She brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter.—Jochebed carried out the terms of her engagement faithfully, and gave up her son to the princess at the time agreed upon.

He became her son.—Possibly by a formal act of adoption; but we have at present no evidence that adoption was an Egyptian custom. Perhaps the writer means simply that she brought him up as if he had been her son, gave him a son’s education, and a son’s privileges. (On the education of Moses, see Excursus II. at the end of this Book.)

She called his name Moses.—In Egyptian probably “Mesu,” which is found as a name in the monuments of the nineteenth dynasty, and which is common as the latter half of a name—e.g., Ra-mesu, Aah-mesu, Amen-mesu, &c. In ordinary use this word meant “born” and “son.” (Comp. the Latin natus.) It was, however, derived from an Egyptian verb, meaning “to produce,” “to draw forth;” and the princess justified her imposition of the name by a reference to this etymology. Owing to the existence of a cognate verb in Hebrew, it was possible to transfer her explanation into the Hebrew language exactly and literally. The play upon words cannot be rendered in English.

EXCURSUS B: ON THE EDUCATION OF MOSES (Exodus 2:10)

Moses would be educated like the sons of princesses generally, not like those of priests, or of persons destined for the literary life. St. Stephen, when he says that Moses was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” does not (probably) mean more than this. The question then is, In what did the education of princes and young nobles at the time of the exodus consist?

It would consist, in the first place, of orthography and grammar. Moses would be taught to speak the Egyptian language, and to write it, correctly. He would probably not be taught the hieroglyphic character, the knowledge of which was reserved to the priests, but would be familiarised with the ordinary cursive writing—the hieratic, as it was called in later times—which was the common character for books, and even for official documents, in his day. Care would be taken to instruct him in the graces of style, so far as they were understood at the time; and he would be especially practised in epistolary correspondence, which was regarded as one of the most necessary of all gentlemanlike accomplishments. Whether his attention would be turned to poetry, might perhaps be doubtful;[113] but he would certainly be taught a clear and perspicuous prose style, such as was required for official reports and other communications between members of the governing class.

[113] The poetry of Moses his “songs” (Exodus 15:1-19; Deuteronomy 32:1-43), his “blessing” (Deut. Xxxii), and his “prayer” (Ps. xc), indicate an actual study of Egyptian poetry, whether, it was a part of his education or not.

The next branch of his education would be arithmetic and geometry. The Egyptians had made considerable progress in the former, and their calculations ran up to billions. In the latter they are said to have been exact and minute, but not to have pushed their investigations very far. It was sufficient for a youth of the upper classes to be able to keep correct accounts; and a speculative knowledge of the intricacies of numbers, or of geometrical problems, scarcely formed a part of the established curriculum.

He would be further instructed in morality, and in the Egyptian views on the subjects of the Divine Nature, of the relations subsisting between God and man, of a future life, and of a judgment to come. Egyptian morality was, for the most part, correct so far as it went, and was expressed in terse gnomic phrases, resembling those of the Proverbs of Solomon. The points especially inculcated were obedience to parents and to authorities generally, courtesy to inferiors, and kindness to the poor and the afflicted. The mysteries of religion were the exclusive property of the priests; but life beyond the grave, judgment, reward and punishment, probably metempsychosis, were generally inculcated; and the mystic volume, known as the “Ritual of the Dead,” must have been pressed on the attention of all the educated.

It is not to be supposed that one brought up as the son of a princess would attain to the scientific knowledge possessed by Egyptian professionals of different kinds. Moses would not be an astronomer, nor an engineer, nor a physician, nor a theologian, nor even an historian; but would have that general acquaintance with such subjects which belongs to those who have enjoyed a good general education in a highly civilised community. He would also, no doubt, have a knowledge of the main principles of Egyptian jurisprudence. But here, again, his knowledge would be general, not close or intimate; and it would be a mistake to expect, in the Mosaical legislation, reproductions, to any extent, or adaptations, of the Egyptian judicial system.

He went out unto his brethren.—It is probable that Pharaoh’s daughter had never concealed from Moses that he was not her own child, but one of the oppressed race. She may even have allowed him to hold communication with his family. It is not, however, a mere visit that is here spoken of, but a complete withdrawal from the palace, and renunciation of his position at the court. “By faith, Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season” (Hebrews 11:24-25). It is the first sign of that strong sympathy and tender affection for his people which characterises him throughout the narrative, and culminates in the pathetic cry, “Forgive them; and if not, blot me out of thy book” (Exodus 32:32).

Looked on their burthens—i.e., examined into their condition, watched their treatment, made himself acquainted with it by personal inspection.

He spied an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew.—Probably a taskmaster chastising one of the labourers, whom he accused of idling. St. Stephen regards the act as one of “oppression” and “wrong-doing” (Acts 7:24). Moses must certainly have viewed it in this light, or he would not have been so moved to indignation as to kill the Egyptian. Though not a cruel nation, the Egyptians, no doubt, like other slave-drivers, occasionally abused their power, and treated the unfortunate labourers with cruelty.

He slew the Egyptian.—Jewish commentators gloss over the act, or even eulogise it as patriotic and heroical. But it was clearly the deed of a hasty and undisciplined spirit. The offence did not deserve death, and if it had, Moses had neither legal office nor Divine call, justifying him in making himself an executioner. The result was, that, by his one wrong act, Moses put it out of his power to do anything towards alleviating the sufferings of his brethren for forty years.

Hid him in the sand.—To the east of the Delta the sand creeps up close to the cultivated grounds. There are even patches of it within the Delta itself. Moses naturally remembered that he dug the grave “in the sand.” Any other writer would probably have said “in the ground.”

Him that did the wrong.—Heb., the wicked one. Our version follows the LXX.

Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?—Comp. Acts 7:26, where the words of Moses are reported somewhat differently, “Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?” In either case there was no offensive assumption of authority. But the wrong doer took offence, nevertheless.

Intendest thou to kill me?—Here is the sting of the rejoinder; here was the assumption of authority—not in the interposition of to-day, but in the blow of yesterday. That fatal error laid Moses open to attack, and deprived him of the influence as a peacemaker which he might otherwise have exercised over his countrymen.

Surely this thing is known.—We are not told how the “thing” came to be known. “Murder will out,” says the English proverb. Perhaps, though Moses thought himself unnoticed, some Egyptian had seen the deed. Perhaps the man whom he had avenged had told the tale.

Moses fled.—Or, had fled. Moses would fly as soon as he found his act was known. He fled “at the saying” of the Israelite (Acts 7:29). When Pharaoh sought for him, he was gone.

Dwelt in the land of Midian—i.e., “Was led to make Midian his home,” under circumstances about to be related. The Midian of this book seems to be the south-eastern portion of the Sinaitic peninsula, not the opposite Arabian coast, where were the main settlements of the nation.

Sat down by a well.—Rather, the well. There must have been one principal well in these parts, copious, and so generally resorted to. Moses fixed his temporary-abode in its neighbourhood.

They came and drew water.—Comp. Genesis 29:9. According to Oriental ideas, there is nothing derogatory in the daughters of a chief so acting.

Moses stood up and helped them.—Moses is again the champion of the oppressed, but has learnt wisdom by the past, and uses no unnecessary violence. His air and manner intimidated the wrong-doers, and they allowed the maidens sheep to be watered first.

And also drew water enough.—The shepherds had consumed some of the maidens’ water before Moses’s interference, so that he had to draw more for them —another “little trait,” which speaks for the Mosaic authorship.