Joseph’s Marriage in Egypt

JOSEPH'S MARRIAGE IN EGYPT By E. Cecil McGavin, Principal L. D. S. Seminary A question frequently asked of Latter-day Saints, which at first seems difficult to answer, is that concerning Joseph's marriage in Egypt. Africa has long been called the "Dark Continent;" not wholly because so little was known of it, but also because it was the abode of the dark race. Just a few generations after the flood, Egypt had been colonized by the descendants of Ham. The country was dis- covered by, and named in honor of, Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, who made this land the home of her posterity. Years later when Northern Africa was rather thickly populated with the children of Ham, Joseph, the Israelite, was sold into Egyptian bondage, where he later gained favor with the ruling class and was received in marriage into their number. It is generally under- stood that the great majority of the people of Africa were of the black race, maintaining their own dynasties and native rulers. Thus the question is raised as to the validity of the claims of Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, to the 'Royal' blood, and the distinctive position they hold in Israel. If Joseph married an Egyptian princess, whose descendants were denied the Priesthood, how , does one justify Ephraim' s pretentions to the covenant of the gospel, with its numerous blessings, all of which are denied the children of Ham? This situation is made even more complex by the following quotations from the Pearl of Great Price: "Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. "From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. * * * "Now Pharaoh being of the lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham. * * *" (Abraham 1:21- 27.) I Profane history joins hands with sacred writ in a defense of the claims of Joseph's two sons to the holy Priesthood. Joseph, whose virtue was the cause of his unjust sentence to the horrible prison dungeon, was no person to forget the great promises made to the seed of Jacob, and inter-marry with the children of Ham, thereby making the fulfilment of this remarkable promise impossible. Joseph was born about the year 1 745 B. C. At the age of seventeen he was sold into Egypt, where he remained until his demise, about 1635 B. C, being 110 years old. Most of the authorities on this period of history are agreed that a race of Semitic people — descendants ,of Shem, and therefore not

316 IMPROVEMENT ERA denied the Priesthood — had invaded Egypt, had overthrown the native rulers and had .established their own government. This was the condition in Egypt at the time Joseph entered as a slave. The ruling class was not composed of the aborigines. Not all the people living in Egypt were Egyptians. (See Improvement Era, vol. 24, pp. 172-3, Dec, 1920.) In this discussion the most famous scholars the world has known, in this particular field, will be brought upon the stage, introduced to an inquiring yet interested audience, and be allowed to add the results of a lifetime of scientific study upon this poorly understood period of history. The pioneer in this field was Manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived in the third century B. C, and who compiled in the Greek language a chronicle of the Pharaohs. The valuable records of Manetho were subsequently destroyed, so that most of the statements from his works are preserved in the writings of Josephus. His story, in which Josephus concurs, is this: "In the days of the Egyptian king, Timaeus, the land was suddenly invaded from the East. The invaders conquered it without a struggle, destroyed cities and temples, and slew or enslaved the inhabitants. At length they elected a king who, residing in Memphis, made all Egypt tributary to him, and established garrisons in all parts, especially eastward, fearing the Assyrians. The Hyksos dynasty consisted of six kings who reigned 198 years and ten months. Their whole race was named Hyksos or 'Shepherd Kings.' When they and their successors had held Egypt for 511 years, the king of Thebes and other parts of Egypt rebelled, and a long war began. Misphragmuthosis drove the Shepherds from the throne. They were allowed to depart from Egypt. They went forth with their whole families and effects, not fewer in number than 240,000, settled in ' Judea and built Jerusalem." The opinions of these two early historians are somewhat modified by later authorities, but not sufficiently to alter the major conclusions. Most of the recent scholars have agreed that the Shepherd Kings were nomadic people of Semitic ancestry, who after leaving Egypt settled in Palestine. One thing is certain, these Shepherd Kings were Semitic and engaged in the pastoral pursuits common to that nationality. Other things are not so easily ascertained. The date of their conquest is doubtful. Historians say it was between 2100 B. C. and 165 7 B. C. Breasted insists upon the latter date. West says the Hyksos main- tained themselves in Egypt about 400 years, from 2000 B. C. until 1600 B. C. If this last date be true, the return of the native rulers would have occurred just about two decades following the death of Joseph. The very name, Hyksos, is doubtless of Semitic origin. Dr. Budge, the foremost scholar on the question, says that the word "Hyk" means king, or prince, while "sos" signifies keepers of flocks or herds. A name true to the life of the nomadic pastoral Israelites of that day.

