On the other hand, it is very improbable that Hillel set to _Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the peninsula of Sinai

Ideler[319] imagines he did. He says “that Hillel evidently started

from the beginning of the Seleucidic Era, which was at that time

still universally employed by the Jews, the autumn of the year B.C.

312. Reckoning from this point backwards, he made the next epoch the

_destruction_ of the first Temple, and placed it only 112 years earlier

than the Seleucidic Era, counting about 150 years too little, so that

he advanced Nebuchadnezzar to the times of Artaxerxes I. Whilst he thus

went back still farther to the building of the first Temple, to the

Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, to the Flood, and to the Creation,

following partly the express statements of time in the Bible, partly his

own explanation of it, he found the beginning of the year, 3450 of the

world, to be the epoch of the _Minjan schtaroth_.” As we said before, it

was perfectly _impossible_ for a scholar of the fourth century to make

such a gross mistake of nearly 160 years at that late period. But it

is easily explained, if we believe that after the great gap in Jewish

literature, which commenced at the conclusion of the Talmud, about the

year 500, and which lasted to the eighth century, the Rabbis had adopted

those few correct chronological periods fixed by Hillel, and now first

undertook to fill up their history of the world, which comprised 5000

years, according to the statements of the Old Testament. In fact, we find

neither in the Talmud, nor even in the first writings of the rabbis,

which succeed the Talmud, _e. g._ in the _Seder Olam Rabah_, one of the

oldest of those writings, the full chronological details, some extracts

of which we have seen above. It appears to have been first completed in

the twelfth century, therefore in the period of a scientific barbarism,

which had been long introduced. It was only necessary to follow the

numbers of the Pentateuch from the Creation to the Flood, and to the

Exodus, in order to obtain the given year 2448 = 1314. The convenient

number 480 years, down to the building of the Temple, in the first Book

of Kings, was afterwards immediately adopted, and the chronology of the

times of the Judges adapted to it. But hereby the historical event next

following was at the same time displaced to about the 160-170 years we

have mentioned, and drew with it the displacement of all the succeeding

events. It first became apparent at the next fixed point, about the year

3450 = 312, that the chain of events was far too long for the stated

interval, from the building of the first to the second Temple. Therefore,

the period from the erection of the second Temple, built under Darius

Hystaspes, to the time of Alexander, to which was given the name of the

Grecian Era[320], was cut down without ceremony from 184 years into 34

years. This raised no obstacle at first, but afterwards occasioned many

difficulties, until these also were got rid of by the simple expedient of

taking Darius II. and III for one and the same person. Only thus can we

explain the peculiar phenomena of an entirely displaced and afterwards

mutilated chronology, in which, however, there appears two fixed points

alone correct, and which afford us at the same time the important, and

probably the most exact, determination of the Exodus by a truly learned

chronologist of the fourth century[321].

Viewing it, therefore, from this side, we return to the opinion, that the

great stumbling-block to the whole of the chronology hitherto adopted

for the Old Testament was the number 480 years, which was calculated as

the period between the Exodus and the building of the Temple mentioned

in the first Book of Kings[322]. As soon as we set this aside, regarding

it only as a supplementary multiple of twelve generations, or segments

of 40 years each, the Hebrew and Egyptian chronologies are no longer

opposed to each other with reference to the time of the Exodus. All the

other intimations we meet with in the Hebrew accounts, and their whole

connection, demand, on the contrary, precisely the same time, which we

find unequivocally stated in the Egyptian annals of Manetho.

The question now is, whether along with this number 480, to which we

can attribute no greater importance than to the simple number _forty_,

so often repeated in the history of Israel at that period, we must also

give up as valueless every other chronological measure of the events

immediately succeeding the Exodus. But this is so little the case, that,

on the contrary, in the true chronological scale which the Mosaic

writings furnish, we find a fresh refutation of the opinions hitherto

adopted, and a confirmation of the Egyptian statements. We look upon the

I am not aware whether these numerous family records have ever been fully

placed under _one_ point of view, and estimated as a whole in their

great chronological significance, in the same way as they have certainly

frequently been used for separate purposes and divisions of time. Such a

survey would very much increase the importance of the separate lists, and

facilitate their application to chronological determinations.

