Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 46:34
That ye shall say, Thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, [and] also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians.
34. that ye may dwell ] Joseph’s purpose is thus somewhat elaborately explained in these verses (31 34), in order to place on record how the Israelites came to occupy the fertile district on the eastern frontier of Egypt, most suitable for their own development, and most favourable to them at the crisis of the Exodus. The shrewdness and wisdom of Joseph are made to account for their occupation of Goshen.
Goshen ] LXX , as in Gen 45:10.
every shepherd is an abomination Egyptians ] This statement seems hardly to be justified by what we know of the ancient Egyptians. Probably the word “shepherd” here, as in Gen 46:32, is used loosely so as to include “herdsman.” Moreover, the strong dislike of the Egyptians for the Asiatic nomads on their eastern frontier may well have contributed to this feeling. The tending of cattle and swine in Egypt was associated with a low class of people dwelling in the swampy northern regions of the Delta. For the word “abomination,” cf. Gen 43:32 and Exo 8:26. The writer’s note, contained in this verse, may have been inaccurate, and yet have faithfully recorded his impression as to the cause which would account for the sons of Jacob being assigned to a fertile region on the east of the Delta.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 34. Thy servants trade hath been about cattle] “The land of Goshen, called also the land of Rameses, lay east of the Nile, by which it was never overflowed, and was bounded by the mountains of the Thebaid on the south, by the Nile and Mediterranean on the west and north, and by the Red Sea and desert of Arabia on the east. It was the Heliopolitan nome or district, and its capital was called ON. Its proper name was Geshen, the country of grass or pasturage, or of the shepherds, in opposition to the rest of the land which was sown after having been overflowed by the Nile.” – Bruce. As this land was both fruitful and pleasant, Joseph wished to fix his family in that part of Egypt; hence he advises them to tell Pharaoh that their trade had been in cattle from their youth: and because every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians, hence he concluded that there would be less difficulty to get them quiet settlement in Goshen, as they would then be separated from the Egyptians, and consequently have the free use of all their religious customs. This scheme succeeded, and the consequence was the preservation both of their religion and their lives, though some of their posterity did afterwards corrupt themselves; see Eze 20:8; Am 5:26. As it is well known that the Egyptians had cattle and flocks themselves, and that Pharaoh even requested that some of Joseph’s brethren should be made rulers over his cattle, how could it be said, as in Ge 46:34, Every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians? Three reasons may be assigned for this:
1. Shepherds and feeders of cattle were usually a sort of lawless, free-booting banditti, frequently making inroads on villages, c., carrying off cattle, and whatever spoils they could find. This might probably have been the case formerly, for it is well known it has often been the case since. On this account such persons must have been universally detested.
2. They must have abhorred shepherds if Manetho’s account of the hycsos or king-shepherds can be credited. Hordes of marauders under this name, from Arabia, Syria, and Ethiopia, (whose chief occupation, like the Bedouin Arabs of the present day, was to keep flocks,) made a powerful irruption into Egypt, which they subdued and ruled with great tyranny for 259 years. Now, though they had been expelled from that land some considerable time before this, yet their name, and all persons of a similar occupation, were execrated by the Egyptians, on account of the depredations and long-continued ravages they had committed in the country.
3. The last and probably the best reason why the Egyptians abhorred such shepherds as the Israelites were, was, they sacrificed those very animals, the ox particularly, and the SHEEP, which the Egyptians held sacred. Hence the Roman historian Tacitus, speaking of the Jews, says: “Caeso ARIETE velut in contumelia AMMONIS Bos quoque immolatur, quem AEgyptii APIM colunt.” “They sacrifice the ram in order to insult Jupiter Ammon, and they sacrifice the ox, which the Egyptians worship under the name of Apis.” Though some contend that this idolatry was not as yet established in Egypt, and that the king-shepherds were either after the time of Joseph, or that Manetho by them intends the Israelites themselves; yet, as the arguments by which these conjectures are supported are not sufficient to overthrow those which are brought for the support of the contrary opinions, and as there was evidently an established religion and priesthood in Egypt before Joseph’s time, (for we find the priests had a certain portion of the land of Egypt which was held so sacred that Joseph did not attempt to buy it in the time of the famine, when he bought all the land which belonged to the people, Ge 47:20-22,) and as that established priesthood was in all likelihood idolatrous, and as the worship of Apis under the form of an ox was one of the most ancient forms of worship in Egypt, we may rest tolerably certain that it was chiefly on this account that the shepherds, or those who fed on and sacrificed these objects of their worship, were an abomination to the Egyptians. Calmet has entered into this subject at large, and to his notes I must refer those readers who wish for farther information. See Clarke on Ge 43:32.
