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].
But the question is, how we can reconcile the remarkable displacement
of events with the true numbers? IDELER has shown that we must refer
the first establishment of the era of the world, and consequently the
foundation of the whole chronological system that we are considering,
to the author of the Moleds, or new moons, and particularly of the late
Jewish calendars, therefore to the Rabbi Hillel, in the first half of
the fourth century. In the time of Eusebius, and Theon of Alexandria,
people could not possibly be so completely ignorant of the history of
the last centuries before Christ, as the rabbinical chronology supposed.
It was least to be believed of such a learned mathematician, astronomer,
and chronologist, as we imagine the reformer of the Jewish calendar to
have been, who founded it upon the nineteenth-yeared cycle of Meton and
Calippus[317].
It appears to me, therefore, that the following acceptation is alone
possible, which I would at least recommend to the closer examination of
well-versed labourers in Jewish antiquities. The Talmud contains very
few chronological dates, and nothing justifies us in the belief that the
learned HILLEL had already given a chronological view of the events, as
we afterwards find them. But he must have necessarily had some resting
points for his technical chronological works, if he desired to connect
his present with the past, and even with the Creation. It could not have
been difficult to find these resting points at that time, so soon after
Africanus; the best authorities were still open to him. But the Exodus
from Egypt must have been his most important point, for previous to that
event the numbers in the Pentateuch were clear, and without mistakes.
It was only necessary for him to decide between the two different views
concerning the period between Jacob and Moses. The numbers after the
Exodus were much more uncertain, as the calculations of Josephus have
already proved. On the other hand, the well-known era of the Seleucidæ,
which was at that time still in use, naturally formed another fixed point
which he could not avoid. Under these circumstances, every clever and
mathematically educated chronologist, would be compelled to connect the
date of the Exodus with the only certain and astronomically verified
Egyptian chronology. If the ERA of KING MENEPHTHES, and the exact
year of its commencement was familiar to the mathematician, Theon of
Alexandria, who lived at a later period, must it not have been equally
well known to the astronomer Hillel? But nothing more was necessary to
determine the date of the _Exodus_, which took place _under the same King
Menephthes_[318].
We should not therefore be surprised to see, even at that time, the
perfectly correct acceptation of the year 2448 for the Exodus. It was,
at all events, impossible to determine the year of the Creation without
having obtained the two periods of the Seleucidic Era, and of the Exodus.