It is well known how in the East at all times, and even to this day, the

wonderful fidelity and completeness, through the memories of perfectly

illiterate and frequently even now nomadic races. The Arabian races are

especially noted for this, and their historical recollections are often

almost entirely limited to this dry register. I have met with many such

pedigrees in the upper districts of the Nile, south of the province

of Dongola, among the Arabs who immigrated there from the west, these

being the only written remains of their past, which inform us of their

immigration and distribution in those districts. But these lists of names

are still more to be depended upon among those nations of antiquity, who,

like the Egyptians and the Hebrews, were a literary people, and were

accustomed to preserve in writing these sacred bequests of individual

families. On the rock of the Kosser-road, in the eastern desert of Egypt,

I found a hieroglyphical inscription belonging to the time shortly

before the first Persian dominion, in which a chief architect of the

country, named Ranumhet, carries back his direct ancestors as far as the

twenty-fourth generation, to an ancestral mother Nofratmu, who, according

to a rough calculation, must have lived about the end of the 19th

Dynasty, therefore about the time of Moses.

But the Israelites particularly, above all the nations of antiquity,

appear to have laid the greatest stress upon the register of

generations, lists of names, and general enumerations of tribes and

generations. The writings of the Old Testament are full of them,

especially all the historical books; and the care and exactitude which

was expended upon the general preparation of these lists, is evident to

the reader. The peculiar destiny of the Israelitish people, firmly bound

together, always separating themselves most rigorously from strangers,

yet frequently transplanted in masses from one country to another, and

settled amidst other nations, enables us perfectly to comprehend this

universal attention to an authentic register of generations. We find

it stated that they were already twice numbered[323] in the desert;

for which purpose the whole people were collected together, and were

entered in the registers of the births “by their generations, after

their families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years

and upwards, and by their polls.” On their return from exile it is

particularly observed that some of the wanderers could not trace their

genealogy[324]. Among these were several priests’ families, of whom it

is said, “These sought the register of their generations, but it was not

found, and, therefore, they were _rejected_ from the priesthood[325].” It

follows from this that the priests of the tribe of Levi were obliged by

law to preserve and continue the register of their generations. This law

must naturally only have existed since the Exodus, and, therefore, when

Josephus[326] asserts that the High priests possessed written registers

of their generations, as far back as 2000 years, this is, indeed,

connected with his opinion about the early epoch of the Exodus; it shows,

however, that they were brought down to his time, which is, indeed, also

confirmed by the register of the generations of Jesus Christ[327].

We need no further justification, therefore, for placing great value

upon the successive generations, and for discovering in them the _true

chronological thread_ for those times during which more exact reliable

statements are wanting. We fortunately possess a whole array of

genealogies for the period between the Exodus and the building of the

Temple; and, indeed, principally generations of priests, which go back as

far as Levi, and are, therefore, from the reasons we have stated above,

the most to be depended upon. Altogether, _five_ different generations of

the Levites may be distinguished; some obscurities have crept into our

text, which probably happened at the time it assumed its present form,

since they are found also in the Septuagint; it seems, however, that they

may easily be removed[328].

The following is a survey of the principal genealogies, in which the

_Levitical generations_ preserve the order in which they are cited,

1 Chron. vii.[329] This is preceded by the genealogical succession,

according to Josephus, from _Levi_ to _Zadok_, and by his series of

_High priests_ from _Aaron_ to _Zadok_. Lastly, there follows a table of

the generations of _Judah_. On the other hand, we have excluded other

genealogies; _e. g._ the three of _Ephraim_; Num. xxvi. 35; 1 Chron. vii.

20, 21, 24-27[330]; because they are evidently confused, and lead to no

result[331].

THE GENERATIONS OF THE JEWS FROM ABRAHAM TO DAVID.

