These are all features of the Egyptian narrative, which plac_Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the peninsula of Sinai

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. | |

| +--------+--------+ | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | |

| Y. M. | Y. M.| | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|(5) | | | |

| καὶ Ῥαμέσσης | (59 _l._) | | |

| | | | |

| | | (61 _l._) | Miamun |

| | | | |

| | | | |

+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------------+

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.

These are all features of the Egyptian narrative, which place beyond