ON the principal subject of this chapter, the going down of Jacob and his family into Egypt, Bishop Warburton, in his Divine Legation of Moses, makes the following judicious refections: “The promise God made to Abraham, to give his posterity the land of Canaan, could not be performed till that family was grown strong enough to take and keep possession of it. In the meantime, therefore, they were necessitated to reside among idolaters, and to reside unmixed; but whoever examines their history will see that the Israelites had ever a violent propensity to join themselves to Gentile nations, and practise their manners. God therefore, in his infinite wisdom, brought them into Egypt, and kept them there during this period, the only place where they could remain for so long a time safe and unconfounded with the natives, the ancient Egyptians being by numerous institutions forbidden all fellowship with strangers, and bearing besides a particular aversion to the profession of the Israelites, who were shepherds. Thus the natural dispositions of the Israelites, which in Egypt occasioned their superstitions, and in consequence the necessity of a burdensome ritual, would in any other country have absorbed them into Gentilism, and confounded them with idolaters. From the Israelites going into Egypt arises a new occasion to adore the footsteps of Eternal Wisdom in his dispensations to his chosen people.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In this design and choice Joseph shows both his prudence and piety. He brings them not to court, where it had been easy for him to have put them all into the best places and offices of the court; and as he is not ashamed to own himself a brother to shepherds, which were contemptible among the Egyptians, so he seeks not to advance them higher, but continues them in their employment, and placeth them in Goshen: whereby,
1. He kept them together, which was very convenient for them in many respects.
2. He secured them both from envy, and, as far as he could, from the corruption of their religion and manners, which was likely to follow their mixture with the Egyptians, and especially their being at the court.
3. He put them into a capacity of returning to Canaan, when God gave them opportunity.
Every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians; either,
1. Because they did both kill and eat those creatures which the Egyptians adored. Or,
2. Because of the fresh remembrance of the horrid cruelties lately committed there by the Phoenician shepherds, who, as some very ancient writers affirm, were seated in Egypt in great numbers, and had arrived to great power, and waged a cruel war with other Egyptians, wherein they wasted divers cities, and burned their temples, and barbarously murdered a multitude of people. And therefore it is no wonder if the calling of shepherds was grown out of use and credit among them. True it is, the Egyptians had some sheep, and other cattle, Gen 47:6,17; Exo 8:26; 9:3, which they kept for delight or profit by their milk, wool, &c., or for sale to others, but they did not use them, as other shepherds generally did, kill and eat them. And it is probable that they committed even the keeping of their sheep and cattle to those strangers which were dispersed among them, and looked upon the employment as too vile and mean for any Egyptian. And though Pharaoh offered it to Josephs brethren as a favour to be
rulers over his cattle, Gen 47:6, that might proceed only from hence, because he saw them firmly resolved upon that course of life, and therefore could not bestow any higher preferment upon them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
That ye shall say, thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle,…. Breeding, feeding, and selling them:
from our youth, even until now: this had been their constant employment, they never followed any other:
both we, [and] also our fathers; their father, grandfather, and great grandfather, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were all of the same occupation:
that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; Joseph instructed his brethren to be very particular in the account of their occupation to Pharaoh, that it might be a direction to him how to dispose of them, and where to settle them, namely, in the land of Goshen; which was a country that abounded with good pasture, and so the fittest place for them to be fixed in: and besides this, Joseph had some other reasons for placing them there, as that they might be near to him, who might dwell at On or Heliopolis, to which place, or province, Goshen belonged; and that being also the nearest part of the land to Canaan, they might the more easily and sooner get away when there was an occasion for it; as well as he was desirous they should not be brought into the heart of the land, lest they should be corrupted with the superstition, and idolatry, and vices of the people; and being afar off, both from the court, and the body of the people, might be less subject to their contempt and insults, since it follows:
for every shepherd [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians; not because shepherds ate of the milk and flesh of the creatures they fed, which the Egyptians abstained from; for the Egyptians in those times did eat the flesh of slain beasts, see Ge 43:16; nor because they fed, and slew, and ate those creatures, which the Egyptians worshipped as gods, as Jarchi; for it does not appear that the Egyptians were so early worshippers of such creatures; nor is this phrase, “every shepherd”, to be understood of any other than foreign shepherds; for one of the three sorts of the people of Egypt, as distinct from, and under the king, priests, and soldiers, according to Diodorus Siculus d, were shepherds, and were not despised on that account; for, as the same writer says, all the Egyptians were reckoned equally noble and honourable e; and such it is plain there were in Egypt, in the times of Joseph, see Ge 47:6; and goat herds were had in esteem and honour by those about Mendes, though swine herds were not f: wherefore this must be understood of foreign shepherds, the Egyptians having been greatly distressed by such, who either came out of Ethiopia, and lived by plunder and robbery g, or out of Phoenicia or Arabia; for, according to Manetho h, it was said that they were Arabians or Phoenicians who entered into Egypt, burnt their cities, c. and set up kings of their own, called their Hycsi, or pastor kings: and therefore Joseph might the rather fear his brethren and father’s family would be the more contemptible in that they came from Canaan, which was near to Arabia and Phoenicia but Dr. Lightfoot i is of opinion, that the Egyptians, being plagued for Abraham’s and Sarah’s sake, made a law, that for the future none should converse with Hebrews, nor with foreign shepherds, so familiarly as to eat or drink with them.
d Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 67. e lbid. p. 83. f Herodot. Euterpe, sive, l. 2. p. 46, 47. g Gaulmin. Not. in Dfore Hayamim, p. 267. h Apud Joseph. contr. Apion. l. 1. sect. 14. i Works: vol. 1. p. 694.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(34) For every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.This is probably a remark of the narrator, and it is confirmed by the monuments, which generally represent shepherds as unshaven and ill-dressed. Necessarily the Egyptians had sheep and cattle (Gen. 47:16-17), and even Pharaoh had herds (Gen. 47:6); but the care of them was probably left by the peasantry to the women and children, while the men busied themselves with the cultivation of their fields. We need not go far to seek for the cause of this dislike. The word abomination, first of all, suggests a religious ground of difference; and not only did shepherds probably kill animals worshipped in different Egyptian districts, but their religion generally was diverse from that of the fixed population. But next, men who lead a settled life always dislike wandering clans, whose cattle are too likely to prey upon their enclosed land (see Note on Gen. 4:8), and who, moving from place to place, are usually not very scrupulous as to the rights of property. Such nomades, too, are generally lower in civilisation, and more rude and rough, than men who have fixed homes. The subjugation of Egypt by the Hyksos was possibly subsequent to the era of Joseph; but we now know from Egyptian sources that there was perpetual war between Egypt and the Hittites, and probably raids were often made upon the rich fields on the banks of the Nile by other Semitic tribes dwelling upon its eastern frontier; and as all these wore regarded as shepherds, there was ground enough for the dislike of all nomades as a class, even though the Egyptians did not disdain to have cattle themselves. But as the land in the Nile Valley was arable, the cattle kept would only be such as were useful for agriculture, whereas they formed the main wealth of the Israelites.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