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

| The Heads of the People | The Succession of the | The Ancestors of|

| from Abraham to David. | High Priests to Zadok, | Zadok, according|

| | according to Josephus, | to Josephus, |

| | A. J. 5, 11, 5. | A. J. 8, 1, 3. |

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

| 1. Abraham 100 or 30| | |

| 2. Isaac 100 30| | |

| --- | | |

| 200 | | |

| 3. Jacob 100 30| | |

| --| | |

| 90| | |

| | | |

| 1. Levi 100 30| | 1. Λευί. |

| 2. Kohath 100 30| | 2. Κάαθος. |

| 3. Amram 100 30| | 3. Ἀμαράμης. |

| --- --| | |

| 400 90| | |

| | | |

| 1. Moses 40 | 1. Ἀαρών 30| 1. Ἀαρών 30|

| 2. Joshua 40 | 2. Ἐλεαζάρης 30| 2. Ἐλεαζάρης 30|

| 3. Othniel 40 | 3. Φινεέσης 30| 3. Φινεέσης 30|

| 4. Ehud 40 | 4. Ἀβιεζέρης 30| 4. Ἰώσηπος 30|

| 5. Shamgar 40 | 5. Βουκί 30| 5. Βοκκίας 30|

| 6. Barak 40 | 6. Ὅζις 30| 6. Ἰώθαμος 30|

| 7. Gideon 40 | 7. Ἠλεί 30| 7. Μαραίωθος 30|

| 8. Jephthah 40 | 8. (Φινεέσης) 30| 8. Ἀροφαῖος 30|

| 9. Samson 40 | 9. Ἰοχάβης 30| 9. Ἀχίτωβος 30|

|10. Eli 40 |10. Ἀχιμέλεχος = Ἀχίας 30|10. Σάδωκος 30|

|11. Samuel Saul 40 |11. Ἁβιάθαρος with 30| |

|12. David 40 | Σάδωκος | |

| --- | ---| ---|

| 480 | 330| 300|

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

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

| I. | II. | III. |

| | | |

| The Generation |The Generation of|The Generation of|

| of Aaron. | Gershom-Libni. |Kohath-Amminadab.|

| 1 Chron. vii. |1 Chron. vii. 20,| 1 Chron. vii. |

| 1-9, 50-53. | 21. ( = VIII.) | 22-24. ( = VI.) |

| Ezra vii. 2-5. | | |

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

| 1. Levi | 1. Levi | 1. [Levi] |

| 2. Kohath | 2. Gershom | 2. Kohath |

| 3. Amram | 3. Libni | 3. Amminadab |

| | | |

| 1. _Aaron_ 30| 1. (Jahath) | 1. Korah 30|

| 2. _Eleazar_ 30| 2. Zimmah | 2. Assir 30|

| 3. _Phinehas_ 30| 3. Joah | 3. Elkanah 30|

| 4. _Abishua_ 30| 4. Iddo | 4. Ebiasaph 30|

| 5. _Bukki_ 30| 5. Zerah | 5. Assir 30|

| 6. _Uzzi_ 30| 6. Jeaterai | 6. Tahath 30|

| 7. Zerahiah 30| | 7. Uriel 30|

| 8. Meraioth 30| | 8. Uzziah 30|

| 9. Amariah 30| | 9. Saul 30|

|10. Ahitub 30| |10. (Jonathan) 30|

|11. _Zadok_ 30| | |

| ---| | ---|

| 330| | 300|

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

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

| IV. | V. | VI. VII. |

| | | |

| The | The | The Ancestors of Heman |

| 25-28.( = VII.) | vii. 29-30. | 36-38. (= III.)| 33-36. (= IV.)|

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

| | | | |

| ---| | ---| ---|

| 300| | 300| 300|

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

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

| VIII. | IX. | |

| | | |

| The Ancestors of | The Ancestors of | The Ancestors of |

| Asaph from Jahath, | Ethan from Mushi. | David from Judah. |

|1 Chron. vii. 39-43.|1 Chron. vii. 44-17.| Ruth iv. 18. 1 Chron. |

| (= II.) | |ii. 4-13. Gos. Matth. i.|

| | | 3-6. Luke iii. 32, 33. |

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

| 1. Levi | 1. Levi | 1. Judah |

| 2. Gershom | 2. Merari | |

| 3. (Jahath) | 3. Mushi | 2. Pharez |

| | | |

| 1. Shimei 30| 1. Mahli 30| 1. Hezron 30|

| 2. Zimmah 30| 2. Shamer 30| 2. Ram 30|

| 3. Ethan 30| 3. Bani 30| 3. Amminadab 30|

| 4. Adaiah 30| 4. Amzi 30| 4. Nahshon 30|

| 5. Zerah 30| 5. Hilkiah 30| 5. Salmon 30|

| 6. Ethni 30| 6. Amaziah 30| 6. Boaz 30|

| 7. Malchiah 30| 7. Hashabiah 30| 7. Obed 30|

| 8. Baaseiah 30| 8. Malluch 30| 8. Jesse 30|

| 9. Michael 30| 9. Abdi 30| 9. David 30|

|10. Shimea 30|10. Kishi 30| |

|11. Berachiah 30|11. Ethan 30| |

|12. Asaph 30| | |

| ---| ---| ---|

| 360| 330| 270|

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

