arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph[363].” Sethôsis
had reigned more than fifty years, and Joseph must have lived in the
first part of his reign. It is therefore conceivable that the new King
Ramses II. knew nothing more of him, or wished to know nothing more, and
therefore might not on his (Joseph’s) account have favoured the rapidly
increasing population of the Israelites in Egypt. We therefore see that
it was incorrect to explain the words of the account, which are only
correct when taken in their simplest signification, that a _new king_
arose—by understanding that by this the commencement of a new royal house
is intended after a long and indefinite period. The birth of Moses, and
his education at the court of Pharaoh, happened under this King Ramses
II., and indeed in the latter part of his reign of sixty-six years,
in which the times of Joseph were still more forgotten, and the hard
oppressions and persecutions of the Jews prevailed. This king, although
of a Theban family, resided equally, and perhaps in those times, even
more at Memphis than at Thebes, as the later Saitic, Bubastic, and other
dynasties also by no means forsook the old palace in Memphis. There
exists, therefore, no grounds for imagining the youth of Moses to have
been spent at Thebes rather than at Memphis.
But when Moses had slain the Egyptian, he fled to Midian. “And it came to
pass in process of time, that the _King of Egypt died_; and the children
of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage[364].” The _third_ king,
therefore, succeeded the Pharaoh of the Exodus, MENEPHTHES, the son of
the great Ramses, the same under whom, as we believe we have pointed
out, the Exodus really happened, and from whom the new Sothis period,
which began in his reign, likewise received its name.
If, in the same manner, we go still farther back in the Hebrew accounts
from Joseph to Abraham, we find this period also only occupied by
three generations, which would fix it, according to the views we have
exhibited, to about 90 or 100 years.
According to the chronology hitherto adopted, ABRAHAM’S visit to Egypt
would also have happened in the TIME of the HYKSOS. But this is partly
opposed by the same objections which we mentioned when speaking of the
immigration of Jacob. Abraham also comes to the court of a Pharaoh,
therefore of a native Egyptian ruler, and, in accordance with the
Manethonic chronology, the visit of Abraham would have happened under
Tuthmosis IV. or Amenophis III., therefore in the middle of the 18th
Dynasty, after the Hyksos had been already expelled by the 17th Dynasty,
first into the lowest country of the Delta, and then from their last
fortress, Abaris.
Therefore only about 200 years had passed between Abraham’s journey into
Egypt and the time of the Exodus. But what gave _occasion_ to the number
_four hundred and thirty years_, so expressly stated in Exodus xii. 40,
and which appears, in comparison with the round statement of 400 years in
Gen. xv. 13, as more exact, and, at all events, not an unmeaning number?
We have already expressed our opinion that the round and indeterminate
numbers, as well as the larger calculations, were only adopted at a
later period in the writings of the Old Testament. The number 480 or
440 years between the Exodus and the building of the Temple appeared
to us to depend upon a calculation of 12 or 11 generations of 40 years
each. But in the 430 years may, perhaps, lie the first indication of
the early-conceived idea mentioned above, that the Israelites were the
Hyksos. For the number would, in fact, be most perfectly explained if it
was referred to the residence of these Semitic races in Egypt.
We shall, namely, point out, in the second part of the chronology, that
the long contest between the Egyptians and the Hyksos, mentioned by
Manetho, occurred during the 17th Dynasty from AMOSIS to TUTHMOSIS III.
The former completely broke the foreign dominion, and drove back the
Hyksos to the northern part of the Delta; but it was Tuthmosis who first
succeeded in sending them out of their last stronghold of refuge, Abaris.
Thence arose the confusion that has so generally prevailed concerning
these two kings. The one as much as the other might be regarded as
the conqueror of the Hyksos. Manetho specified the whole time of the
residence of the Hyksos in Egypt, up to their departure from Abaris, to
be 511 years. But it must also have appeared from his narrative, and
have been a fact specially known to the priests from their history, that
the real dominion of the Hyksos in Egypt was terminated by Amosis. If
we now subtract the time from Amosis to Tuthmosis, which was 80 years,
from 511[365], exactly _four hundred and thirty years_ remain for the
dominion of the Hyksos in Egypt[366]. If, therefore, in the present
day, the opinion can in any way be maintained and defended that Abraham
(or Jacob) was King Salatis, and entered Egypt not as a petitioner,
but as a powerful and conquering enemy, and that his seed was first
conquered and driven away in the time of Moses by the native kings,
the relation of the above-mentioned numbers would certainly appear as
one of the most important proofs of it. It cannot, however, be argued
that an admission which appears, according to our present criticism,
perfectly impossible, must have appeared equally so in ancient times.