JOSEPH'S MARRIAGE IN EGYPT 317 The International Bible Dictionary defines Aram as the elevated country northeast of Palestine, called in the Greek Mesopotamia. This same word Aram is of Semitic origin also. Shem, the progenitor of the Israelites, had a son named Aram. Abraham's brother, Nahor, had a grandson named Aram. David speaks of Aram-na-ha-raim, which is defined in the above-mentioned dictionary as meaning 'Aram, of or between the two rivers." Dr. Sayce, of similar renown, maintains that, "It was during the domination of one of the three Hyksos dynasties that first Abraham, and later Joseph, must have entered Egypt, and found a ready welcome among a people of kindred race." It is thought that the invading Shepherds soon adapted them- selves to Egyptian manners, leaving the old administration untouched, some of the kings were even assuming Egyptian names. This part of Egyptian history, however, is very obscure. Their monuments, from which most of the knowledge of the period is obtained, are very rare. After their expulsion, the Egyptians who actually hated them, did their utmost to destroy all that reminded them of the despised foreigners. The few remaining statues erected by the Hyksos represent their peculiarities of countenances, and the un-Egyptian arrangement of the beard, and the remarkable head-dress, which distinguishes them from the Egyptians. Dr. Hales adds materially to our conclusion by his statement that "one of the Hyksos rulers took the Semitic name, Yakeb-bal, meaning, Jacob is God, and another, Yak-eb-baal, meaning Jacob is Lord." Many of these authorities have concluded that Joseph entered Egypt just at the close of the Hyksos rule. Fausset thinks that Apophis, the last of the Shepherd kings, was the one over Joseph. Though definite information is lacking on this important period, it is not mere conjecture, in view of the above facts, to suppose that after the Israelites were established in their new home, the Shepherd Kings were expelled from the throne and the native Egyptians restored one of their number to the kingship of their native land, long over- run by foreigners, whose ignoble deeds must now be revenged. This opinion is corroborated by the introductory statement of Exodus: "Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph." ' If the dynasty of Shepherds had maintained themselves upon the throne, no new king for generations would have arisen to power "who knew not Joseph." This Israelite who saved all of Egypt from starvation would never have been forgotten or unknown except by the most bitter enemy. The historical account of Moses continues: "Behold the people of the children of Israel are mightier than we: Come on let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to

318 IMPROVEMENT ERA pass, that when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land." This fact alone would indicate that no bond of tradition, religion or consanguinity united the Israelites and the Egyptians. No common love of country or home institutions was experienced by the two groups. They were diametrically opposed in almost every activity of life, or there would have been no fear on the part of the natives that the Israelites, in time of invasion, would join the enemy. The pres- ence of the Hyksos had taught them a lesson. They must not tolerate any foreign elements in the kingdom that tended towards disinte- gration. The outstanding lesson of history is that nothing unites people of common ancestry, religion, tradition and home-land, as will in- vasion by an enemy state. The approach of an invading foe promotes greater unity than does any kind of internal conditions. Two notable examples will suffice: During the latter part of the 1 6th century England was suffering very seriously from internal warfare between Catholic and Protestant. The Spanish king, a faithful supporter of the Pope, thought it a most propitious time to invade England, unite with the Catholic party of Britain and dethrone Elizabeth, thereby reinstating the Papal authority on the Island. Theoretically, it was indeed an appropriate time for the invasion, but as the "Invincible Armada" approached the Chalk cliffs of Britain, the Anglo-Saxon loyalty to home-land proved stronger than allegiance to a foreign ecclesiastic. The spirit of the father-land united every son of Britain. The very elements were stirred by that tension of patriotism, and while united England fought to prevent the landing of that stately Armada, the angry waves dashed scores of the visiting vessels to pieces on the perilous rocks of the North Sea. The English forgot their petty differences of religion, and united in that greater cause of preservation of the home-land. This loss Was so disastrous a failure to Spain, the guardian of the sea, that she lost all pride in her navy, and rapidly fell from her exalted position in the maritime world. This same principle was later illustrated in our own land, when the cancer. Secession, was gnawing at the vitals of the Republic. On April 1, 1861, William H. Seward, Secretary of State, wrote a letter to President Lincoln, requesting that war be declared upon Spain, France and England, in order to bring the seceding states back into the Union, to ally in bonds of friendship and brotherly love to defend the local institutions against the aggression of the most powerful nations of the world. The great statesman realized that nothing could bring the prodigal states of the South upon their knees before their brothers of the North as an invasion from abroad. Just twelve days after this letter was written, Fort Sumter lay in ruins.

