THE HEBREW TRADITION.

We can best exhibit the relation that subsists between the Hebrew and Egyptian records, by endeavouring to determine chronologically, and by such means as are extant, the most important point of contact in the two histories—namely, the Mosaic period—and thus to prove the value of the several numbers stated. We shall thereby perceive that the Hebrew accounts, in so far as they are connected with Egypt, may be held to be of more historical value than several modern inquirers are inclined to accord to them, and that they are by no means wanting in a fixed chronological principle, without which history cannot subsist; but that a more exact chronology, which might serve as a point of support to the Egyptian, is not to be sought in them, and it is rather this last which supplies the most certain chronological explanation of those times to the history of the Israelites. The genuine chronological character of the Jewish history is pretty well acknowledged by every one as far back as the division of the kingdom, or the building of the temple, whereby, indeed, the individual chronological difficulties, which frequently occur during this epoch, are not considered, but only the chronological value of those numbers generally which form the basis of these separate investigations; but the strictly chronological character of the Hebrew determinations of time before this epoch is disputed, and, indeed, in those very numbers which contain in themselves alone the threads of an exact chronology. A critical examination of the value of these numbers generally is thus necessary, and therefore this discussion becomes appropriate here. It is, in fact, of the greatest importance to us, because it determines whether it be possible to solve some marked contradictions which have at all times keenly engaged the attention of historians and theologians, and still continue to do so; it will, besides, enable many people to decide upon the value of the Manethonic, consequently of the Egyptian chronology generally, so far as it is made to depend on its agreement with the accounts obtained from the oldest source, the only one indeed not Egyptian, which here, at all events, admits of a comparison.

There are, especially, two numbers which have hitherto formed the turning points of the chronology of the Old Testament for the Mosaic period, because, passing over the uncertain individual statements, they fixed the limits to great spaces in time, and appeared to lay down a rule for more special investigations. I mean the 480 years⁠[185] which are calculated to be the period between the Exodus and the building of the temple, and the 430 years⁠[186] for the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. Both numbers very early created difficulty, and are partly modified, and partly refuted by other statements of time in the Old Testament. The 480 years ought to correspond with the sum of the individual numbers in the Book of Judges, which last is, however, considerably greater. The genealogies of that same period would, on the other hand, lead to the conclusion that the number of years was much fewer. The Seventy themselves differ in their statement of the number, since they write 440 in place of 480 years; and in the Acts of the Apostles (xiii. 20), 450 years are calculated for the Judges only to the time of Samuel; and this again differs from all other statements. Lastly, we find that Josephus also, even if he knew the number 480, still did not consider it as binding, since he never mentions it, but accepts different numbers, and far higher ones⁠[187]⁠, which, nevertheless, do not agree with the Book of Judges. It thereby at least follows, that the number 480 by itself cannot claim any decided authority. But there is a still greater difference in the acceptation of the 430 years which the Israelites are said to have passed in Egypt. For, setting aside that in an earlier prophecy⁠[188] the round number 400 alone is given, the Seventy understand the whole statement to mean, not from the entrance of Jacob into Egypt, but from the entrance of Abraham into Canaan, and they therefore translate the words in Exodus xii. 40, “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years;” by ἡ δὲ κατοίκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, ἣν κατῴκησαν ἐν τῇ γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναὰν, ἔτη τετρακόσια τριάκοντα (Now the dwelling of the children of Israel, which they dwelt in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years). The Apostle Paul⁠[189] also reckons the 430 years from the promise of Abraham, and Josephus⁠[190] does the same, so that for the sojourn in Egypt, which is understood in the Hebrew text, only 215 years are reckoned, the remaining 215 being assigned to the time from Abraham to Jacob. Lastly, if we compare the number of generations in this period, we shall only find four generations for the four centuries, so that for this, even half of the time stated would still be far too great.

Finally, if we consider along with these contradictory statements the intrinsic character of the numbers given in the original text, namely, the arithmetical relation of the 215 years from Abraham to Jacob, to the 430 or 215 years from Jacob to Moses, the frequent return also of the indeterminate number 40, both in the first⁠[191] and still more in the second period, and lastly the nature of the numbers 480 or 440 as a multiple of 12 or 11 generations of 40 years each, it appears to me very natural that either a higher providential meaning, and in spite of all other opposing considerations, the only correct chronological expression would be seen in this play of numbers, or that this external garb of numbers would be regarded as unessential for the religious—indeed, in part, also, for the historical import of those narrations, but that in the latter case all more exact chronological investigation of this period must be relinquished.

The latter view must gradually prevail in stricter science. A criterion was wanting in the investigation of the Old Testament, which might decide upon a definite choice among its self-contradictory statements. Each claimed for itself a like authority. If we believe that we may now attempt a new solution of the difficulty, we rely upon the fresh point of view which we can occupy for that purpose, since we now possess a positive scale that may be relied on (independent of the investigations of the Old Testament), by which we can estimate the Hebrew statements, namely, the authentic history and chronology of the Egyptians, which more than equals the Hebrew in point of age.

Now if it should appear that they can in no way be harmonised, science would then, indeed, remain in its former uncertainty concerning the times before Solomon, and we should lose one of the most important and most acceptable corroborations of Egyptian chronology. But the result of our investigations is more favourable, since the Egyptian order of time, resting upon perfectly independent foundations, most decidedly determines that there is a chronological principle throughout the historical relation of the Old Testament, and not an arbitrary selection of Hebrew numbers. By this means a firm foundation is given to the critical examination of the latter, and both histories reciprocally afford each other a support that cannot be shaken.

We must first of all show that the Egyptian account of the expulsion of the Lepers, given by Manetho, refers really to the same event as that narrated in the Old Testament, as the Exodus of the Israelites. We shall afterwards determine the epoch which is recognised in the Egyptian tradition, and, lastly, attempt to show how every other time is in like manner excluded by the historical purport of the Hebrew narrative; that there exists, also, a chronological thread which leads us to the same result, and, indeed, that the authentic tradition concerning the year of the Exodus has never been entirely lost among the Jews. From this fixed point we shall then look back still farther into the times of Joseph, and the accounts of the Greeks appertaining to that period, to which will be added our views regarding the visit of Abraham to Egypt.

The following is the account of the Mosaic events which Josephus gives us from Manetho, and partly in the words of Manetho himself⁠[192]⁠. After describing the expulsion of the Hyksos, whom Josephus considered to be the ancestors of the Jews, and giving an account of the kings who succeeded that event, as far as Rampses, the son of Sethôs, he continues: “After he (Manetho) had therefore related, in conformity with his earlier narrative, that our ancestors⁠[193] (the Hyksos) had departed from Egypt so many years earlier, he then says that King Amenophis, whom he here inserts, desired to become a beholder of the gods, like Horus, one of his predecessors. He communicated this desire to one Amenophis, son of Paapis, who, on account of his wisdom and penetration into futurity, was believed to partake of the divine nature. Now this namesake of Amenophis told him that if he cleansed the whole country of the Lepers and other unclean people, he would then be able to behold the gods. The king thereby rejoiced, collected together all who were smitten with this bodily disease, throughout the whole of Egypt 80,000 in number, and cast them into the stone-quarries, which are situated east of the Nile, in order that they should there work, apart from the other Egyptians. Among them were some learned priests, who had been attacked by the leprosy. But that wise and prophesying Amenophis began to fear the anger of the gods, for himself as well as for the king, if they, the priests, were seen at such compulsory labour; and he foretold, moreover, that others would hasten to the assistance of the unclean, and would govern Egypt for thirteen years. He did not, however, venture to express this to the king, but, leaving behind him a written record, he killed himself. Upon that the king became very much dejected. Then he (Manetho) continues verbatim, thus: ‘Now, when these people had suffered sufficiently by the hard work in the stone-quarries, the king yielded to their entreaty, and gave up to them, for their deliverance and protection, the town of Abaris, which had at that time been forsaken by the shepherds (Hyksos). But this town, according to traditions of the gods, had always been a Typhonic town. Now, when these people had entered into this town, and found the place favourable for revolt, they appointed as their leader a priest of Heliopolis, by name Osarsiph, and swore to obey him in all things. He established as their first law that they should worship no gods, and that they should not abstain from those animals which, according to the law, are considered most holy in Egypt, but that they might sacrifice and consume them all; also, that they should associate only with their fellow-conspirators. After he had established these and many other laws, which were entirely opposed to the Egyptian customs, he commanded them all to set to work to build up the town walls, and to prepare themselves for war against King Menophis. But, whilst he consulted some of the other priests and infected persons, he sent messengers to the shepherds who had been expelled by Tethmosis to the town of Jerusalem, and, after he had let them know what had happened to himself and to the others who had been injured along with him, he invited them to make war against Egypt in unison with his followers. He would first of all conduct them to Abaris, the town of their forefathers, and amply provide the troops with what they required; but, if it were necessary, he would protect them, and easily subject the country to them. Greatly rejoiced, they readily brought together as many as 200,000 men, and soon arrived at Abaris. But when Amenophis, the Egyptian king, heard of the invasion of these people, he was not a little disturbed, for he remembered what Amenophis, the son of Paapis, had prophesied. He first collected the Egyptian troops, conferred with his commanders, desired those sacred animals which are the most honoured in the sanctuaries to be brought to him, and commanded the individual priests, more especially to conceal the images of the gods most securely. But he sent his son, Sethôs, who was five years old, and was also called Ramesses, from Rampses, the father of Amenophis, to his friend (the King of Ethiopia). He himself, indeed, went forward with the remaining Egyptians, who amounted to 300,000 fighting men; however, when the enemy advanced to meet him he did not engage in battle, but returned hastily to Memphis, because he believed he was fighting against the gods. There he carried off the Apis and the other sacred animals which had been brought thither, and repaired immediately with the whole army and the remaining baggage of the Egyptians to Ethiopia. The King of Ethiopia was, in fact, beholden to him; he, therefore, received him, supplied his troops with all the necessaries of life which the country afforded, assigned to them as many towns and villages as would suffice for the predetermined thirteen years, in which they would be compelled to be deprived of his government, and even placed an Ethiopian army on the borders of Egypt as a protection to the people of King Amenophis. Thus it stood in Ethiopia. But the Solymites who had come into the country, and the unclean among the Egyptians, treated the people so shamefully, that the period of their government appeared to all who then beheld these impieties the worst of times; for they not only burnt towns and villages, and were not satisfied with plundering the sanctuaries, and abusing the images of the gods, but they continually made use of those venerated and sacred animals which were fit to be eaten, compelled the priests and prophets to become their butchers and destroyers, and then sent them away destitute. It is said, however, that the priest who gave them a constitution and laws, who was a native of Heliopolis, and called Osarsiph (from the god Osiris in Heliopolis), went over to these people, changed his name, and was called Moses.’ This and much more, which for the sake of brevity I must omit, is what the Egyptians relate concerning the Jews. But Manetho says further, that Amenophis afterwards returned out of Ethiopia with a great force, that he and his son Rampses, who had also an army, gave battle to the shepherds and the unclean, conquered them, killed many, and pursued the remainder to the borders of Syria. Manetho wrote this and similar things.”