An impartial apprehension of the present, and a faithful rendering of
the past, was the vocation of an ancient annalist or historian; it is
only thus that they are of importance and worthy of consideration in
our inquiry. Criticism was completely out of their sphere, historical
as well as philological; and when, nevertheless, we do meet with it, it
is generally very unsatisfactory, and even from the most distinguished
writers, astonishingly feeble. The school of professional Alexandrian
critics is by no means excepted. We find the most striking examples of
this, particularly in the Christian chronologists, who were not wanting
either in abundance of authorities, nor in extensive learning and honest
intentions. But we have actually seen, from the example of Josephus, as
well as from earlier and later authors, how the opinion above mentioned,
of the identity of the Hyksos with the Jews, really gained admittance
from various very superficial foundations, and yet Josephus belonged
undoubtedly to the most learned antiquarians who we can place under
our observation here. We ought not, therefore, to be surprised even if
we find this view again stated at an earlier period in the arrangement
and combinations of the Hebrew historical books; and this appears, in
fact, to be very probable, by the number 430 years, which can neither be
applied to the three generations of Jacob, nor to the six from Abraham to
Moses.
The calculation also verifies itself still further. It was an early
opinion that Joseph came to Egypt in the reign of the shepherd King
_Aphophis_. This is expressly said by Eusebius and Syncellus; and the
various changes in the position of Aphophis, who is differently placed
both by Josephus and Africanus, appear, upon a closer investigation,
always to originate from the same reason, namely, in order to place
Joseph under Aphophis. The correct position of Aphophis, according to
Manetho, was undoubtedly at the end of the 16th Dynasty, as we find it
stated by Africanus[367]. Joseph stood, according to the generations,
exactly between Abraham and Moses. According to the Egyptian chronology,
the first Dynasty of the Hyksos reigned 259 years, the second 251
years, therefore Aphophis, the last king of the 1st Dynasty, reigned
in the middle of the time of the Hyksos. This was probably the first
idea which supported the opinion of the exact division of the 430 years
into two equal halves, and the belief that Jacob came to Egypt in the
time of Aphophis. Jacob’s entrance, or the end of the first 215 years,
accordingly happened in the seventeenth year of the Aphophis; Joseph
was exalted by Pharaoh 9 years earlier, therefore in the eighth year of
Aphophis.
But the correct Egyptian statement, that the Hyksos first departed in
the reign of Tuthmosis, had been already misunderstood in the time of
Josephus. He placed the Exodus of the Hyksos and of the Jews under
Amosis, and made the whole 17th Dynasty of 251 years precede Amosis. It
was impossible, therefore, that he could place Joseph under Aphophis.
He could as little make the entrance of Abraham happen at the same time
as that of the Hyksos, for he gave 511 years for the residence of the
Hyksos, 430 for that of the Jews. But he nowhere says either that the
Jews entered with the Hyksos, as they departed with them, or that Jacob
or Josephus came to Egypt in the reign of Aphophis. He appears rather
to have believed that the _first_ and not the _second_ entrance of the
Jews into Egypt, therefore the entrance of Abraham happened in the time
of _Aphophis_; and thus that the tradition, which was no doubt known
to him, was so to be understood. He must, at least, have thought that
the entrance of Abraham really took place in the first Hyksos Dynasty,
although, indeed, not under the _last_, but under the _fourth_ king.
According to my opinion, this was the reason why Josephus made Aphophis
the _fourth_ king of the Dynasty.
Africanus, the most faithful among the reporters, did not admit all these
calculations, or seek to explain the Manethonic calculation, and to make
it agree with his own, but let the contradictions stand, and therefore
simply gave the Manethonic tradition, even when he did not understand it,
and could not correct the mistakes which were handed down to him. We
therefore find the correct position of Aphophis retained by him.
