religion can only be explained as being due to the fact that the Egyptians did not colonize in Syria. They had fortresses and outposts in the land, but apparently when the service of the Egyptians came to an end, they preferred to return to the Nile valley. As far as is known, there were no migrations to Amurru from Egypt; excepting, of course, the return of the sons of Israel. There is a perfectly sane reason for this fact. While there are certain plains or valleys, like the Jordan, Esdraelon, and the Shephelah, which attracted peoples from other parts, as well as such districts as Aleppo, Haran, Damascus, etc.; and while the land "yielded figs and vines," and "more plentiful than water was its wine, copious its honey, and plenteous its oil," how do these compare with what was so easily obtained in the Nile valley? Imagine an Egyptian choosing to leave "the flesh pots" of his land, with its opulent fertility, to dwell in Palestine.

It is becoming popular to regard the sojourn of the sons of Jacob in Egypt as a myth. This, of course, is based on a mere conjecture. For me it is rather difficult to believe that such a tradition, with all that it involved, could have taken such a hold upon a people and their literature without there being a historical basis for it; especially when we recall that in their temple service, and in an annual festival, right under the eyes of Egypt, the history of their serfdom and bondage was recited, and their deliverance commemorated.

True, the Hebrews did not bring back to Palestine such customs and evidences of their sojourn as did Judah, for example, when it

returned from Babylonia. In Egypt and in Israel, sacrifices were offered, libations poured, and vestments were worn by the priests; and it seems they also had in common such things as the ark with its adornments, the breast-plate, and doubtless other ceremonial paraphernalia. Although the use of many of these things was universal at the time, it is nevertheless reasonable to suppose that Egyptian patterns which were familiar to Aaron, the high priest, would have influenced those of the Hebrews, even though the signification attached to these things was altogether different in Israel.

It would be impossible to understand how, when Moses codified the precepts of Israel, he was not influenced by Egyptian law, perhaps even by the legal language; and it is difficult to understand how Israel could live in a land fairly surcharged, as one has said, with eschatological ideas where the people were so busy attending to the needs of the dead, and yet not develop such an idea as the Egyptian had of the resuscitation of the departed. It seems, however, that even the Hebrew doctrine of the resurrection belongs to a later period. It should also be noted that while Egyptian scarabs, the symbol of immortality, are found in the ruins of the land, we have as yet no indication that any of them are to be associated with the Hebrew religion.

The fact that Israel had lived in the delta more or less removed from the chief centres, must at least in part explain this; but it would seem that the tenacity for their own belief, which has been so characteristic of the Hebrews in all ages, is doubtless the chief reason why they were not influenced by the religion, and even very little by the culture of the Egyptians.

I have dwelt at some length on this subject because of the claim that the Hebrews have so readily assimilated the beliefs of the Babylonians. This, as we shall see, is not only without any verification, but, it seems to me, shows a lack of appreciation of the

loyalty which Jews have always displayed for their faith. And, moreover, it is amazing to find certain Jewish scholars themselves not only accepting such conjectures of the Babylonists, but popularizing them.

In summing up the religious influences of the near neighbor Egypt upon Amurru, we can only come to the conclusion that they are practically nil; and that this must be attributed to the fact that Egyptians did not migrate to that land.

AMORITE CONQUESTS OF AND MIGRATIONS TO EGYPT Let us now inquire what knowledge we have concerning Amorite conquests or invasions of, and migrations to, Egypt. While from what is here presented an extensive influence of Amurru can be inferred, we have unfortunately no historical records from that land to give us data concerning their conquests or migrations. The absence of any historical inscriptions from this region, of course, is well understood as being due to the lack of excavations having been conducted there until quite recently, excepting in Palestine; and also to the fact that a perishable writing material was very generally used. We are, however, in hopes that the French will find such inscriptions at Byblos; or when excavations are conducted at such sites as Aleppo, Antioch, Kedesh, Haran, Mari, that cuneiform tablets will be found similar to such archives as have been discovered in Hittite regions. But while records from early Syria are wanting, we can, however, definitely show that Amurru not only invaded Egypt, but migrated to that land.