Next to this Manethonic account, we shall place the Greek conception of the matter as we find it in Diodorus, xl. 3, taken from Hecataeus of Abdera (and also in an earlier passage, xxxiv. 1, without his authority being given).

“When,” says Hecataeus, “a plague once broke out in Egypt, most people believed that it was a punishment sent by the gods. For since many strangers of divers races dwelt among them, who practised very anomalous customs, with respect to the sacred things and to the sacrifice, it came to pass that hence their own ancient worship of the gods declined. Therefore the natives feared there would be no end to the evil, if they did not remove those who were of foreign extraction. The foreigners were therefore quickly expelled. The best and the most powerful of them united together, and, as some people say, were driven away to Greece and other places, under distinguished leaders, of whom Danaus and Cadmus were the most famous. But the great mass withdrew to the country which is now called Judea, situated not far from Egypt, which was at that time barren and uninhabited. The leader of this colony was Moses, who was distinguished by the power of his mind, and by his courage. He captured the country, and besides other towns, built Hiersolyma, which has now become so famous. He also founded the temple, which was so peculiarly holy in their eyes, taught them the worship and the service of the Deity, gave them laws, and regulated their constitution. He divided the people into twelve tribes, because this is the most complete number, and agrees with the number of months in the year. But he set up no image of the gods, for he did not believe God had a human form, but that he is one God, who embraces heaven and earth, and is Lord of all things. He regulated the sacrifices and the usages of life very differently from those of other nations; since, in consequence of the banishment which they had themselves experienced, he introduced a misanthropical mode of life, hostile to strangers.”

The statement in the earlier passage of Diodorus, xxxiv. 1, sounds far more bitter, where he says “that they (the Jews) alone among all nations scorn any intercourse with others⁠[194]⁠, and look upon every one as their enemy. Their forefathers, also, were driven out of Egypt as disgraced and hated by the gods; and in order to cleanse the country, those attacked with the white sickness and leprosy had been collected together and cast beyond the frontiers as an accursed race. But the expelled people had conquered the country round Jerusalem, had formed the nation of the Jews, and transmitted to their descendants their hatred of mankind. On that account also they had adopted perfectly anomalous laws, neither to eat with any other people, nor to show them any kindness.” “Antiochus Epiphanes, after he had conquered the Jews, entered into their holy of holies, into which only the priests were admitted; he there found a stone image of a bearded man, who sat upon an ass, and held a book in his hand. He took this for Moses, who had founded Jerusalem, organised the people, given them laws, and introduced the disgraceful and misanthropical customs.”

Now if we compare these relations, which evidently refer to Egyptian and not to Jewish statements, with the representation we meet with in the Hebrew conception of the matter, we cannot mistake the general agreement of the most essential features.

Differing entirely from the former Exodus of the Hyksos, the description of which is likewise preserved to us by Manetho, here, it is not an open enemy who is to be subdued, but people of foreign descent, peaceably dwelling in the land, increasing, however, to a dangerous extent, and who inspired the Egyptians with fear and hatred. It is true that neither Manetho, nor any one of the authors we have named, expressly say that the expelled people were of a different race from the Egyptians; but the cause of this may have been that the entrance of the family of Jacob into the country which was so important to the Jews, probably passed unnoticed by them. The influx of emigrants from the eastern and north-eastern Semitic countries was apparently much greater in those flourishing times of the Egyptian kingdom than it was thought necessary to recount in the detached history of the house of Israel. The influence of those people from Palestine who had been driven back under Tuthmosis, must only have increased the former importunity of that people to enter the blessed land of Egypt. But so long as they came singly and peacefully, and did not shrink from entering into all kinds of intercourse and alliance with the Egyptians, they must have been considered by the natives as belonging to the country—as Egyptians. It is certainly a mistake to suppose the Israelites were the only strangers in Egypt. They dwelt in the land of Goshen, situated on the eastern border of the Delta, but of course only a very small body in the midst of Egyptians, and many Philistines and Arabians, from whom the Egyptian could not distinguish them. The immense increase in their numbers, of which we read, is only to be understood in this manner. How could there have been so distinct a division of the one race from their Semitic companions, as is usually understood, when their chief men themselves frequently did not shrink from mingling with the Egyptians?

Even Ishmael had an Egyptian mother and an Egyptian wife⁠[195]⁠. Joseph becomes so completely Egyptian that he is able to occupy the highest position under the king, does not eat at the same table with his brethren, and speaks to them through an interpreter. He also takes an Egyptian woman as his wife⁠[196]⁠, even the daughter of a Priest of Heliopolis; and Moses himself marries an Ethiopian⁠[197]⁠. The same intermingling between the races is afterwards still more frequently mentioned, without being considered as anything remarkable or forbidden, e. g. Leviticus xxiv. 10; 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35; and the same with respect to other foreigners, the Tyrians, e. g. 1 Kings vii. 14. The immigrants also did not limit themselves to the land of Goshen, which had been first assigned to them, but “filled the land,” and appeared “to grow greater and mightier than the Egyptians.” That the single race of Jacob is not here meant, but all who had allied themselves to it, as to a powerful centre, is again made evident in the Exodus, where it is said⁠[198]⁠, “And a mixed multitude went up also with them.” There may even have been many Egyptians among the mixed multitude; indeed the whole population continued to cling, even long after the Exodus, so firmly to Egyptian customs, and even to the religious practices of the Egyptians, that they were constantly inclined to fall back again to the old form of worship. Is it surprising that the Egyptians should have considered those people as Egyptians—and called them so in their traditions—who, even at the foot of Sinai, made an image of the holy bull, Mneuis, and solemnised it with festivities, thus proving that the greater proportion of them had adopted the Egyptian religion?

This was naturally the reason why the Jews were so frequently viewed as an Egyptian colony, e. g. by Strabo⁠[199]⁠, Apion⁠[200]⁠, and others; and in this at least there is no contradiction between the Egyptian and Hebrew accounts; they rather both assist in completing a more perfect picture.

The emigrating people were described especially by Manetho, and by all the other Egyptian traditions, as a race of “unclean, leprous Egyptians, godless, and hated by God.” It is evident that the people designated here were of foreign extraction, differing in faith, consequently godless settlers in Egypt, the shepherd families, who, on account of their occupation, in remembrance of the old hereditary enemy, were hated by the genuine Egyptians, especially by the priests, “for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians⁠[201]⁠.”

The Mosaic account also corroborates the opinion that the leprosy and the white sickness (λεύκη, ἀλφός), which resembles it, were very prevalent in those times, and particularly among the Jews, and that they were most dangerously infectious. This is intimated by the strict laws of separation issued by Moses against those attacked by the leprosy, among whom, however, his own sister Miriam⁠[202] is found; also by the miracle of Moses, who draws his own hand out of his bosom white as snow with leprosy⁠[203]⁠, and afterwards afflicts the land with the plague and with noxious boils⁠[204]⁠, and finally with the sudden death of all the first-born. This perfectly explains the Egyptian account of the universal plague of the leprosy, which had more particularly broken out among the poorer and more uncleanly settlers, and which threatened the whole Egyptian nation⁠[205]⁠. To this is to be added the belief of the strict Egyptians that inward uncleanness and godlessness of the heart must necessarily be inseparably connected with outward uncleanness and with the leprosy, the most abhorred of the diseases sent by God.

It is said, by Manetho, that among these infected people there were some learned priests. Possibly these were of the Egyptian race, and yet were cast together with the unclean strangers. But there is nothing to prevent our assuming that these priests were also of foreign descent, and perhaps themselves Israelites. It is not, indeed, an improbable assertion, that Moses himself was brought up as a priest of Heliopolis. It is evident that Joseph could not, as a Hebrew, have been first minister of Pharaoh, but that he must, at the same time, have possessed both the rank, learning, and outward consecration of the Egyptian priests, with whom he had also united himself by marriage; and that Moses likewise, brought up in the house of the king, could only be instructed, in all the wisdom of the Egyptian priests, through the same medium of outward fellowship. Contrasted with the Egyptian prophets and hierogrammatists, who equally convert their staffs into serpents, change water into blood, and fill the land with frogs, he appears before Pharaoh only as a wiser, and more highly endowed man, than those sages. The name Osarsiph, is of little importance here, for even the name of Moses is expressly declared to be Egyptian, as it could not have been otherwise. But yet on this very account it is worthy of notice, because it is interpreted as being expressly derived from Osiris at Heliopolis. As the principal god in that place was Ra, i. e. Ἥλιος, the service of Osiris was undoubtedly most closely united with the holy sun-bull of Osiris⁠[206]⁠, the white bull represented in the paintings gold⁠[207] 𓈖𓐰𓏠𓇋𓃒 Menes, or Mneuis, the same whom the people adored in the desert, and whose worship was even introduced into Palestine by King Jeroboam I., when he was recalled from Egypt⁠[208]⁠. A particular local worship in Heliopolis had been dedicated to this bull since the time of Menes; and this very town, in which, according to the Egyptian tradition, Moses is said to have been the priest of Osiris (therefore of the golden calf), is, besides, always considered specially connected with the Jews. From that town Joseph took his wife, and On—so Heliopolis was called by the people—according to the Septuagint, was even built by the Israelites⁠[209]⁠. This cannot mean that they first founded the town, for it had been already mentioned as the native town of Joseph’s wife, and is also named upon the monuments even in the Old Monarchy, and in the annals as early as the time of Menes; but it cannot also be explained alone by saying that Heliopolis was probably the principal town of the eastern province of Goshen, it certainly can only be understood to mean that the Israelites completed the elevation and damming off of the town against the inundations, of which we shall say more hereafter. The Manethonic account is therefore important for this reason also, that it makes Moses come from Heliopolis, and thence indicates his connection with the golden bull.