34. Land of Goshen Concerning its admirable adaptation to the Israelitish colony, see note on Gen 47:6.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 46:34. Every shepherd is an abomination, &c. Various reasons have been assigned by the learned why shepherds were held in abomination by the AEgyptians. There are so many proofs that shepherds, in general, were not abominable to the AEgyptians, that the expression, it is thought by some, should be taken in a limited sense, and the words of Moses confined only to foreign shepherds. See ch. Gen 47:6; Gen 47:17. “The AEgyptians,” Herodotus tells us, “were divided into seven classes, one of which consisted of shepherds.” But it is as difficult to account for the reason why foreign shepherds were thus abominable. It has been frequently supposed by commentators, that this abomination arose from the irruption of some Phoenician shepherds into AEgypt, who committed horrid devastations in the country, set up a kingdom called the pastoral kingdom, and kept the AEgyptians long in a state of abject slavery. But it appears very doubtful whether this pastoral kingdom was erected till after the time of Joseph. Many of our ablest chronologers are of opinion that this irruption of the shepherds happened not till long after Moses had brought Israel out of AEgypt. Many, with greater reason, have supposed that this abomination of shepherds, or keepers of herds and flocks, arose from their feeding upon their flocks and cattle, and offering them in sacrifice, which was contrary to the religion of AEgypt. Hence these animal sacrifices are called the abomination of the AEgyptians, Exo 8:26. This appears the most probable solution; though, after all, possibly the word abomination need not be taken in its strictest sense, as if they held them impious or profane; for it sometimes signifies no more than to loath, heartily to contemn; Job 19:19.; see ch. Gen 43:32.; and therefore the whole meaning may be, that the AEgyptian people, and particularly those who lived about the court, disdained to converse with shepherds, as they held their employment to be mean and despicable. The expression being so general seems to confirm this opinion, every shepherd, as well of their own nation as foreigners: for though the AEgyptians might abominate foreign shepherds, either from a remembrance of former servitude, or from superstition because they fed of their flocks, or offered them in sacrifice, it is not very probable that they could have the same reason for abominating their own shepherds, nor that Pharaoh would suffer any of his subjects, far less the keepers of his flocks, to offer in sacrifice, or eat, the flesh of those animals, which were the objects of religious worship. Herodotus tells us, that swine herds (one species of those who kept cattle) were so abominable in the eyes of their countrymen in AEgypt, that they were not allowed to enter their temples: none would either give them their daughters or take theirs in marriage; but they were obliged to marry among themselves. Houbigant renders this passage, Nam aversantur AEgyptii omnes gregum pastores, “for the AEgyptians disdain or have an aversion to all keepers of flocks.” Besides these opinions, some have advanced, that this aversion to shepherds arose from their being generally addicted in those parts to robbery; they were a kind of outlaws, who lived upon the borders of their country, and there were guilty of constant incursions and thefts, which way of life made them abominable. Whatever opinion we embrace, it has the appearance of great generosity in Joseph, as Bishop Patrick remarks, not to conceal from Pharaoh the quality of his family, though such kind of men were under a very ill character. He hoped they would distinguish themselves from such vile shepherds as had made the name odious; and if they did not gain the love of the AEgyptians, they would be the more secure of the love of God, by not learning their evil manners and superstitions, from which they would be preserved by having no conversation with them.
REFLECTIONS.We have in this chapter, 1. The happy meeting of Jacob and Joseph. Judah having informed him of his father’s arrival, Joseph’s chariot is made ready, and he goes to meet him. Joseph’s filial reverence and love equal Jacob’s exultation: they embrace and weep for joy, while now the aged patriarch thinks he has lived long enough, since he has seen this happy day, and is content to die. Note; (1.) However the son may be advanced, it is his duty to reverence his parents, and not to grow above his own house. (2.) No joys here are without allay: when we embrace in heaven, the joy being perfect, every tear will be wiped from our eyes. (3.) He is a happy man who can say with comfort, When God pleases, let me die.
