Genesis 46:34

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."

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.] Which, as it was next to the land of Canaan, so it was most fat, fertile, and fit for their cattle. Sumen totius regionis, the like to Egypt, that Campania was to Italy; of which Florus thus writeth: Nihil mollius caelo, nihil uberius solo, nihil hospitalius mari, &c. Liberi, Cererisque certamen dicitur. {b}

For every shepherd is an abomination, &c.] An Israelite is still an abomination to an Egyptian, the righteous to the wicked, {Pro 29:27} and will be to the world’s end. And there is no love lost between them. The shepherds of Israel especially, are by profane great ones thought scarce worthy to wait upon their trenchers; the baser sort make songs of them, and the abjeets vilify them. Papists make more of hedge priests, than most among us do of powerful preachers: a sad forerunner of the departure of the gospel. If dishonour kept Christ from Nazareth, {Joh 4:44} much more will it it drive him thence when he is come.

{a} Tertul., De Fug. Persec.

{b} L. Flor., lib. i. cap. 16.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Phœnician 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

46:34 In contrast to the syncretistic Canaanites, who would have absorbed the Israelites had they stayed in Canaan, Egyptians detested Semitic shepherds out of a sense of ethnic superiority and observed a strict segregation (see 43:32). When Jacob’s family settled in Egypt, this separation would allow the people to grow into a great nation without losing their identity.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

God suffereth the world to hate his, that they may forsake the filth of the world, and cleave to him.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

(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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ἐν γῇ Γέσεμ Ἀραβίᾳ, 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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Abomination. See chap. xliii. 32. The source of this hatred against foreign shepherds, was probably because, about 100 years before Abraham, the shepherd-kings, Hycussos, had got possession of a great part of Egypt, and were at last expelled by the kings of Thebais. See Manetho ap. Eusebius, Præp. x. 13. Another reason why they hated foreigners was, because they slew and eat sheep, &c., which they themselves adored. The Egyptians kept sheep for this purpose, and for the benefits to be derived from their wool, &c., chap. xlvii. 17. (Calmet) --- Joseph took advantage of this disposition of the inhabitants, to keep his brethren at a distance from them, that they might not be perverted. He does not introduce them at court, that no jealousy might be excited. He shews that he is not ashamed of his extraction. (Menochius)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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 Joseph’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

34. Land of Goshen — Concerning its admirable adaptation to the Israelitish colony, see note on Gen_47:6.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן IN ORDER THAT YE MAY ABIDE IN THE LAND OF GOSHEN — and this is the land that you require, for it is a land of pasture. If you tell him that you are inexperienced in other work he will send you far away from him and settle you there.

כי תועבת מצרים כל רעה צאן FOR EVERY SHEPHERD IS AN ABOMINATION TO THE EGYPTIANS — because they (sheep) are regarded by them as deities.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן, seeing it was a land in which cattle were being raised. Furthermore, Joseph did what he did in order to prevent Pharaoh from enlisting his brothers in Pharaoh’s political and military echelon.

כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן, seeing that they did not eat the flesh of sheep, they detested anyone raising these animals. They only raised the number of such animals needed for their wool and milk.

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.

Since every shepherd is abhorrent. The Egyptians of those times were vegetarians like modern Hindus.

Ibn Ezra on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009” (CC BY 4.0); and “Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah - trans. by M. Friedlander, 1873” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.