It further follows, from the Egyptian recital, that the sudden persecution of the unclean people had a special cause, and this appears always to proceed from the advice which the priests give the superstitious kings, as to how the distress of the leprosy, and the degeneration and desecration of their religious services were to be remedied. But in the desire not to expel this whole race, but to destroy them by hard labour in the country itself, or to let them perish in the desert, or even to drown them⁠[210]⁠, we at the same time perceive another reason for the persecution, namely, the fear lest they should rise up as open enemies of the country, and unite themselves with the banished shepherds for a new subjugation of the land, a fear so well founded, that what was expected, was soon most completely fulfilled. Here again there is the silent acknowledgment that those unclean Egyptians were principally of foreign extraction, and had a natural bias to their Palestinian hereditary enemies, whom they afterwards called to their assistance. And the Mosaic account also exactly agrees with this⁠[211]⁠: “Let us deal wisely with them,” says Pharaoh, “lest they multiply, and it come to pass that when there falleth out any war they join also with our enemies, and fight against us.” Therefore, taskmasters were placed over the land, and the people tormented with building and all kinds of hard service, to which undoubtedly the working in the stone-quarries had reference, which is made particularly prominent in the Egyptian relation. The chief feature in both recitals is the design of oppression and destruction, by means of exorbitant taskwork.

All accounts are also agreed upon the great number of the enemy, which had grown up in the country, and even if only 280,000⁠[212] had departed, as the Egyptians related, while in the Hebrew accounts 600,000 are mentioned, it was at any rate a great event, on which the Egyptian annals could not possibly preserve silence.

These are all features of the Egyptian narrative, which place beyond doubt the identity of that insurrection of the Lepers under Osarsiph, with the Exodus of the Israelites under Moses, even if we set aside the far more direct, but in the view of some perhaps, on that very account, less trustworthy evidence, which consists in what is added concerning the laws of Osarsiph, that the Egyptian gods should no longer be worshipped, and that they should never again hold intercourse with any other race, also concerning the name of Moses itself, which Osarsiph is said to have adopted. For I certainly consider it as more than probable that the name of Moses was not originally found in the Egyptian narrative; that the latter was only connected with a rebellious priest Osarsiph, and that Manetho first changed the name in consequence of the comparison with the Hebrew accounts, which had been made long before his day. But this assumption only upholds still more the age and the independence of the Manethonic narrative, whose genuine and ancient Egyptian character is besides apparent to the attentive reader through all its other parts. With reference to this, I shall only mention the peculiar feature of beholding the gods, and its connection with an earlier king, further the name of the town Abaris, which was entirely lost in later times, and could not therefore have been orally preserved by the people, but must have been taken from old writings. Also the unfortunate and ignominious turn of the event for the Egyptians, the cowardly flight of the king to Ethiopia, and the revolting usage to which the whole lower country, and especially the priesthood, were exposed for thirteen years, but, above all, the complete absence of all allusions and attacks upon the Jews as such, sufficiently proves that the whole was a simple, faithful account from the old writings. Therefore, when Josephus, in order to maintain his wholly untenable opinion that the Hyksos were the Jews, asserts that Manetho did not derive this narrative from genuine ancient sources, but that he only relates incredible fables, and declares besides that Manetho himself granted the uncertainty of his account, when he says, he will now write what is mentioned in the tradition of the Jews—γράφειν τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα περὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων—(to write the mythical and legendary accounts concerning the Jews), this is only one more of the forced and ingenious accusations of which his controversial work is composed. The words of Manetho, as they are extant, nowhere support this assertion of Josephus, except the last, which are to this purport:—λέγεται δ’ ὅτι τὴν πολιτείαν καὶ τοὺς νόμους αὐτοῖς καταβαλόμενος ἱερεύς, τὸ γένος Ἡλιουπολίτης, ὄνομα Ὀσαρσίφ, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν Ἡλίου πόλει θεοῦ Ὀσίρεως, ὡς μετέβη εἰς τοῦτο τὸ γένος, μετετέθη τοὔνομα καὶ προσηγορεύθη Μωυσῆς—(It is said that a priest who founded their polity and laws, a Heliopolitan by race, named Osarsiph, when he went over to this nation from the service of the god Osiris in Heliopolis, received a change of name, and was called Moses). This contains the honest acknowledgment of Manetho that the ancient sources whence he derived his information neither mention the Jews nor Moses, which is confirmed by his own narrative. Therefore it was only a λεγόμενον (tradition), if it were not indeed a μυθευόμενον (mere fable), as Josephus adds, which applied that account to the Jews. Manetho evidently did not intend to say more. The account of the banishment of the Lepers bears exactly the same stamp as the earlier account of the banishment of the Hyksos, and even an entirely superficial critical examination would only lead us to conclude, from the mention in both accounts of the city of Abaris (which at Manetho’s time had long since passed out of remembrance), that he made use of the same ancient authorities for the one as for the other. Therefore, instead of the reproaches of Josephus, Manetho rather deserves all our gratitude for so strictly abstaining from introducing his own views, however correct they may have been, into the long-approved historical relations. He leaves the decision in the hands of his readers. And it seems to me that we can now make ours upon good grounds, not depending upon his opinions, but upon the documentary evidence he lays before us, to the effect, namely, that the identity of the two occurrences, recognised even before the time of Manetho, must actually be accepted.

Josephus, however, is equally groundless and frivolous in his reproach to the Egyptian historian, when he asserts that he has only of his own accord inserted the king here, under whom he places the event—Ἀμένωφιν εἰσποιήσας ἐμβόλιμον βασιλέα—(Having inserted Amenophis as king), and that he has not therefore ventured to assign a fixed number of years to his reign. As Josephus before made a great confusion between the kings Ἄμωσις and Τέθμωσις, and since here also, he has not remarked, that he has named the same king once before in a former extract (c. 15) in his right place, and ascribed to him the correct nineteen years and six months as the period of his reign, the reproach is at once removed from the Egyptian historian, and falls back upon himself.

Let us now see what place in the Egyptian annals is assigned to the King of the Exodus. Here again we are first referred to Josephus. We shall investigate in its proper place more minutely, how far he had the true account of Manetho before him, or only extracts from it. But it is easy to perceive from a cursory comparison of his extracts, which are partly given verbatim, and partly summarily, that in the two principal passages upon this portion of Egyptian history, he had two different authorities before him, who, in the writing of the names, and in certain details, somewhat differ from one another, and thence caused no little confusion to the inconsiderate critic.

If we now place these two authorities of Josephus beside one another, and compare with them the corresponding portion of the lists of Africanus and of the monuments, we obtain the following general view. (See next page.)

LISTS OF JOSEPHUS AND AFRICANUS.

MANETHO. MONUMENTS.

JOSEPHUS. AFRICANUS.

c. Ap. i. 15. c. Ap. i. 26.

Y. M. Y. M.

1. Ῥαμέσσης 1. 4. 1. 1. Ῥαμέσσης 1. 1. Rameses I.

3. Ἀρμέσσης Μιαμμοῦ 66. 2.

4. Ἀμένωφις 19. 6. (4. Ἀμενωφάθ 19.)

(5) 2. Σέθωσις ὁ καὶ Ῥαμέσσης 2. Σεθώς (59 l.) 50. 9. 2. Σεθὼς 51. 2. Sethôs I.

3. 3. Ῥάμψης 66. 3. Ῥαψάκης (61 l.) 66. 3. Rameses Miamun

4. 4. Ἀμένωφις 4. Ἀμενέφθης 20. 4. Menephthes

5. 5. Σεθὼς ὁ καὶ Ῥαμέσσης 5. Ῥαμέσσης 60. 5. Sethôs II.

The first thing to be remarked is that the last column, that of the monuments, is authentically determined, because it is entirely borrowed from several monumental catalogues, and taking it in details, the testimony of numerous contemporaneous monuments puts it beyond a shadow of doubt. The lists of the authors may therefore be judged with the greatest safety, according as they agree with it, but not the reverse. Hence it follows, that in the first authority of Josephus, either one has been lost between the first and second names, or the second and third names are incorrectly anticipated, since they should have come after the fourth. The numbers placed beside the reigns leave no doubt of this. The last of the two mistakes has evidently been committed by Africanus with regard to the Ἀμενωφάθ; therefore, in the comparative columns, the same has also been assumed to belong to Josephus. Furthermore, we read in the text of Josephus, chap. 15, Σέθωσις καὶ Ῥαμἑσσης (Sethôsis and Rameses), but we learn from the context, and chap. 26, that we ought to read ὁ καὶ (who is also). In the second authority of Josephus, the addition ὁ καὶ Ῥαμέσσης (who is also Rameses), is entirely wanting, which is undoubtedly correct, since neither the names of these two, or any other kings, are seen in connection on the monuments. The mistaken connection appears to have been occasioned by the confusion that existed at a much earlier period, in the ideas of the people, about these two kings; whereas, the surname of the second Ramses, Μιαμμοῦ, is evidently founded on the constant addition of 𓌹𓇋𓏠𓐰𓈖 Miamun, on the monuments of this king.