The first column contains after the patriarchs from Abraham to Amram,

the 12 heads of the people, commencing with Moses, who appear to have

been regarded as the representations of 12 generations of 40 years each,

and thence to have occasioned the calculation of 480 years. Ewald[332],

as well as Bertheau[333], gives another list, because, on the whole,

the subject admits of no exactitude; the common acknowledgment of

the division of the period into twelve parts is alone of importance

to us. But one (VIII.) of the genealogies we have quoted (1 Chron.

vii. 39-43[334]) contains twelve generations of _one and the same

family_[335]. It is possible, therefore, that this succession, rather

than that uncertain division, gave occasion to the 480 years. It was,

besides, distinguished from the others by being continued through

_Gershom_, the _First-born of Levi_. But the _principal lineage_ of the

Levites was that of the high priests, who were descended from Aaron and

Kohath (I.); this contains, as well as that of Mushi (IX.), only 11

generations. This might therefore be the reason why the Seventy only

reckoned 440 years[336].

In the Chronicles the _second_ succession of Levites is closely connected

with the third[337]. But in the Hebrew as well as in the Greek text

a distinct pause is made at verse 22, after _Jeaterai_. The author

begins again: “_The son of Kohath; Amminadab, his son; Korah, his

son_[338];” and so on. The Seventy even write the plural υἱοὶ Καάθ. A

new succession therefore undoubtedly begins here, and we must consider

the portion from Gershom to Jeaterai as an incomplete genealogy inserted

here, which evidently runs parallel to the first part of our _eighth_

Levitical series[339]. _Kohath_, who succeeds Jeaterai, was also a son

of _Levi_, and the names which follow, clearly show that it ought to

be the same series as our _sixth_. That the third and sixth series are

really identical follows from the name of the grandson of Kohath being

_Korah_, which recurs in both, and also from the three successive names,

_Ebiasaph_, _Assir_, _Tahath_, also recurring. The eighth name, Uzziah,

is also undoubtedly the same name as Azariah in the other text; for the

very same change of both names is again found afterwards in the King

of Judah, the son of Amaziah, who is called Azariah eight times in the

same chapter (2 Kings xv.) and is afterwards three times called by his

usual name, Uzziah[340]. I have not, therefore, hesitated to fill up the

two names of Assir and Elkanah which were wanting after Korah[341] in

the _sixth_ series, as the _third_ series is, on the whole, most to be

depended on. It has undoubtedly been retained on account of the last name

of _Saul_, whom we must consider to be no other than _King_ Saul, whose

generation indeed is usually (1 Sam. ix. 1) carried back through Kish and

Aphiah, with an interruption, to Benjamin, but here again also presents

difficulties and appears in general to have been disputed.

But the _sixth_ series does not conclude in the Chronicles with _Joel_,

but is continued into our _seventh_, and no text appears to indicate

that there is a pause. Yet the correctness of our division here also,

will hardly be found doubtful. It would be quite impossible to believe

that among six genealogies one alone could have been _as long again_

as all the others; for if we omitted the two restored members of the

sixth series, we should still retain nineteen members in place of ten

or eleven, as in the other genealogies. We should therefore still feel

obliged to believe there was a mistake, even though unable to point it

out. But, upon a further investigation, it explains itself.