Eusebius on the other hand, and his uncertain authorities, again wished
to mediate and to explain. In his account we find the first year of
the 16th Dynasty placed contemporaneous with the first year of the
life of Abraham, which is evidently an arbitrary proceeding, and one
that necessarily drew other changes along with it, which are met with
plentifully in the numbers substituted for those of Manetho. His 17th
Dynasty names the four first kings of the Manethonic 16th Dynasty, and
Amosis follows immediately after. In order to fit in again with the later
history, it was necessary to abridge considerably the 16th and 17th
Dynasties. The numbers of Eusebius, as they appear in the Canon, clearly
state that he only counted seventy-five years from the first year of
Abraham to his entrance into Canaan and Egypt, and again 430 years from
that time to the Exodus of Moses. This happened, therefore, in the last
year of Χενχέρης. The same is given in the codex A of Syncellus, p. 72,
D. If we here again calculate 215 years to the entrance of Jacob, or 224
to the exaltation of Joseph, we arrive at his reign of APHOPHIS, as was
intended. But in codex B, and in the Armenian translation, the two kings,
Athoris and Chencheres, who are correctly placed in the Eusebian Canon,
are omitted, and undoubtedly by the oversight of Eusebius himself, not
of Syncellus. Thence the Exodus was placed in the reign of Achencheres,
in place of Chencheres. The similarity in the names themselves appears
to have led to the oversight; thus Syncellus found the text. Now, if
we count back from Achencheres 215 or 224 years, we come to Archles,
the predecessor of _Aphophis_. Syncellus knew of no better way than to
transpose Archles and Aphophis, as we find to be really the case in his
text of Eusebius, p. 62, A; this of course can no longer be reconciled
with the emendations of the codex A, which were added in a later passage
out of Eusebius. No doubt seems to be left by this explanation of the
numbers.
Lastly, Syncellus, who follows the false Sothis, places the Exodus in the
last year of MISPHRAGMUTHOSIS, calculates from here backwards 215 years,
and passing over the 2nd Hyksos Dynasty, which Sothis and Eusebius had
already placed before the 1st Hyksos Dynasty, arrives at the fourth king
of the latter. Therefore, as in Josephus, Aphophis is placed there.
All these circumstances are easily explained when the aim and the issue
of the matter is known. But the original grounds why Aphophis, the last
king of the 1st Manethonic Hyksos Dynasty, was regarded as the Pharaoh of
Joseph and Jacob, is alone apparent by the simple relation which we have
found subsisting between the Hebrew and the Manethonic numbers.
I do not believe that a sound critical examination can consider so many
and such universal agreements and confirmations to be accidental, or
the result of an artificial correction, which, at all events, would of
necessity be easily pointed out, the more so as, with the exception of a
few individual points, my restoration of the Manethonic chronology was
principally determined before my journey to Egypt.
We therefore believe, that by means of a new path, namely, the Manethonic
chronology, we have found the key to the relative portions of time
in the Old Testament, so far as these are connected with Egypt; and
in an inverse manner we may now consider the agreement that subsists
between the chronology of the Hebrew history (both the true chronology
represented in the genealogies, and the false one, which was afterwards
erroneously adopted) and the Egyptian numbers upon which the chronology
was originally founded, to be indeed strongly confirmatory of the
authenticity of these last, as they appear according to our restoration
of them.
It is very evident that our carrying back the Old Testament chronology
to its natural relations, as far back as Abraham, must be not merely
of chronological, but of truly historical importance in the highest
meaning of the term. The prolongation to above a hundred years, contrary
to all historical experience, of the thirty-yeared generations of the
immediate ancestors of Moses, who lived in the midst of the Egyptians,
the length of whose lives was exactly like our own, must either appear
an intentional miracle, or make us doubt the simple historical reality
of the persons themselves, and of the events concerning them. The
superhuman duration of life, considered as a miracle, would appear to
be entirely without a purpose; besides, in the Old Testament itself it
is never viewed as such. The Psalmist[368], on the contrary, considered
as we do, a life of eighty years as a great age. Therefore the most
distinguished, and most earnest inquirers of the present day were led to
the opinion, evidently from the numbers, that the history of the three
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was less strictly historical, but
only brought before the reader, as it were, three representations of long
epochs of about a century each[369]. It was likewise necessary to regard
the register of generations in the time of the Judges as defective,
and extremely shortened, because in no other manner could they fill up
the long period of 480 years. In order to make this abbreviation more
probable, the genealogy of _Haman_ was referred to as the only one which
was preserved perfect[370], while we, on the contrary, consider it a
double one.