Without entering into further details, it is now undeniably evident from the same comparative list, that Ἀμένωφις, or Μένωφις, the third king of the second authority of Josephus, to whom the banishment of the Lepers was ascribed, is no other than the corresponding Ἀμενέφθης, with 20 years, and the Μενέφθης (Menephtha) of the monuments; lastly, no other than the anticipated Ἀμένωφις, with 19 years and 6 months of the first authority of Josephus, the son of Ἀρμέσσης Μιαμμοῦ, with 66 years 2 months, i. e. of Ramses-Miamun, whose sixty-second year appears upon the monuments. The King of the Exodus therefore belongs, according to the Egyptian accounts, to the 19th Manethonic Dynasty, and it seems to me impossible any longer to admit the opinion of those who believed him to belong to the previous 18th Dynasty⁠[213]⁠. It is true that in this Dynasty we find three different kings named Amenophis, which caused the confusion with the similarly sounding name Menephthes, but none of them have a Ramses for a father, and a Sethôs for a son and grandfather; for the two last names never appear in the 18th Dynasty.

We find, indeed, a king of the 18th Dynasty mentioned in the Manethonic relation in Josephus, viz. King Horus. But this incidental quotation contains so much the more an impartial and convincing proof, that the king with whom we are concerned, belonged to the 19th Dynasty, and that the whole account was taken from an ancient authority, to whom the same chronological connection was perfectly well known. It is said, namely, that Amenophis desired to become a beholder of the gods, like one of his ancestors, King Horus. Now this notice is in itself remarkable, and testifies its genuine character, since King Horus is not otherwise known to us through the popular tradition, probably because he, like most of the others, had left no monuments behind him which had attracted any particular notice in Memphis. But with regard to the time of his reign, it is apparent that he was certainly a predecessor, namely, the fourth of Menephthes, but a successor of all the three Amenophises of the 18th Dynasty, which he terminated.

It is of minor importance that, according to Diodorus (34, 1), the banishment of the Jews is connected with the emigration of Danaus to Greece, and that this also is placed, according to the Egyptian tradition at least, in the 19th Dynasty. But we thereby see that the Egyptian tradition with regard to dates did not deviate much, even when it was connected with foreign elements.

If we now compare the clear Egyptian statements that we have cited, concerning the period of the Exodus with what is said about it by the later, particularly the Jewish and Christian chronologists, it would be difficult to comprehend why they differed so exceedingly, if we did not find the fundamental error fully explained in the writings of Josephus against Apion, where he asserts that the Jews were no other than the Hyksos. The perfectly untenable grounds for this opinion, which, nevertheless, has been shared even by some modern scholars, although the Mosaic narrative is entirely contradictory to it, both as a whole and in its details, may be gathered from Josephus himself, since a refutation of them here would be superfluous. But Josephus was by no means the first who started this opinion. It was already held by Ptolemy Mendesius⁠[214] and Apion⁠[215]⁠, perhaps even by Polemon⁠[216]⁠. From this, also, originates the other misunderstanding, that it was not Tuthmosis, but Amosis, the first king of the 17th Dynasty, who drove away the Hyksos; and therefore in Josephus⁠[217] the name Τέθμωσις is inserted in place of Ἄμωσις, and in Syncellus⁠[218] both names appear united as Ἄμωσις ὁ καὶ Τέθμωσις—(Amosis, who is also Tethmosis). The reason of this confusion lay simply in this, that Amosis is found placed by Manetho at the head of the Dynasty which immediately follows the Dynasties of the Hyksos; he must, therefore, have driven away the Hyksos, who by them are understood to be the Jews.

We find a different opinion in Eusebius. In his Manethonic list⁠[219]⁠, beside King Chencheres, therefore in the middle between the true Exodus of the Hyksos and that of the Israelites, he writes as follows:—κατὰ τοῦτον Μωυσῆς τῆς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου πορείας τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἡγήσατο—(During this reign Moses conducted the journey of the Jews out of Egypt). But the reason for this deviation from the usual statements concerning the Pharaoh of the Exodus does not here lie in the name, which perhaps Eusebius had found somewhere mis-stated, but in his assumption (to which we shall afterwards return) that the first year of Abraham was also the first year of the 16th Manethonic Dynasty. He only counted, as he himself states, 75 years⁠[220] from this year to Abraham’s removal to Haran, and then the 430 years of bondage in Egypt. By that means he obtained the year of the Exodus of Moses from Egypt. This happened, according to his Egyptian list, in the sixteenth year of Chencheres; consequently, in his annals, he entered the Exodus under this king.

The most fabulous recital of the Exodus is in Lysimachus, who appears to have written about the time of Christ’s birth, shortly before Apion. It is not, therefore, worth while to investigate whether the name of the King Bocchoris, in whose reign he makes Moses depart, was arbitrarily imagined, or whether it originated in some great misunderstanding. His romance appears, however, to have found acceptance, since we again meet with the fable of Lysimachus in Tacitus⁠[221]⁠, with some new and additional facts. Tacitus says, that according to some the Jews wandered to Palestine during the reign of Isis, led by Hierosolymus and Judah; according to others, they were descendants of the Ethiopians, and departed during the reign of King Cepheus; but most people said, that at the breaking out of a plague, King Bocchoris had cleared the land of them, according to the sentence of an oracle.

But Josephus has rendered the narrative of Lysimachus still more confused, and by that means has also led astray later scholars. He relates, namely, as follows, in the second book of his controversy with Apion: “Manetho says that the Jews wandered out of Egypt in the reign of Tethmosis, 393 years before the flight of Danaus to Argos; but Lysimachus makes it under King Bocchoris, that is, 1700 years ago; Molon and others make it as it seems best to them; but Apion, the one most to be depended upon of all of them, placed the Exodus exactly in the seventh Olympiad, and in the first year of it, in which, as he says, the Phœnicians founded Carthage.”

It was impossible that Josephus could place Bocchoris 1700 years before his own time, for that would make him nearly cotemporary with the first kings of the Egyptian succession, whose names he cites, without, however, mentioning a Bocchoris among them. This king lived, rather, according to Manetho, about 750, and not about 1650 before Christ. If, furthermore, it is asserted that Apion placed the Exodus at the Olympiad 7. 1., namely, B.C. 752, that is most decidedly contradicted by Clemens of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, and Africanus, in passages above referred to, who, on the contrary, agree in relating that Apion followed Ptolemy Mendesius, and placed the Exodus under Amosis, therefore about 1650 years before Christ. It is evident that Josephus has here in his careless way confused the authors and the numbers with one another. He meant to say, or ought to have said, that Manetho fixed the Exodus (not of the Jews, indeed, but of the Hyksos) 393 years before Danaus, i. e. 1700 years before Josephus, and Lysimachus fixed it, during the reign of Bocchoris. The fabulous narrator, Lysimachus, could hardly have affixed any statement of time to the name of Bocchoris, or he would certainly have discovered his error; but Apion, the grammatist and hyper-critic, had probably subjected the opinion of Lysimachus to his own critical examination, and reckoned that if he assumed Bocchoris to be the king under whom the Exodus was made, he must intend to fix his date at Olympiad 7. 1. At any rate there is no doubt that the Olympiad calculation belonged to Lysimachus, and the 1700 years to the Manethonic statement. The latter point might be remedied if we could place the words τουτέστι πρὸ ἐτῶν χιλίων ἑπτακοσίων (That is one thousand seven hundred years) after Δαναοῦ φυγῆς (The flight of the Danai). But we should certainly be wrong to change the number 1700, as Böckh⁠[222] has done, into 700; or with Ewald⁠[223] and Bunsen⁠[224]⁠, to accuse Apion of the confusion of which Josephus alone is guilty.

If it is therefore impossible to place the Exodus of Moses, regarding it from the Egyptian point of view—which has been singularly misunderstood by all the ancient and modern authors we have mentioned—under any other Pharaoh than Menephthes, the son of the great Ramses, in the 19th Dynasty, nothing remains to the opponents of this view than to attack the truth of this statement from the standing point of the Hebrew authorities, and to show that there are irrefutable grounds in the Mosaic accounts which prove the falsity of the Egyptian annals. But, upon a closer consideration, this is so little the case that, on the contrary, the Hebrew account confirms in the most unequivocal manner the Manethonic disposal of this event in the Egyptian history.

There are certainly very few features in the Mosaic account of the Exodus from which we could obtain in a direct manner any information about the condition of Egypt at the time of its occurrence. Whatever Egyptian manners and customs are occasionally mentioned, are generally little characteristic of any particular epoch of time; greater events, such as wars, change of government, the erection of famous buildings, are still less mentioned, everything is so exclusively apprehended and rendered in an Israelitish point of view. The great change which was introduced by Joseph in the agrarian condition of the country is almost the only exception made here, because it happens to be so closely connected with him personally. Farther on we shall consider the historical inferences which may be founded upon it concerning the time of Joseph. The complete absence of Egyptian proper names, which might so frequently be opportunely mentioned, is particularly striking. Neither the name of the Pharaoh in whose reign Abraham came into Egypt, nor he of whom Joseph was the minister, nor, finally, the one in whose house Moses was brought up, or his successor, in whose reign he left Egypt, are mentioned. This undoubtedly shows a total indifference about chronological points of union for the special history of the Israelites of those times, which is remarkably opposed to the very exact dates, apparently avoiding all breaks, from which our current chronology of the Old Testament is summed up.

Only a few geographical names of Egyptian towns and localities enable us to contemplate, at least in some degree, the theatre of that great event. But there are two among them of peculiar importance to us here, because they also throw a light which was much needed upon Egyptian relations of time, and interpret in a remarkable manner sundry accounts of the old authors.

It is said in Exodus i. 2: “Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom and Raamses.” The Hebrew name of the latter town is ‎‏רעמסס‏‎, and is therefore exactly the same as that of King Ramses in hieroglyphics, 𓂋𓐰𓂝𓄠𓋴𓋴. Now it is difficult to believe that this king’s name was given to a town before any King Ramses had reigned. We could not, therefore, on account of its name, place the building of this town earlier than under the 19th Manethonic Dynasty, because this dynastic name first appears here.