JOSEPH'S MARRIAGE IN EGYPT 319 This one argument of Pharaoh's is a strong one in proving the presence of two widely separated nationalities in the same country. There was not a single bond of union between the two, not even that of occupation. Whereas, the previous dynasties of the Shepherd Kings, strongly resembled the Israelites in occupation, nationality, and undoubtedly many other activities which tended to unite the two. If there be anything in common among the citizenry of a nation invasion will strengthen these bonds, not break them, as the Egyptians suspicioned. Egypt's children of the dark skin had an intense aversion for shepherds. Joseph warned his brothers, upon their arrival in the land of the Nile, that every shepherd was an abomination unto the Egyptians. The one class of people excluded from Egyptian temples was the swineherd — the most despicable creature in the Dark Conti- nent. The mistreatment which the Israelites later received was an expression of the dislike the natives harbored for the foreign shepherds; yet, it must be noted that no aversion was shown until after the death of Joseph when a "new king arose which knew not Joseph." When the Ishmaelites presented Joseph for sale, he was purchased by Potiphar, a high official in the government, and captain of the royal guard. "And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him, and he made him overseer of his house, and all that he had he put into his hands." When he was later imprisoned, he was granted similar honors even among the denizens of that miserable abode in squalor and abuse. "And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph's hands all the prisoners that were in the prison; and what- soever they did there he was the doer of it." This was „a strange way indeed to treat a despicable shepherd accused of defiling the wife of a royal officer, having legions of soldiers at his command, when the common punishment for such an offense among their own people was death. Potiphar did not sus- picion him; his imprisonment was simply to allay the anger of his wife. All this kind of treatment would not have been extended to him by the children of Ham, in spite of the presence of the Spirit of the Lord with him. Of a later event we read, "And Pharaoh said unto Joseph * * thou shalt be over 'my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled." Joseph was permitted to marry into the royal family, being given Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, the prince or priest of the city of On. (Gen. 41:46, 50; 46:20.) This was a city of no mean importance, therefore requiring a person of talent and influence to occupy such a position. Thus his marriage was contracted in the very highest circle of royalty. Had the same feeling existed, as was later manifest when the king arose who knew not Joseph, there would have been no conjugal ties.

320 IMPROVEMENT ERA Pharaoh was very anxious for Joseph's relatives to make their home in Egypt. At no time did he manifest any dislike for the shepherds. In fact the king himself was the owner of "the cattle on a thousand hills," and requested that Joseph select some of his kinsmen "and make them rulers over my cattle." Hence, it is evident that the attitude the rulers possessed respecting shepherds, differed greatly from the Egyptian's idea of the same vocation. In the presence of these facts, one cannot deny that Joseph's conjugal lot was cast among a kindred race, with common traditions, ideals and ancestry. The Latter-day Saints can point with pride to their progenitor, whose marriage in Egypt did not annul the great promises made con- cerning Abraham's seed. Beaver, Utah. To A Lost Friend In days gone by, a friend I had, A noble, clear-eyed, smiling lad, Who shared my fortune — good or bad — And dwelt within my heart, Till every brave adventure dared, Each deed or thought that wasn't shared, Was robbed of beauty, stripped and bared, If he was not a part. I lost my friend — had he but died, And I could kneel his grave beside, Strew it with flowers at even-tide. Some comfort it might give; But even this is not to be. My tears are shed where none can see; He lives, but yet is dead to me — 'Twas friendship ceased to live. Had he but gone to foreign lands, To seek, on far-off ocean strands, Wealth, love, adventure, Fame's commands, Then I should never grieve; But no, I see him every day, We meet as strangers, grave or gay ; 'Twas just his friendship went away. While mine can never leave. At night, when by my bed I kneel, I ask God's mercy, woe or weal, That with my friend he'll gently deal, And choicest blessings send ; But for myself, I only plead. Not gold, nor years, nor fame I need — To this alone, Father, give heed — God give me back my friend. Durango. Colorado MINERVA PlNKERTON TROY