Egyptian scholars agree that extensive Semitic influences had already been exerted upon the language of Egypt at the very beginning of the historical period. Craniological research has shown the same thing. The influence of Byblos as early as 3000 B. C., and the veneration of the goddess of that city in Egypt, imply migra• Mueller, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung XI 403 f.

tions from Amurru. In the dark period from about 2350 B. C., at the very time the Amorites occupied the thrones of Babylonia, it is conceded that many Semitic loan words were introduced in the Egyptian language. The same thing occurred in Babylonia. This lexicographical and grammatical influence upon the Egyptian language, in the absence of historical data, speaks loudly as regards migrations. Since Amurru was then politically in the ascendency, there can be little doubt as to the origin of this Semitic influence. This is confirmed by Professor Flinders Petrie who informs us of the discovery of "a remarkable cylinder of jasper with the name of Khandy ... a Syrian king ruling Egypt." This, he further tells us, "seems to show the political influence of the VIIIth dynasty, and is closely in accord with Professor Clay's view of an early Amorite kingdom."

It is now generally conceded that the Hyksos, who invaded and held Egypt in the early part of the second millennium B. C., were Semites from Syria. It was also about this time that the sons of Jacob went down to Egypt. We even have a remarkable mural painting, belonging to the time of Sesostris III (1887-1849 B. C.), depicting thirty-seven men, women, and children, from Syria, headed by their chief, Abesha, bringing presents. Abesha is the same name as the Hebrew Abshai of the Old Testament. The scene presents a picture of a civilized people.

The late Professor W. M. Mueller of Philadelphia, in his work on Egyptian Mythology, has informed us that a considerable part of Egyptian religious thought was influenced by Amurru. Even Amorite myths were adopted. An illustration of this is to be found in the conflict between the god of light and the primaeval monster of the abyss, known as "the Creation myth," in other words the

4

Bondi, Dem Hebräisch-phönizischen Sprachzweige angehörige Lehnwörter; also Burchardt, Alt-kanaanäischen Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Aegyptischen. See The Expository Times, Dec. 1921, p. 121.

story which the Babylonians also borrowed. This, he tells us, reached Egypt some time after 2500 B. C., and gave rise to the story of the gigantic serpent, 'Apop, the enemy of the sun-god.

It would seem to me this Amorite myth had migrated with the people to Egypt in the dark period, above referred to, beginning about 2350 B. C. This is a strikingly significant point in this whole discussion, because at this time, as mentioned above, the Amorites also invaded Babylonia.

Mueller also informed us that only faint traces of the creation of the world from the carcass of the abysmal dragon are found, but other ideas bearing on the conflict with the monster recur in many variant forms. Isis and Osiris are identified with the Tammuz and Ishtar legends of Syria. Following the Hyksos occupation, he further tells us, the worship of Asiatic deities became fashionable in Egypt, being propagated by many immigrants, mercenaries, merchants, etc., from Syria. Among the gods of Amurru worshipped in Egypt are Ba'al, Resheph, Shalman, Astarte, Qedesh, Nikkal, and Anat."

In summing up the influences exerted by Amurru upon Egypt, and vice versa, we can only conclude that Egypt has left no impress upon the religion, and even little upon the culture, of Syria and

• I cannot follow Langdon (Journal of Egyptian Arch. VII 133 ff), who has tried to show that the Egyptian religion is related to the Sumerian because of certain similarities found in rituals of the Tammuz and Ishtar cults and those of Osiris and Isis, especially because they bore the same relation to each other: namely, as brother and husband. The Tammuz and Ishtar cult, I maintain, is West Semitic. Further, I see in other evidence offered to prove such a relationship between the Egyptians and Sumerians nothing beyond the fact that Egypt and Sumer had certain ideas in common; other ancient nations had them as well. I refer to the theory of emanation from the union of a god and goddess; figurines of the mother goddess and child; etc. Moreover, I think Langdon could prove much more effectively that the linear writing of the American Indian is a "survival of the Old Sumerian writing" than are the Egyptian "pottery marks," for a large collection of Indian glyphs can be assembled, which are strikingly similar to the Sumerian. Mueller, Egyptian Mythology 104 ff.