It seems to me, that we may now point out the historical relation of this town Ramses, with a particular King Ramses, among the many kings of that name. We shall, then, for the first time, learn the full significancy of the passage. But it will be necessary for this purpose to examine more closely the geographical conditions at that time of the Isthmus of Suez, which formed the boundary between Egypt and Asia, and was therefore the theatre of the Exodus.

Since the Israelites departed from Ramses, this town must have been their central point and place of meeting. According to Manetho, the lepers, as the Hyksos before them, were finally driven out of Abaris. We might therefore be inclined at first to consider these two towns as one and the same. This was also the opinion of an old abbreviator of Eusebius⁠[225]⁠, who says of Jacob: καὶ παροικεῖ ἐν τῇ Ῥαμέσῃ τῇ πάλαι Ἀβάρῃ καλουμένῃ—(And he sojourns in Ramses, which was formerly called Abare). Many scholars are of the same opinion⁠[226]⁠; Rozière⁠[227] also, the great traveller, but who seldom hits on the right point, places Abaris in the spot where we at least believe we ought to place Ramses; and the same opinion, although given with hesitation, is found even in the masterly researches of D’Anville⁠[228]⁠. It is still more extraordinary that Ewald⁠[229] holds Abaris to be Baal Zephon, and therefore seeks it in the immediate neighbourhood of the Red Sea.

The situation of the town of Abaris can only be decided by the accounts of Manetho; for all other authors, who mention this town, refer to the same passages in the work of Manetho, which we find most fully communicated by Josephus⁠[230]⁠. The first mention of the town occurred in the account of the invasion of the Hyksos, who entered the country from Syria about 2100 years before Christ, and governed it for many centuries. The easy success of this invasion, owing to the hitherto unfortified state of the eastern boundary, immediately directed the attention of Salatis, the first king of the Hyksos, to the necessity of closing the gate, which had stood open to them, against every future invader. He therefore did not delay, as Manetho relates⁠[231]⁠, to make use of his experience: “He resided in Memphis, collected tribute from the Upper and Lower country, and left garrisons in the most suitable places. But he fortified the eastern boundaries, especially, as a precaution against the Assyrians, who were at that time very powerful, and who might afterwards be desirous like them to invade the same kingdom. Now he found a town particularly suitable for his purpose, situated to the east of the Bubastic arm in the Sethroitic Nome; and, according to the old tradition of the gods, it was named Abaris. This he built up and fortified with strong walls, and placed as a guard within a garrison of 240,000 armed men. Thither he came, in the summer season, partly on account of the harvest and to issue the pay, partly in order to practise the garrison diligently in arms to the terror of the foreigners.” But when at the termination of the rule of the Hyksos, in the reign of Misphragmuthosis, these hereditary enemies were driven back out of the whole country, “the king finally enclosed them in that place called Abaris. It was 10,000 arura in extent, and (according to Manetho) the Hyksos surrounded it with a great and strong wall.” Since he could not capture them by a siege, he came to an agreement with them, and permitted them to depart with all their property to Syria.

Abaris is mentioned for the last time at the Exodus of the lepers, as we have seen above. It is here called an old Typhonic town, which had been uninhabited since the departure of the Hyksos, and was given up to the unclean after they were delivered from their oppression. But they fortify it again, call the Hyksos from Jerusalem to their assistance, and from this firm point for many years maintain the upper hand over the feeble king, until he, with the aid of an Ethiopian army, drove them back to the borders of Syria.

In these accounts there is an explicit statement about the geographical situation of Abaris, which determines it to have been placed in the Sethroitic Nome. For it has been long acknowledged that we should read it so, instead of the Saitic Nome, as it is in our present text. This is also shown by the reading of Eusebius, which, indeed, is still incorrectly written in the Armenian translation⁠[232]⁠, but evidently purports to say, in nomo Methraite in place of Sethraite, and by many other passages in which this town, though without a name, is mentioned by Manetho, and is placed in the Sethroitic Nome⁠[233]⁠. But even if this correct reading had not been preserved to us by others, we must still have rejected the Saitic Nome, because this is situated in the western part of the Delta, while Abaris ought to be placed to the east of the Bubastic arm of the Nile.

There can be no doubt about the general situation of the Sethroitic Nome, from the statements of Strabo⁠[234]⁠, and of Ptolemy⁠[235]⁠, who was born in Egypt. It lay eastward along the northern part of the Bubastic, or Pelusaic arm of the Nile. Its capital was Heracleopolis Parva, and Pelusium, from its position, must also have belonged to this Nome, although this is never expressly said. Abaris must accordingly be situated there.

The object also which was to have been gained, by the original founding of Abaris, directs us to this province, and to its most north-eastern portion in the neighbourhood of Pelusium. It was to serve as a boundary fortification against Syria. In all times, ancient as well as modern, there was only one military entrance from that country. The road led from Gaza, along the sea-coast by Raphia (Refah), Rhinokolura (El Arisch), Mons Casius, along the Lake of Serbon, to Pelusium, which is situated at the mouth of the eastern arm of the Nile. This part of the Nile, which extended far out towards the east, was the first within reach; therefore, although the destination of most travellers lay considerably to the south, the northern circuitous route by this road was rendered necessary, and for the march of armies indeed it was quite unavoidable. When Sesostris led home his conquering army from Asia, he returned by this road. According to Herodotus⁠[236]⁠, Δάφναι αἱ Πηλούσιαι (Daphni of Pelusium) was the place where his treacherous brother met him; according to Manetho⁠[237] and Diodorus⁠[238]⁠, it was Pelusium itself. It is said that from this place the same Sesostris fortified the eastern frontiers as far as Heliopolis⁠[239]⁠. Hither Sethôs, the priest of Ptha, came to meet Sanherib, because, as Herodotus⁠[240] adds, “here was the entrance into Egypt.” In this neighbourhood, at the Pelusaic mouth, below Bubastis, the Ionians and Carians brought hither by Psammeticus were stationed undoubtedly as frontier guards, at a place which afterwards bore the name of Στρατόπεδα⁠[241]⁠. In the strong town of Pelusium, Psammenitus waited for Cambyses, and by losing this position, lost besides all Egypt to the Persian conqueror⁠[242]⁠. In later times, the great Macedonian entered by Pelusium⁠[243]⁠. In Strabo’s time, also, Pelusium, to which point according to him Phenicia extended⁠[244]⁠, was the frontier post in the direction of Syria and Arabia, and the road to Egypt led through this “inaccessible” country, not only from Phenicia, but also from the Nabatain Arabia⁠[245]⁠. Amru (Amr ebn el As) also took the same road with his 4000 Arabs, when he conquered Egypt from the side of Syria, A.D. 639, having first taken the strong town of Pelusium by a thirty days’ siege; even down to the latest times, we see the Egyptian armies marching to and from Syria by this road.

It appears accordingly undoubted that Abaris, which during the time of the Hyksos, and in the reign of Menephthes, was destined for the same purpose as Pelusium at a later period, could not have been far removed from it also in point of situation. To me, indeed, it seems very probable that it was the ancient name of Pelusium. According to the accounts we receive, both towns were of considerable extent, and it cannot be supposed that there were several of such a description in that neighbourhood. No proof is required to show that Πηλούσιον was not, as the Greeks imagined, formed from πηλός, although the Arabs in their translation of Tineh—i. e. Lutetia—accepted the quibble. It is much more probably referred to the Philistine name Pelistim, which is already proved in the above-mentioned tradition of its heros eponymos Παλαιστινός, or Πηλούσιος. We must, therefore, explain Pelusium by “Philistine” or “Palestine-town.” It appears to me that Ewald⁠[246] has successfully attributed a similar origin to the name of the town Ἄβαρις⁠[247]⁠, as the “town of the Hebrews,” of the Abarim. A peculiar historical epoch may, perhaps, be indicated in this change in the name. Ewald’s searching investigations concerning the history of the Israelites, have demonstrated that the term Hebrew nation had originally a far more comprehensive signification than has been hitherto commonly accepted. It comprised the most south-westerly Semitic tribes⁠[248]⁠, and extended to the gates of Egypt, therefore as far as our frontier town. But we afterwards find in these very same countries the immigrated race of the Philistines, who had driven back the Hebrews from that spot. Ewald⁠[249] does not place this change before the time of the Judges. Therefore, if our town had formerly been an advanced frontier-post in the land of the Hebrews, and afterwards in the land of the Philistines, and was undoubtedly each time filled with a large Semitic population, it may have exchanged its earlier name Ἄβαρις, Hebrew town, for the later Πηλούσιον, Philistine-town.

Abaris has frequently been identified with Heroonpolis, by D’Anville⁠[250]⁠, Larcher⁠[251]⁠, Champollion⁠[252]⁠, Gesenius⁠[253]⁠, Jomard⁠[254]⁠, and others. The only apparent reason which is cited for this opinion is that Stephanus, of Byzantium, quotes the otherwise unauthenticated tradition, that Typhon was struck with lightning at Heroonpolis; and that Manetho called Abaris, according to an old tradition, a Typhonic town⁠[255]⁠. This comparison does not at all overbalance the distinct geographical statement of Manetho, that Abaris was situated in the Sethroitic Nome, to which Heroonpolis, as we shall see, could not belong. That tradition, indeed, seems only to be founded upon a misunderstanding of Stephanus; namely, upon the unauthentic information that Ἡρώ was also called Αἷμος. Greek tradition⁠[256]⁠, namely, connected Αἷμος (not a town, however, but the Thracian mountains), as it did other mountains, with Typhon, and probably, only on account of its name, imagined that it was here he was killed, and shed his blood.

On the other hand, this tradition about Typhon refers us again to the idea that Abaris was the most ancient name of Pelusium. Typhon was always considered as the particular god of the hereditary enemy of the Asiatic Hyksos. The mythological evidence of this assertion, which is far from new, does not belong here. But this was, perhaps, the reason why this god, according to tradition, was also brought into local connection with that important point on the frontier, the only entrance into the kingdom of Osiris from the land of Typhon. Herodotus related⁠[257]⁠, probably, therefore, from a native Egyptian tradition, that it was there—namely, in the Lake of Serbonis, so dangerous to all travellers, which stretched out directly from Pelusium eastwards, that Typhon, who was struck by lightning, lay chained; and others, also, make him fly away from Jupiter out of Syria, as far as Pelusium⁠[258]⁠.