It is very apparent that we have the same genealogies in the _fourth_

series as in the _seventh_, although there appears to be several

deviations in the manner the names are written, and in some passages

completely different names. Let us now see how the _fourth_ series is

introduced in the Chronicles. The first part of the seventh chapter (in

the Hebrew text made the sixth) brings prominently forward, apart from

the other genealogies, that of the generations of the high priests, which

goes back through Aaron, Amram, and Kohath, to Levi. The generations

of the other Levites are afterwards designated, and indeed in _two_

divisions. The _first_ proceeds from the _first-born_ of the sons of

Levi, in which, nevertheless, in the race of Kohath, _Amram_ has already

been removed from the series, and _Amminadab_, _i. e._ _Izhar_, takes

his place; the _second_ goes upwards from the three songsters of David,

Heman, Assaph, and Ethan, as far back as the grandchildren of Levi. The

ancestors of _Heman_ come first, because a _first-born grandson_ of

Levi stands at the head, _Izhar_, _i. e._ _Amminadab_, whose generation

was therefore already mentioned among those of the first-born grandsons

(III.). The ancestors of _Assaph_ and of _Ethan_ succeed, because

later-born grandsons of Levi stand at the head, who are again arranged in

the succession of the sons of Levi.

There is here a strict and duly considered rule, which is made evident by

the following survey:

LEVI.

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

| | | |

1. _Gershom._ 2. _Kohath._ 3. _Elkanah._ 4. _Merari._

| | | |

| I. 1. Amram. | |

| | | |

| 1. Aaron. 2. Moses. | |

| | |

| III. } | |

II. 1. Libni. VI. } 2. Amminadab-Izhar. | |

| |

IV. } | |

VIII. 2. Jahath-Shimei. 3. Hebron. VII. } 1. Amasai. V. 1. Mahli.

4. Uzziah.

2. Ahimoth. IX. 2. Mushi.

This certainty presupposes what has been already assumed here, that

_Elkanah_ was a _son of Levi_, and, indeed, the THIRD son, although in

former passages he is not cited as among the sons of Levi. Little is

proved by this omission, for there are many such cases, and in this very

chapter, v. 43, _Jahath_ is called a son of _Gershom_, although in v. 17

he is not cited among the sons of Gershom[342]. In such cases, certainly,

the conjecture still remains which we admitted above, p. 464, in the

case of Jahath, that one name has been _substituted_ for another, as,

without doubt, occurs in many cases; and therefore some might prefer

here to suppose _Elkanah_ the same person as _Kohath_, Zuph (VII.) as a

later Elkanah (IV.), Toah (VII.) as Nahath (IV.), Azariah (VI.) as Uzziah

(III.), Joel (VII.) as Vashni (IV.), Laadan as Libni, &c. However, this

seems very improbable here. In the chapter we allude to the children of

Gershom-Libni are first stated in the series of the first-born, then

the children of Kohath-Amminadab, then the children of Elkanah-Amasai,

lastly the children of Merari-Mahli. Elkanah is, therefore, evidently

also placed between _Kohath_ and _Merari_, as one of the _first-born_.

If _Elkanah_, the head of this family, were no other than the _Elkanah_

previously mentioned in v. 23, the son of _Assir_, this whole genealogy

would not belong here, which is evident from the arrangement we have

given above.

But the same arrangement proves that the first part of the genealogy of

_Heman_, our _sixth_ series[343], concludes with the same _Joel_ who in

the second part in our _seventh_ series appears as the father of _Heman_;

that, consequently, we have to complete the end of the _sixth_ series

with the name of Heman again; in short, that we have before us, in place

of one of double length, _two_ single genealogies of _Heman_, which

spring from his father by different grandfathers[344].

So much for the generations of Levi from the Hebrew text. With respect to

the genealogical succession from Levi to Zadok, according to Josephus, it

corresponds with our first Levitical series, but does not entirely agree

with it. According to Josephus, the generations belonging here would be

as follows:

Ἀαρών.

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

| |

1. Ἐλεαζάρης. Ἰθάμαρος.

2. Φινεέσης. |

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

| |

Ἰώσηπος. 3. Ἀβιεζέρης. |

Βοκκίας. 4. Βουκί. |

Ἰώθαμος. 5. Ὄζις. |

(Meraioth =) Μαραίωθος. 6. Ἠλεί.