Now according to our view of the subject, this apparently so well-founded
doubt of the real continuity of the events, and of the historical
character of the contents, in as far as they depend upon the chronology,
entirely disappears, and I see no longer any reason to consider the
accounts of the great personality of Abraham, of the non-prominent
activity of Isaac, the opulent life of Jacob, and the remarkable fate
of Joseph, chiefly as typical, and as it were only slightly connected
with the historical reality[371]. For although we must still make a
considerable difference between the character of the history of Israel
before and after the building of the temple, yet it cannot be denied that
the agreement we have pointed out between the true chronological thread,
as it is represented to us by the genealogies, and the Egyptian history,
as well as the confirmation of so many notices respecting Egypt, from the
time of Moses and Joseph, establish a far greater _historical_ character
for the Hebrew accounts, as far back as Abraham, than would have ever
been allowed them by a strict criticism, had we been obliged to ascribe
to the old authorities themselves the numbers which were inserted at a
later period.
[After some notice concerning the times before Abraham, the author
concludes this section as follows:]
If, however, our entire view of the Old Testament chronology, regarding
it as founded upon accurately preserved dates, only so far back as the
separation of the kingdom, but nevertheless attached from that epoch up
to the time of Abraham to an evidently authentic thread of historically
reliable genealogies, offering, however, before the Egyptian period,
only cyclical instead of historical numbers and genealogies, and mainly
confined to Babylonian sources and traditions—if, I say, this general
view of the character of the chronological data which leaves untouched
the significance of their contents, should, on theological grounds,
arouse scruples in the mind of any one, I would refer him to the
introduction which Bunsen has prefixed to the third section of his first
book on Egypt, as full of talent as of meaning, and from which I would
more especially extract the following passages[372].
“Whoever adopts as a principle that chronology is a matter of revelation,
is precluded from giving effect to any doubt that may cross his path, as
involving a virtual abandonment of his faith in revelation. He must be
prepared, not only to deny the existence of contradictory statements,
but to fill up chasms; however irreconcileable the former may appear by
any aid of philology and history, however unfathomable the latter. He
who, on the other hand, neither believes in an historical tradition as to
the eternal existence of man, nor admits an historical and chronological
element in revelation, will either contemptuously dismiss the inquiry,
or, by prematurely rejecting its more difficult elements, fail to
discover those threads of the research which lie beneath the unsightly
and time-worn surface, and which yet may prove the thread of Ariadne.
“The assumption that it entered into the scheme of Divine Providence
either to preserve for us a chronology of the Jews and their forefathers
by real tradition, or to provide the later commentators with magic
powers, in respect to the most exoteric element of history, may seem
indispensable to some, and absurd to others. Historical inquiry has
nothing whatever to do with such idle, preposterous, and often fallacious
assumptions. Its business is to see whether anything—and if so, what—has
been transmitted to us. If it fulfil this duty in a spirit of reverence
as well as of liberty, sooner or later it will obtain the prize, which,
if the history of the last 2000 years prove anything at all, Providence
has refused to both the other systems.”
[After the two first sections of _The Criticism upon the Authorities_,
of which the first, upon Herodotus and Diodorus, has been omitted in
this translation, while the second, upon the Hebrew tradition, has been
strongly dwelt upon, the author proceeds to the third and last section,
which treats of the historical works of Manetho and the authorities
which refer to him. Now, although this section contains the really
critical restoration of the Manethonic chronology, considered by the
author as the only one to be relied on in its general features, it has
not been considered compatible with the object of the present work to
communicate at full length this difficult research, which was only
written for the profound investigator. We think it sufficient to give the
two passages in which the whole extent of the Manethonic history, down
to the second Persian conquest, according to a statement obtained from
Manetho himself, is said to amount to 3555 years, and the connection is
pointed out between this time, considered as strictly historical, and the
cyclically discovered History of the Gods.]