But, perhaps, another Typhonic trace may still be referred to Pelusium. It might have been expected, namely, that the town of Abaris, or Pelusium, had, besides these signs which were deduced from its origin or from its population, a real Egyptian name; still more, because we find that most Egyptian towns had a double name—the popular name which usually appears in the Coptic and Arabic writings, and the sacred name derived from the local gods, which the Greeks generally, though not always, retained in their translations. Πηλούσιον undoubtedly answered to the popular name of the town. The sacred name, according to report, could only be derived from Typhon. Now we find the Nome to which Pelusium belonged always called Σεθρωΐτης, or Σεθραΐτης, not Ἡρακλεοπολίτης, as we should have expected, since Ἡρακλέους πόλις is cited as its capital. This denomination necessarily presupposes a town, which in Greek would have been Σεθρώη, Σεθρώ, Σεθραΐς. Stephanus, of Byzantium, also mentions such a town, and calls it Σέθρον. Perhaps, instead of reading ⲥⲉⲑⲣⲟⲛ, we should read, with Salmasius, ⲥⲉⲑⲣⲟⲏ⁠[259]⁠.

It is, however, extraordinary, that we should find the town which gave its name to a Nome, only once mentioned. But this is explained, if we admit that the denomination of the Nome was taken from the sacred name of a town, which was unfamiliar to the Greeks, as in Διὸς πόλις, Ἡλίου πόλις, Πανὸς πόλις. If we may now venture to admit, that the beginning of the name Σεθρώ, signified the god Seth, or Set, i. e. Typhon⁠[260]⁠, it is not improbable that this was the sacred name of the Typhonic town Pelusium, which had once been of greater importance, and had given the name Σεθρωΐτης to the Nome.

The only reason which could be employed against Abaris and Pelusium being identical places, and which is really given by D’Anville is, that it would have been mentioned by Manetho. But this reason may be used against every other town, and in that case we must suppose that the enormous town had afterwards been entirely deserted, and that no traces of its ruins remained, which is more than improbable. It is more likely that either Manetho did not know himself to what modern town the ancient name ought to be applied, which he only met with in old writings, or that he mentioned it in a passage which Josephus has not preserved. For Josephus himself at least supposed, that by Abaris, Pelusium was meant, as his words show in the 29th chapter, where he even puts the last name in the mouth of Manetho: τοὐναντίον γὰρ αὐτὸς εἴρηκεν ὡς ὁ παῖς τοῦ Ἀμενώφιος τριάκοντα μυριάδας ἔχων εἰς Πηλούσιον ὑπηντίαζεν—(For, on the contrary, he said that the son of Amenophis, having thirty myriads, advanced to Pelusium)—and Chairemon⁠[261] had no doubt about it, since he does not name Abaris, but makes the lepers march to Pelusium.

Now, if it is certain that Abaris was the ancient name for Pelusium, or at any rate was situated in the neighbourhood of this town, it is impossible at the same time to consider it to be Heroonpolis; but neither could it be Ramses. On the contrary, both these latter towns are brought into close connection with each other, even by the Seventy, since they placed the town of Heroonpolis in the district of Ramses, in which undoubtedly the town of Ramses must have been situated⁠[262]⁠.

Scholars also hold the most different opinions about the situation of Heroonpolis, it will therefore be necessary to examine this question next.

Strabo⁠[263] says that the town was situated “in the angle of the Arabian Gulf,” and thence people concluded that it must have been situated in the neighbourhood of the present Suez⁠[264]⁠, and on that account assert that the gulf itself was called after it κόλπος Ἡρωοπολίτης⁠[265]⁠, and cites the statement of Ptolemy⁠[266]⁠, according to which Heroonpolis is placed at 30° north latitude, which corresponds nearly with the present Suez. These reasons appear to be of great importance. Nevertheless we cling, without hesitation, to the opinion of those scholars who place Heroonpolis far more north, namely, on the ancient Nile canal, west from Birket e’ temsah, in the neighbourhood of the valley Seba-Biar. D’Anville was also of this opinion, though he was not then aware of the ruins of ancient towns which are found there. The French expedition pointed out two of them. Adjoining Seba-Biar, at the west end of this low district, lie the ruins which are now called Mukfâr, and farther west those of Abu-Keshêb⁠[267]⁠. The latter are considered by Et. Quatremère⁠[268]⁠, Champollion⁠[269]⁠, Du Bois Aymé⁠[270]⁠, and others, as the remains of Heroonpolis. I am more in favour of those at Mukfâr.

With regard to the general situation of Heroonpolis in this country, we must next remark, that it would be singular if three towns, Arsinoë, Klysma, and Heroonpolis, had been crowded together at the head of the gulf, while the ruins of two only are to be seen. But it is a still more important consideration, that we find the meeting between Joseph and Jacob placed at Heroonpolis not only by Josephus⁠[271]⁠, but also by the Seventy, who must undoubtedly have known the situation. Heroonpolis existed in their time, indeed it appears to have been first mentioned by them. But it was impossible that they could have made Joseph go to Suez, if he wished to meet his father, who came out of Syria. It must have been situated on the road from Syria, and they undoubtedly mentioned it, because in their time it was the capital of that province, which they considered to be the district of Goshen and Ramses. But the situation which the Itinerarium Antonini⁠[272] gives to the town Hero, which is Heroonpolis, is decisive, since it places it XXIV. mille passus from Thoum, XVIII. from Serapiu, and the latter L. from Klysma. But Et. Quatremère⁠[273] has most completely pointed out that Klysma was situated at the head of the gulf opposite Arsinoë, as it is marked in the tablet of Peutinger. But Thoum, i. e. Pithom, was situated on the Nile, in the neighbourhood of Bubastis⁠[274]⁠. Thereby the situation of Heroonpolis is placed somewhere near the above-mentioned ruins.

This was a convenient situation for the capital of that part of the country to which it gave its name⁠[275]⁠. But the province, which extended as far as the gulf, might have been suitably named after it. The account given by the Seventy also agrees very well with this, since the road from the north to Cairo still passes in this neighbourhood⁠[276]⁠. But the question is, how can Strabo, who places Heroonpolis in the angle of the gulf, be made to accord with this? In consequence of these different statements, Du Bois Aymé believed he was justified in the supposition⁠[277]⁠, which he has fully stated, that in earlier times the gulf extended much farther north, and filled up all the low districts of the now dry so-called Bitter lakes, but afterwards being covered by sand, withdrew itself within its present shore. I do not think that it is necessary to believe in such a physical change; and the idea of it seems to me most completely set aside by the remains of an artificial canal, more than four leagues in length, which runs from Suez towards the north, and which was pointed out by the French expedition, for no canal could be cut where there was sea; the utmost that was necessary was to render the passage navigable when it was filled up with sand. But the opening of this canal must have had nearly the same results as those which may be derived from the belief in the extended sea. The wide basins of the Bitter lakes were filled by the canal, as well as the adjoining lakes to the north, and the low district of Seba-Biar, which extends even to the ruins of Mukfâr. Here first commenced the real Nile canal, which received its water from the west. Here was the harbour, as Strabo expressly says⁠[278]⁠, in which they embarked for a voyage on the Red Sea. On account of the natural and extensive shore of the lake, the notion of a sea voyage was here imparted to the traveller; and, therefore, this part artificially drawn into the gulf might naturally be called the μυχὸς τοῦ κόλπου, the innermost angle of the gulf. Strabo, or Eratosthenes, whom he cites, even says expressly in one place, that Heroonpolis was situated on the Nile, that is to say, on a canal of the Nile, and yet calls the town itself at the same time the μυχὸς τοῦ Αραβίου κόλπου (The innermost part of the Arabian Gulf)⁠[279]⁠.

Ptolemy also says, that the Trajanic river (as the canal was called, which was afterwards cut from Babylon) flowed through Heroonpolis. On account of the sharp angle so far removed to the east, which is formed here by the Nile canal and the extended gulf, this provincial capital was particularly adapted for the more general geographical determinations of those countries, for which purpose it had been especially used by Strabo, and earlier, also, by Eratosthenes⁠[280]⁠.

With regard to the statement of numbers given by Ptolemy, the longitude agrees very well with our acceptation, and also prevents us placing the town still farther west. But the latitudes, according to which Ἡρώων πόλις would fall under 30° (others give 29° 50′), the μυχὸς τοῦ κόλπου (innermost part of the gulf) under 29° 50′, and Ἀρσινόη under 29° 30′ (or 29° 10′, also 29° 20′), certainly contain an error, wheresoever we place the μυχός, because Arsinoë, which was undoubtedly situated in the neighbourhood of Suez, is placed 30′, or even 50′, too far south. It is, therefore, more probable, that we ought only to consider the distances of the three places from one another as correctly fixed, somewhat in the order, 29° 50′, 29° 50′, 29° 10′, exactly as they are given in the codex Mediceus, but that there is an error easy of explanation throughout the numbers, by which they have all been placed 50′ too far south. For the true position, according to other proofs, demanded for Heroonpolis (Mukfâr), and for the μυχός (Seba-Biar), bordering on it, 30° 40′, for Arsinoë (not far north of Suez), 30°.

Thus the statements of Ptolemy also appear to me to be no longer opposed to our acceptation. We decide, therefore, for Mukfâr, rather than for Abu-Keshêb, because the first was in reality situated close to the μυχός of Seba-Biar, while Abu-Keshêb lay about an hour and a half farther west on the canal, and not on the lake.

There is, besides, the additional reason, that we believe we have found in the ruins of Abu-Keshêb the still more ancient town of Ramses, which must have been situated in this neighbourhood, and yet can hardly be the same as Heroonpolis. The Seventy say that Heroonpolis was situated in the province of Ramses. Thence follows that in their time at least the town no longer bore the name of Ramses. This last name, moreover, is nowhere found except in the Old Testament. The town had therefore undoubtedly been already forsaken and forgotten, and appears to have been exactly supplanted and replaced by Heroonpolis, which was afterwards built in its neighbourhood; whilst no reason could be discovered wherefore the old Egyptian name of Ramses should have been changed into the later Egyptian name of Heroonpolis.

