We're diving into the writings of Manetho, an Egyptian priest and historian, and specifically, his account of the Exodus. Now, Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, wasn’t buying it, and he took Manetho to task in his work Against Apion. Let's see why.
Manetho claims that a group of "leprous people" and others, after being mistreated, were given a city and land by the Egyptian king. You'd think they'd be grateful. But no, Manetho says they rebelled, even against the Egyptian gods themselves! They supposedly overturned the very laws they grew up with.
Josephus’s response is just dripping with incredulity. He asks, wouldn't these former outcasts, now given land and a fresh start, be a little less angry? Even if they hated the king, wouldn't they just plot against him privately? Why declare war on all of Egypt, especially considering how many of them must have had Egyptian relatives? It just doesn't ring true, does it?
And here's where it gets even more bizarre. Manetho accuses the Egyptian priests themselves of orchestrating this rebellion! According to him, they made the common people swear oaths to this effect. Josephus pounces on this: wouldn't at least some Egyptians – friends, family – have refused to join such a revolt? Why would these "polluted people" need to call for help from Jerusalem? What possible alliance could they have had?
Manetho insists that the people from Jerusalem came running, lured by promises of conquering Egypt. But, as Josephus points out, these weren't naive fools. They knew Egypt! They’d been driven out of it. Why would they risk everything to help a bunch of outcasts, especially since they themselves lived in a "happy city" with a "large country," one that Manetho even admits was better than Egypt? It makes absolutely no sense. Were they driven by poverty? No, Manetho says they lived well. Were they acting out of some ancient friendship? Manetho himself admits they were enemies!
He then claims that Amenophis's son (likely referring to a pharaoh, although the exact identity is debated), marched against them with a massive army. Surely, the invaders knew about this force. How could they possibly have anticipated the king's sudden change of heart and his flight?
According to Manetho, the invaders from Jerusalem seized Egypt's granaries and committed unspeakable atrocities. But Josephus throws Manetho's own words back at him. If the Egyptians themselves were the ones who initially invited the invaders and swore oaths to that effect, how can Manetho blame the outsiders for doing exactly what the Egyptians themselves were already doing?
The story continues that Amenophis eventually returned, defeated the invaders, and chased them all the way to Syria. But Josephus scoffs. Are we really to believe that Egypt, a powerful nation, could be so easily conquered? And after conquering it, why wouldn't these invaders, knowing Amenophis was alive and coming, have fortified the routes out of Ethiopia? Why wouldn't they have prepared their defenses? Instead, Manetho would have us believe they were easily chased across a difficult, sandy desert all the way to Syria.
As we find in Against Apion, Josephus just can't swallow Manetho's version of events. It's riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities. It paints a picture that defies logic and human nature. It leaves you wondering, what was Manetho's real agenda in crafting such a far-fetched narrative? Was it simply to slander the Jewish people, or was there something more to it? Whatever the reason, Josephus certainly wasn't buying it, and after taking a closer look, neither are we.
29. Now Manetho does not reflect upon the improbability of his lie; for the leprous people, and the multitude that was with them, although they might formerly have been angry at the king, and at those that had treated them so coarsely, and this according to the prediction of the prophet; yet certainly, when they were come out of the mines, and had received of the king a city, and a country, they would have grown milder towards him. However, had they ever so much hated him in particular, they might have laid a private plot against himself, but would hardly have made war against all the Egyptians; I mean this on the account of the great kindred they who were so numerous must have had among them.
Nay still, if they had resolved to fight with the men, they would not have had impudence enough to fight with their gods; nor would they have ordained laws quite contrary to those of their own country, and to those in which they had been bred up themselves. Yet are we beholden to Manethe, that he does not lay the principal charge of this horrid transgression upon those that came from Jerusalem, but says that the
Egyptians themselves were the most guilty, and that they were their priests that contrived these things, and made the multitude take their oaths for doing so. But still how absurd is it to suppose that none of these people's own relations or friends should be prevailed with to revolt, nor to undergo the hazards of war with them, while these polluted people were forced to send to Jerusalem, and bring their auxiliaries from thence! What friendship, I pray, or what relation was there formerly between them that required this assistance? On the contrary, these people were enemies, and greatly differed from them in their customs. He says, indeed, that they complied immediately, upon their praising them that they should conquer Egypt; as if they did not themselves very well know that country out of which they had been driven by force. Now had these men been in want, or lived miserably, perhaps they might have undertaken so hazardous an enterprise; but as they dwelt in a happy city, and had a large country, and one better than Egypt itself, how came it about that, for the sake of those that had of old been their enemies, of those that were maimed in their bodies, and of those whom none of their own relations would endure, they should run such hazards in assisting them? For they could not foresee that the king would run away from them: on the contrary, he saith himself that
"Amenophis's son had three hundred thousand men with him, and met them at Pelusium." Now, to be sure, those that came could not be ignorant of this; but for the king's repentance and flight, how could they possibly guess at it? He then says, that "those who came from Jerusalem, and made this invasion, got the granaries of Egypt into their possession, and perpetrated many of the most horrid actions there." And thence he reproaches them, as though he had not himself introduced them as enemies, or as though he might accuse such as were invited from another place for so doing, when the natural Egyptians themselves had done the same things before their coming, and had taken oaths so to do. However,
"Amenophis, some time afterward, came upon them, and conquered them in battle, and slew his enemies, and drove them before him as far as
Syria." As if Egypt were so easily taken by people that came from any place whatsoever, and as if those that had conquered it by war, when they were informed that Amenophis was alive, did neither fortify the avenues out of Ethiopia into it, although they had great advantages for doing it, nor did get their other forces ready for their defense! but that he followed them over the sandy desert, and slew them as far as
Syria; while yet it is rot an easy thing for an army to pass over that country, even without fighting.