The number 3555 is, however, alone essential and important, and, in
spite of all the uncertainties and revisings of the text, there cannot
be the slightest doubt about it. It led undoubtedly to the termination
of the reign of Nectanebus II. If we can, therefore, determine this end
in other more certain ways, we need no longer trouble ourselves about
the calculation of Syncellus; since this, as every one allows, is, at
all events, incorrect. But it cannot be doubted that Manetho knew, and
correctly stated, the true year of the conquest of Egypt by Ochus, which
very likely happened during his lifetime.
The calculation of this concluding year has, however, been so fully and
convincingly proved by Böckh (p. 125-133), that I consider it would be
superfluous to return to it again. I assume with him that _the year 340_
B.C. is perfectly ascertained to be _the concluding year of the Egyptian
dominion_. Calculating back from this stated terminating point 3555
Egyptian or 3553 Julian years, we come to the _year 3893 before Christ,
as the first of Menes_. We consider this to be established as perfectly
historical, in as far as the Manethonic relation founded upon the annals
of the kingdom may generally be regarded as historically correct.
But long before the cyclical system of the government of the gods could
be founded upon the Sothis periods, which were established in the course
of history, MENES had already been admitted into the Egyptian annals, and
was maintained to be the fixed chronological commencement of Egyptian
history, especially of the history of Lower Egypt. His epoch could be
no more altered. What happened before his time was ante-historical, and
might be adjusted to the cyclical necessities of mythology. The only
historical fact was, that other kings had reigned before Menes, and
indeed in THIS. In order to distinguish them from the later kings as
being ante-historical, a designation was selected, which we are not yet
acquainted with in hieroglyphics, but which was translated in Greek by
Νέκυες, _the deceased_; here also undoubtedly establishing the idea that
they were deceased MEN.
We may, however, certainly regard it as the most welcome confirmation
of the whole of our restoration of the Manethonic chronology, that
this ante-historical Dynasty of man of the ten Thinitic kings, the
invention of whom could have no other aim than the extension of the
history of man to the commencement of the current Sothis period, most
accurately indeed fulfils the purpose that was designed. For while we
add to the first of the 3555 Manethonic years, namely, to the year 3893
(3892) B.C. (Julian), the first of the reign of Menes, the 350 civil
years of the Thinitic Νέκυες, the year 4242 is the result, _which was,
in reality, the necessarily expected commencement year of the current
Sothis period_. This immediately explains why the number 350, although it
was ante-historical, and was therefore invented, is still in itself no
cyclical number, and is in no way related to the Sothis period. It could
just as little be a Sothic number as the number 3555, which it completed.
But, on the contrary, it thence proves both the truthfulness as well as
the historical character of the important and genuine Manethonic number
3555, and further proves that the establishment of the first historical
year, or the Menes epoch, which is directly given by the number 3555
years, cannot first proceed from Manetho, but must be at least as old as
the invention of the cyclical system of Egyptian mythology inseparably
united with it, which no one will or can ascribe first to Manetho,
because we have pointed out the same numbers belonging to the gods before
his time. But the establishment of the discovered Menes year must indeed
be still older than the formation of the whole cyclical system, since
this is first appended to that number, and presupposes it; that is to
say, _the Menes epoch designated by Manetho was one which had been given
from the beginning, and was handed down historically_, and was combined
in the following manner, with the cyclical system of the history of the
gods.
PERIOD OF THE GODS.
_Gods_ 13,870 years.
_Demi-gods_ 3,650 ”
------
17,520 ” = 12 Sothis periods.
PERIOD OF MAN.
_Ante-Historical Dynasty_ 350 years.
_30 Historical Dynasties_ 3555 ”
_Foreign dominion to the time of Antoninus_ 478 ”
----
4383 ” = 3 Sothis periods.
Thus the history of the thirty Manethonic Dynasties, which began with
Menes and comprised 3555 Egyptian years, was between two Sothis periods,
without coming in contact with them, an evident proof that they were not
formed with reference to the Sothis periods.
* * * * *