But that we may really seek for Ramses in the ruins of Abu-Keshêb is most decidedly confirmed by a monument which was found upon those very ruins as early as the time of the French expedition. It is a group of three figures cut out of a block of granite, which represents the gods Ra and Tum, and between them the King Ramses II. The shields of this the greatest of the Pharaohs are repeated six times in the inscriptions on the back⁠[281]⁠.

It was therefore King Ramses-Miamun who built this town, and was worshipped there, as is shown by this monument, and he it was who gave his name to the town⁠[282]⁠; for it is not easy to believe that it was founded by his grandfather, Ramses I., who only reigned about one year.

This leads us to the history of the remarkable canal on which the town was built. It is known that this canal afterwards served to connect the Nile and the Red Sea. Concerning this connection, we read in Herodotus⁠[283] that it was first undertaken by Nekôs, who also caused Africa to be circumnavigated, but that it was interrupted before its completion. Darius then took up the work. The connection actually existed in the time of Herodotus, as we learn from his words. The assertions of Aristotle, Diodorus, Strabo, and Pliny appear to contradict this, who some of them fix the period of the first plan of the connection much earlier than Herodotus, since they ascribe it to Sesostris, and some make the completion of the work later than him, namely, that it was only finished in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

Aristotle⁠[284] says that both Sesostris and afterwards Darius commenced the work, but gave it up because the sea was discovered to be higher than the land, and it was therefore feared that the Nile water might be spoilt by the rushing in of the sea. Aristotle does not mention Nekôs; it therefore appears that in his day the connection which existed in the time of Herodotus had again ceased.

We can thus understand why Diodorus⁠[285] ascribes the final completion of the canal to Ptolemy Philadelphus. He makes no more mention of Sesostris, than Herodotus did. But according to him, Nekôs as well as Darius are prevented from completing it, lest by that means they should overflow the country. This does not weaken the testimony of Herodotus concerning the existing connection. Ptolemy Philadelphus did not only re-open the connections, but he built an artificial sluice at its extreme point, at Arsinoë, from which this canal received the name of the Ptolemaic.

Strabo⁠[286] says, that Sesostris began it, but desisted, being afraid of the higher level of the Red Sea. It was not finished by the son of Psammeticus (Nekôs), on account of his premature death. Darius also discontinued the almost completed work, because he feared that he should overflow Egypt; the Ptolemies at length finished the opening, and made a sluice at Arsinoë. By that means, the salt-water of the Bitter lakes became sweet, and abounded with fish.

Of the more ancient kings, Pliny⁠[287] only mentions Sesostris and Darius, but he says of Ptolemy Philadelphus, that he cut a canal 100 feet wide and 40 feet deep, as far as the Bitter lakes, called it amnis Ptolemæus, and built Arsinoë upon it. He discontinued cutting the canal, being afraid of an inundation.

Lastly, we must again cite here what has been already casually mentioned in a former place, that a Τραϊανὸς ποταμὸς is named by Ptolemy⁠[288]⁠, which ran through Babylon and Heroonpolis.

The contradictions which these different statements of the ancient authors appear to contain, have been frequently brought forward, but even the full deliberation which Letronne has bestowed on this interesting subject⁠[289]⁠, does not appear to me to have given a perfectly true picture of the history of this connecting canal. It has everywhere been forgotten, that the question is not about one, but two canals.

The first and the oldest canal was only conducted from the Nile to Seba-Biar, in an exact easterly direction. This canal was undoubtedly cut by Ramses (Sesostris), because, as has been remarked, in the neighbouring ruins of Abu-Keshêb, a granite group has been found, which represents this king, and which must have stood in the temple of the place. Letronne, who appears to have been unaware of this circumstance, is therefore wrong, when (p. 7) he considers the information given by Aristotle, Strabo, and Pliny, that Sesostris commenced the connection, but did not restore it, as a later tradition, only arisen since the time of Herodotus, in order to enhance still more the name of Sesostris. This canal, like many others cut by this king, had its own particular purpose; he acquired thereby a considerable portion of the desert. But if we consider the especial attention which Sesostris also paid to ship-building, since he first navigated the Arabian Gulf with war ships⁠[290]⁠, it could not have appeared to him a very strange idea to cut through the narrow isthmus between the Arabian Gulf and the Bitter lakes. The Egyptians had for ages possessed the art of levelling in the greatest perfection, and practised it more than ever in the time of Sesostris, therefore there was nothing extraordinary at that time in the reasons given by Aristotle and Strabo why the opening was not ventured upon, because it was discovered that the Red Sea was too high⁠[291]⁠.

Nekôs, however, undertakes it, but leaves it off again, according to Herodotus, influenced by an oracle, who told him he worked for the barbarians (a danger which likewise has always made the calculating Mehemet Ali disinclined to the undertaking), and according to Strabo, because he died. Diodorus attributes this scruple to him in place of to Sesostris, but incorrectly, because the levelling must have been made before the section could have been commenced. It was necessary, however, to dig through a double elevation of the ground, and distinct traces of both these connecting trenches may still be found upon the careful map of the French engineer, who took the level of this part of the country⁠[292]⁠. The first cutting which restored the connection between Seba-Biar and the Bitter lakes, was insignificant, and only consisted of about 7000 metres; the second, between the Bitter lakes and the sea, was the most important, and almost four times as long as the former. Now, it is possible that Nekôs undertook the first cutting either with the intention of fertilising the extensive land round the Bitter lakes by the pouring in of the Nile water, or thus to prepare for the second more difficult cutting. We can easily imagine that the idea of connecting the two seas must have been a very natural one to that same Nekôs, who, according to Herodotus⁠[293]⁠, caused Africa to be circumnavigated, and triremes to be constructed for various enterprises, both on the Mediterranean Sea, as well as on the Arabian Gulf⁠[294]⁠. The opinion of Letronne seems to me, therefore, of little value, who imagined that he first borrowed the idea from the plan of his cotemporary, Periander, for cutting through the Isthmus of Corinth. The reverse is evidently a much more probable supposition, since the Greek plan was much more difficult to accomplish, was less called for by necessity, and was conceived at a time in which, probably, Egyptian hydraulic architects would have been employed, since this profession had flourished for ages in Egypt, but nothing similar to it had been accomplished in Greece.

Darius must have certainly cut through the district between the sea and the Bitter lakes, and thus have restored the first real connection by water, between the sea and the Nile, for it existed in the time of Herodotus, whatever Aristotle, Diodorus, and Strabo may say to the contrary, who again transfer the old tradition about the fear of an inundation from Sesostris to Darius. It was never possible, indeed, to make a perfectly free connection, on account of the different height of the water, and the ebb and flow of the Red Sea. I conjecture, therefore, that Darius constructed a sluice at the inner extremity of the new canal, where it discharges itself into the Bitter lakes, in order to protect the inner waters and the adjacent fertile lands from the overflowing sea. This was undoubtedly the most suitable point for such a work, since it would not be so difficult as immediately on the sea. The passage through, would be regulated by the level of the sea, which changes with the ebb and flow of the tide, as must be the case with a simple sluice.

But it is in the monuments that we again find the opinion most certainly confirmed, that a passage existed here as early as the times of the Persians. During the French expedition, the chief engineer, De Rozière, discovered, on a military excursion from Suez, a heap of ruins in a district which is not accurately defined, but which cannot have been far from the southern extremity of the Bitter lakes, upon which were scattered the remains of the statue of a Persian king, and several fragments of cuneiform inscriptions, all in red granite⁠[295]⁠. It appears that no traveller has since visited this spot⁠[296]⁠. But how can the existence of Persian ruins in this part of the isthmus be explained, if they were not connected with the opening of the canal, situated there? Besides this, the largest portion of the cuneiform writings mentioned above contains precisely the name of King Darius, followed by the addition narpa vas-(arqa), princeps magnus, which is also found in other inscriptions, from which we may deduce with certainty that this king, whom the image also undoubtedly represented, took an active part here. At all events it was only a narrow canal, and not constructed for large ships. Therefore it might afterwards be again filled up with sand, and fall into disuse, and, indeed, be so far forgotten that Aristotle might imagine it had never been completed.

Ptolemy Philadelphus undertook its restoration. He appears to have had the magnificent intention of restoring a connection by water between the two seas for ships of war also. This alone explains the grand idea of constructing a canal to the Bitter lakes, 100 feet wide, and 40 feet deep, which would have been quite unnecessary for common ships of burden. At the same time he constructed an artificial sluice, probably at the point where the sea entered, where he also built the town Arsinoë. But as Pliny expressly says, he only carried this work from the sea to the Bitter lakes. It is only this canal that we must undoubtedly understand by the ποταμὸς Πτολεμαῖος, amnis Ptolemæus, which, according to Diodorus and Pliny, received its name from the second Ptolemy. The immense difference between this canal and the two northern ones, is visible in the plan of the French engineer⁠[297]⁠, therefore it does not even require the ingenious explanation of Letronne in order to understand that it was impossible for Cleopatra, after the battle of Actium, to cause ships of war to be brought from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, except by land.

With reference to this last work, Strabo mentions the Ptolemaic kings, this, connected with the fact that the town of Arsinoë, since the time of Strabo, is also mentioned under the name Κλεοπατρίς, leads to the supposition that one of the last Ptolemies, or Cleopatra herself, completed the workings on this canal, perhaps the sluices.

The name ποταμὸς Τραϊανός, by which Letronne also understands the whole connecting way as far as the sea⁠[298]⁠, was undoubtedly as limited as the name ποταμὸς Πτολεμαῖος. Ptolemy designedly neither mentions Arsinoë or the sea; he says that Trajan’s canal flowed through Babylon and Heroonpolis. This, therefore, refers to the canal, of which traces are also still extant, which received its water much higher up than the ancient one of Sesostris, namely, at Babylon, and was afterwards conducted into it, and discharged itself with it into the basin of Seba-Biar at Heroonpolis⁠[299]⁠.

