I have thus, I trust, done honourable justice to the testimony of Josephus. I have done so for many reasons--firstly, because of the importance of the subject itself; secondly, from my respect for the merits of the writer; and, thirdly, because that I think it very probable indeed that the Israelites may have been occupied in the erection of some of the minor and later pyramids. But _insuperable_ obstacles stand in the way of our associating them with the structure of them _all_; and of these _one_ is, the improbability that the victorious invaders would single out the inoffensive Israelites as particular objects of their oppression, when policy should suggest to them a directly different course in securing their adherence in opposition to the native residents. By Josephus’s account, however, it would appear that the Israelites alone were engaged upon those edifices; and the Scriptures themselves confine the intimation of drudgery to the Israelitish race: it therefore is manifest that the Egyptian _natives_ were favoured by the _then existing_ dynasty, while it is on all hands agreed, that the _new_-comers had treated during the whole period of their dominion, the _entire_ Egyptian nation with indiscriminate rigour and chastisement. Besides this, that deadly animosity existing in the Egyptian mind to the name and profession of shepherds, above alluded to, at once identifies their character with that of the “Uksi,” or “King-shepherds,” to whom we have before referred, and proves the date of their invasion anterior in point of time to Israel’s introduction into the land of Egypt. Joseph was well aware of the particulars of this invasion, and of the sting it left behind it in the mind of the Egyptians; and accordingly he acquaints his brothers, whose “trade also had been about cattle,” that “every shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians.”[184] Manetho himself, the Egyptian priest, is my voucher for this deduction, when he says that, “After these--the shepherd-kings--came _another set of people_ who were sojourners in Egypt, in the reign of Amenophis. These chose themselves a leader one who was a priest of Heliopolis, and whose name was Osarsiph; and after he had listed himself with this body of men he changed his name to Moses.” But this, it will be said, is at variance with Moses’ own account, which states that he obtained his name on being rescued from a watery cradle by Pharaoh’s daughter. Not in the least, I reply; for it is more than probable that, after his slaying the Egyptian, and consequent flight, he dropped his name to ensure concealment, and only resumed it on being invested with his divine commission. Or, what is more likely still, and perhaps the truth, that Osarsiph was the name which his “mother” had given him, and which adhered to him until “he grew up,”--a term in Scripture which expresses _mature_ age,--until when it was not that the princess had designated him as Moses.