Ἀροφαῖος. Φινεέσης.

(Ahitub =) Ἀχίτωβος. 7. Ἰοχάβης.

10. Σάδωκος. 8. Ἀχιμέλεχος.

9. Ἀβιάθαρος.

But the Hebrew series is not only supported by three passages, but it

has also more internal probability than that of Josephus. For Βοκκίας

and Βουκί seem to differ but little, and since Zadok and Abiathar are

cotemporary, a name appears to be wanting in the series of Σάδωκος, which

is given in the Hebrew series[345].

In our series of the successions of the _High priests_ φινεέσης is an

interposition, because the pontificate passed immediately from Eli to his

grandson.

The genealogy of _Judah_, which we have added, is at the same time the

table of the generation of _David_. It is the shortest of all, but ought

not therefore to be regarded with suspicion. We must place _Hezron_

equal with _Moses_, although only _one generation_ is given between

him and Judah, for it is said of him (1 Chron. ii. 24) that he died at

Caleb-Ephratah, therefore after the entrance into Palestine, and that

his wife, Abiah, had a son after his death. Therefore there only remains

_Judah_ and _Pharez_ for the Egyptian time. This need not surprise us,

since _Pharez_ was only born to _Judah_ by _Thamar_ after she had been

already the wife of his sons; _Pharez_ is, therefore, both the son and

the _grandson_ of _Judah_. There remain nine generations for the period

from the Exodus to the building of the Temple; but here, also, we know at

least concerning the last name, _David_, that he was the _seventh_ son of

his father.

If we now review the collected series of our table, we find among them

_eight_ different and complete series, namely, besides six tribes of

Levi, the tribe of _Judah_, and the series of the High priests. Of these,

_one_ contains 12 names, _three_ of them 11, _three_ 10, and _one_ 9.

This gives as a mean number exactly ten and a half generations.

If we inquire the mean number for the years of a generation, we must not

think of the Hebrew number 40. It is evidently too high a number, and

was only sometimes conferred by the Hebrews on the generations, because

it had been long used by them for undetermined quantities as a round and

sacred number.

The 33⅓rd years also of the Egyptian generations, according to Herodotus

(ii. 142), was rather a subdivision of the _century_ than a calculation

of the real succession of generations. The longest series, from which we

could obtain a mean number, are the _series of kings_. But we can obtain

no scale even from them. The kings of Judah only reigned on an average

nineteen years, those of Israel only twelve years. Successions of reigns

are, however, always shorter than generations, and in Judah seven out

of twenty kings were killed, or expelled; in Israel, fully half out of

twenty. We shall therefore approach much nearer the truth if we adopt the

_Greek_ acceptation[346] of thirty years for a generation, in which we

only follow most of the modern scholars.

Admitting this, ten or eleven generations would amount to 300 or 330

years, and if we place _Solomon_ about the year 1000, the genealogies

would lead us to 1300 or 1330 years before Christ, which most perfectly

agrees with our earlier results, since, according to Manetho, we believe

we ought to place _Menephthes_ 1328-1309. The _Rabbinical_ date of the

Exodus is B.C. 1314, exactly between 1300 and 1330, upon which of course

no more importance is to be laid than is allowable by the indeterminate

factors of the calculation. At any rate the whole discussion leads to

this, that the _genealogies_, the only trustworthy although less exact

chronological thread of those Hebrew times, speak as decidedly against

the calculation hitherto adopted of 480 years, as in favour of our

calculation of, about, 300 years. This agreement appears to me of the

greatest importance in judging both the Egyptian as well as the Jewish

history.

But if, finally, we look at the numbers in the Book of Judges, we have

already seen that, according to the usual mode of reckoning, they are

by no means found to agree immediately with any other chronological

acceptation; still the chronological character of many separate numbers

cannot be mistaken, and we may at least expect that, from our point of

view also, a simple solution must present itself, which would release

the statements of numbers in the Book of Judges from the contradictions

in which, as hitherto interpreted, they have stood with the Manethonic

chronology.

On the other hand, it is very improbable that Hillel set to work as