2. His instructions how to behave before Pharaoh. He wished them to settle near Canaan, because they must return there again. He desires not to introduce them at court, lest they be infected with the idols of AEgypt, or exposed to the envy of the natives; besides, he would keep them united in a family, and employed in their own profession. Goshen, in all respects, suited this design. Note; (1.) High places are slippery; we should rather keep at a distance from advancement than court it. (2.) An honest calling is no disparagement to ourselves or our relations.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
REFLECTIONS
While, as a subject of particular providence, we read this Chapter to remark, how the LORD graciously arrangeth and ordereth the circumstances of his people so as to fulfil that promise, that all things work together for good to them that lore GOD; let us more closely observe the spiritual instructions contained in it. Reader! this Chapter concerns us. Doth not our Almighty Joseph call us down as Israel was of old, into the Egypt of darkness, even the shadow of death: and doth he not say as to him, fear not to go down, I will go with thee: and will assuredly bring thee up again. Yes! he is and will be, the resurrection and the life. And therefore may you and I be enabled to say as David did, when I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil for thou art with me. Blessed GOD! give to him that writes and to him that reads an happy meeting of our Spiritual Joseph, that like Jacob we may be content to die when that sight is accomplished, and cry out with the same full assurance as holy Simeon, in the taking the LORD’S CHRIST into our arms; LORD let thy servant now depart in peace, according unto thy word, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 46:34 That ye shall say, Thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, [and] also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians.
Ver. 34. Thy servants’ trade hath been, &c.] They were not ashamed of their trade, though low and despicable. Malo miserandum quam erubescendum, saith Tertullian. a No lawful calling, but hath an honour put upon it by God; unlawful only are shameful. Ask a poor scavenger what his occupation is, he will answer, I am a scavenger; water bearer, &c. Ask a usurer, gamester, &c., that question; and he will not say, I am a usurer, &c.
That ye may dwell in the land of Goshen.
For every shepherd is an abomination, &c.
a Tertul., De Fug. Persec.
b L. Flor., lib. i. cap. 16.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
abomination. Metonymy (of Adjunct). = an abominable person. Apepi, the Pharaoh of Joseph, was one of the Hyksos, or shepherd kings. Joseph’s advice would commend his brethren to Pharaoh (Gen 47:6), and keep them separate from the Egyptians, It was a race prejudice, not a class prejudice.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Thy servants’: Gen 46:32, Gen 30:35, Gen 34:5, Gen 37:12
for every: From the fragments of Manetho, preserved in Josephus and Africanus, it appears that hordes of marauders, call hycassos, or shepherd kings, whose chief occupation, like the Bedouin Arabs of the present day, was to keep flocks, made a powerful irruption into Egypt, which they subdued, and ruled, by a succession of kings, with great tyranny for 259 years. Hence the persons, and even the very name of shepherds were execrated, and held in the greatest odium by the Egyptians. Gen 43:32, Exo 8:26
Reciprocal: Gen 25:27 – a plain man Gen 45:10 – in the land Gen 46:28 – Goshen Gen 47:1 – in the land Gen 47:3 – What is Gen 47:4 – let thy 1Sa 13:4 – was had in abomination 1Sa 27:5 – some town
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gen 46:34. That ye may dwell in the land of Goshen In this choice, Joseph showed both his prudence and his piety. As he was not ashamed to own himself the brother of shepherds, although they were contemptible among the Egyptians; so he does not seek to advance them higher, which he certainly might have done, but continues them in their employment. And by placing them in Goshen, 1st, He kept them together, which was very much for their convenience in many respects. 2d, He secured them against envy, and, as far as was in his power, from the corruption of their religion and manners which probably would have taken place, had they mixed with the Egyptians. Every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians Probably because they killed, eat, and offered in sacrifice, those animals which the Egyptians adored. Hence these animal sacrifices are said to be an abomination to the Egyptian. Another probable reason also has been assigned for this, namely, that some Phnician shepherds had lately made an irruption into Egypt, and had committed great cruelties and depredations, burning divers cities and temples, and barbarously murdering a multitude of people. It is no wonder, therefore, that the employment of shepherds was out of credit with the Egyptians, and odious in their eyes.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
46:34 That ye shall say, Thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, [and] also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd [is] an {f} abomination unto the Egyptians.
(f) God permits the world to hate his own, so they will forsake the filth of the world, and cling to him.