This geographical digression, whose length may be excused owing to the peculiar interest of the subject, allows us now, as it seems to me, to judge confidently on two points, which are important in a critical examination of the Exodus of the Israelites. From the position of the two towns, Abaris and Ramses—the former situated on the Mediterranean Sea, near the mouth of the Pelusaic arm of the Nile, the latter half a degree more to the south, and almost as much more west—it follows that the Israelites, according to the Mosaic accounts, marched out of a different town, as well as in a different direction, from that taken by the unclean in the Manethonic narration.

On the other hand, we have found that the town of Ramses derived its name from the King Ramses-Miamun (Sesostris), by whom it was built, and that the ancient Nile canal, on which it was situated, was constructed, according to the Greek accounts, by Sesostris, i. e. Ramses-Miamun. It is evident that these two works, that of the canal and that of the town, are connected, and reciprocally corroborate each other. The new town was occasioned by the canal being cut. This connection will be still more apparent by two other facts.

In the western part of the Delta there is a village which to this day bears the same name as the town we are speaking of, namely, Ramses. This village also, and its name, are of ancient date, which is proved by the mound of ruins at that spot; and, what is still more important to us, it is situated, like the eastern Ramses, on the border of an ancient canal, which was conducted from the Canopic arm, and brought the water of the Nile to Hermopolis Parva (Damanhur)⁠[300]⁠. The existence of these ruins of Ramses appears to me alone to justify the very probable supposition that this great western canal was also cut by Ramses-Miamun, and that the royal constructor was worshipped as the eponymous divinity in the town which was there built. It is evident that the Israelites would not have been sent hither from Goshen in order to build this town⁠[301]⁠.

Besides the eastern Ramses, the Israelites also built the town of Pithom. The situation of this town cannot easily be mistaken. It has been long recognised in the town of Πάτουμος, of which Herodotus speaks when he says that the eastern Nile canal, which was conducted a little above Bubastis, flowed past it⁠[302]⁠, the Arabian town⁠[303]⁠. It was probably situated opposite Bubastis (Tel Basta), on the border of the desert, and at the entrance of the Wadi, through which the canal is led. The ancient ruins of a town are found there under the name of Tel el kebir, and the Itinerarium Antonini places the town of Thoum, which has certainly been properly recognised as the ancient town of Tum Πά-τουμος⁠[304]⁠, exactly in that place, namely, upon the road from Heliopolis to Pelusium, on the edge of the desert between Vicus Judæorum (Tel Jehudeh) and Tacasartha (Salhîeh?). Now if the Coptic translation in the passage which is cited from Gen. xlvi. 28, writes ⲡⲓⲑⲟⲙ in place of Heroonpolis, as is translated by the Seventy, it does not mean that Pithom was believed to be discovered in Heroonpolis, but that it was thought better to fix the place at which Joseph went to meet Jacob at Pithom rather than at Heroonpolis.

Pithom, therefore, was situated at one end, and Ramses at the other, of the ancient Nile canal, which was constructed by the great Pharaoh, Ramses-Miamun, in the land of Goshen. Both were founded in consequence of the new canal, and their direct connection in the Mosaic narrative, as well as the statement that they were built by the Israelites, is most decidedly confirmed by the geographical circumstances which have been exhibited. Taking it in a general point of view, there can be no doubt that the Israelites were chiefly settled in that very country, namely, below Heliopolis, in the neighbourhood of Bubastis (Tel Basta) and of the modern Belbês, where ruins are still extant called Tel Jehudeh; and the Itinerarium Antonini cites a place called Vicus Judæorum, where, finally, the Jewish temple of Onias was built, probably at the Ὀνίου of Ptolemy⁠[305]⁠.

The inference we have arrived at, that if the Israelites built these towns, they must have been still in Egypt in the reign of King Ramses, who founded them, and that they could not have departed several centuries previous, no longer rests upon the name of one single town, which might be explained by an accidental inexactitude of the writer, or by a confusion in dates⁠[306]⁠, but upon the close connection of a series of facts, which reciprocally support and explain one another.

Hence the oppression took place more especially under Ramses, and the Exodus resulting from it under his son and successor Menephthes. According to the Mosaic narrative also, the Pharaoh by whom the towns were built was a different one from that of the Exodus⁠[307]⁠. Moses only returned from Midian upon hearing of the death of the first, and it seems that the event of the Exodus was directly connected with the change of government.

Another proof of the correctness of our opinion, that, according to the history of the Israelites, as recorded in the books of the Old Testament, the Exodus cannot be fixed before the reign of the second Ramses, is afforded by the accounts of the settlement of the Jews in Palestine. It is well known, and most thoroughly confirmed by the monuments, and the nearly contemporaneous Egyptian papyrus rolls, that Ramses-Miamun attacked and conquered a great part of Asia, and probably during his whole reign held under his dominion the adjoining lands, the peninsula of Petræa, and all Palestine. We also see his father, Sethôs I., represented upon the monuments in victorious warfare against the people of Syria, among whom the Canaanites are expressly named. These were the most glorious times in the whole Egyptian history. That they are nowhere mentioned in the books of Joshua and Judges, while the numerous far more transitory subjugations of the Israelites by the nations bordering upon them are so fully recorded, appears, in fact, to be a fresh proof that those warlike expeditions happened before the Exodus of the Israelites⁠[308]⁠.

But it even appears as if the true epoch of Egyptian history in which the Exodus of the Israelites occurred, has been preserved in late Jewish traditions. I will at least bring forward one circumstance from Rabbinical chronology, which deserves, perhaps, to be followed up by those who are more familiar with this literature.

This Jewish chronology, namely, deviates in a most striking manner from every other, and as late as the times of the Persian kings it differs no less than about 160 years from the recognised numbers. The different authorities present few deviations among themselves. They reckon by the years of the world, a mode of reckoning which, as Ideler⁠[309] also considers, most probably was first discovered, and gradually introduced, by the Rabbi Hillel Hanassi, in the year 344 after Christ, simultaneously with the whole of the present arrangement of the year among the Jews. They place the Creation 3761 years before Christ, and till the time of Joseph they agree perfectly with the customary mode of reckoning in the Hebrew text. They fix the Flood 1656 years after Adam; Abraham’s birth 1948; Isaac’s 2048; Jacob’s 2108; Joseph’s 2199; Jacob’s march to Egypt 2238; Joseph’s death 2309. It is only when they come to Moses that they immediately deviate about 210 years, because, following the precedent of Josephus and others, they reckon the 400 years of the sojourn in Egypt from the birth of Isaac, and not from the entrance of Jacob⁠[310]⁠. They fix the birth of Moses at 2368, and his Exodus at 2448 after the Creation.

But this year 2448 of their era corresponds with the year 1314 [-1313] B.C.⁠[311]⁠, and therefore, according to the Manethonic chronology, occurs in the time of King Menephthes, who reigned nineteen years, therefore the same king whom the Egyptian annals called the King of the Exodus. Besides this, the latter tell us of a flight of thirteen years which the king made into Ethiopia. If this flight took place, as it probably did, in the first or second year after the change of government, he must have returned and driven away the lepers in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of his reign. But the year 1314 is exactly the fifteenth year of Menephthes, according to the Manethonic calculation.

This coincidence is certainly striking, but might possibly be only accidental, if other circumstances were not added to it. For instance, the same Jewish chronology places the building of the temple by Solomon, according to the 1 Kings vi. 1, about 480 years after the Exodus, therefore 2928 = 834 B.C., the march of Shishak against Rehoboam 2969 = 793, that of Zerah against Asa 2998 = 764, the banishment of Israel 3205 = 557, the destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar 3338 = 424, Darius (Hystaspes) 3406 = 356, the building of the second Temple 3408 = 354. These, as well as the intervening numbers, which I omit here, are all of them about 165 years too late. But from this place the correct dates are suddenly restored; Alexander of Macedon is placed 3442 = 320, therefore only sixteen years too late; his government of the world, and a march which he is said to have made to Jerusalem, 3448 = 314; his death 3454 = 308, and so forth.

About this time, the Jews being subject to the Syrian government, adopted the Syrian Era of the Seleucidæ, which was called by them the “Era of the Greeks,” or, on account of its being used in civil affairs, “the Era of Contracts.” Its commencement happens, as is well known, in the year 312 before Christ, and we find it adopted in the Book of the Maccabees⁠[312]⁠. This era is also mentioned in the rabbinical chronology, and is quite correctly placed by the more ancient authorities in the year of the world 3450 = 312 B.C.⁠[313] If Ganz⁠[314]⁠, in place of this, gives the year 3448 = 314, it is evidently either an arbitrary change, or perhaps first devised by him for the sake of the exact period of a thousand years between the Exodus (2448) and the new era (3448). This connection that subsisted between the two numbers to form a monarchy of a thousand years’ duration, was not in fact very remote; we should only have expected that the number of the Exodus would rather have been advanced two years, in conformity with the fixed and universally introduced era of the Seleucidæ, and not, on the contrary, that the latter should be sent so far back. But the number 2448 was left standing, which still more indicates a determinate selection of this year, independent of a cyclical or arbitrary arrangement.

There is proof also that the Rabbis did not alter the commencement of the Seleucidic Era, in the circumstance, that it has retained its correct place in chronology, in spite of the universal displacement in the chain of events. According to that displacement, Alexander first began to reign 3442 = 320, and died in 3454 = 308. The beginning of the new era, therefore, according to this, happened in the reign of Alexander himself, who in reality had been dead twenty-one years at the time of the battle of Gaza, which occasioned the new era. In consequence of these contradictions the number was retained, and the event was changed to agree with it, since the introduction of the era of Seleucus was transferred to Alexander, and connected with an account of his presence in Jerusalem, which is otherwise only mentioned by Josephus⁠[315]⁠, and the so-called Barbarus of Scaliger⁠[316]⁠.