Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt

ABRAHAM, JOSEPH, AND MOSES
IN EGYPT:
BEING A COURSE OF LECTURES DELIVERED BEFORE
THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, PRINCETON,
NEW
JERSEY.
BY
REV. ALFRED H. KELLOGG,
D.D.,
OF PHILADELPHIA,
MEMBER OF
" VICTOKIA INSTITUTE,'" ETC., ETC.
NEW YORK:
ANSON
D.
F.
RANDOLPH AND COMPANY.
LONDON: TRUBNER &
CO.,
1887.
LUDGATE
HILL.
C.G. Jung Center of Boulder
~7
^^ iS^
i
A/W^
AVS\
FROM SIPTAH'S TOMB.
SIPTAH.
Offering the Goddess
Ma
(Justice) to
Amen-Ra.

IN EGYPT.
Copyright, 1887,
By Anson D.
F.
Kamjolph
Jffnffecrsitg
&
Co.
^resa:
John Wilson and Son, Cambridge.
jMOTE
The
time
crept
more
"
I
not
into
particularly
will
be obliged
it
in their
to
"
for
if
may
those
copy of
and
to
Lectures
the
that
me
wish to
vohnne,
the
Exodus Pharaoh
insert
arrived
revised edition, but
for a
that
has
who
my
bring
to
re-\vritc
make
a correction or two
make
on
these Lectures
some additions-
" Joseph,"
the volume
up
and
to
receive this paper will
the
date.
kindly
book.
ALFKEI) H, KELLOGG,
April,
1892.
I. ERRATA.
(i)
The
(2)
Misled by statements of Dr. Birch
Brugsch
Scripture reference on p. 126 should be
in his
Exodus
"Records of
in
Museum."
This
is
not so.
Too
in the text, I learned that Mariette, after discovering

it
away, and wishing to preserve
from use
it
it
at Tanis,
.for
The
(3)
it
m situ.
It has not
Essay
will
is
"at
being imable
building purposes or
its
been re-discovered.
point raised in the Essay- appendix
in the next edition that
is
any alteration
late for
other injury at the hands of the natives, carefully copied
then re-buried
Past" and Dr.
the
"History," I state on p. 23 that the Tanis tablet
present in the Boulak
to carry
xi. 5.
inscriptions
and
(See Note.)
no longer
in dispute, so that
be omitted.
II. ADDENDA.
[Note.
I have no changes to m.ike in Lectures

LECTURE
As
I., II.,
and IV.]
III.
Egypt, I find additional reasons
to Joseph's place in
main
for the
contentions of the lecture.
my
Mr. Tomkins thinks
"chronology untenable," but
own contention, which

know that Mr. Naville
writing to support his
Shepherd King.
agrees with
but neither of them has seriously attacked the question.

either of
if
all
them would draw up
monumental elements
the
]Mr.
Tomkins was
regards Joseph's Pharaoh as a
a chronological
him on
this point,
would be
grateful
scheme that would include
as to the order of succession
and regnal periods
of the era, and then would attempt to harmonise such a definite chronology
with the numerous data of Genesis and Exodus, as well as with what we
call
may
coincidences in thought and expression gathered from both the Scripture
and the Egyptian

Brugsch with
traditions.
back Joseph into the Shepherd
My
am
sure that then neither they, nor even Herr
his fertile imagination,
main contentions
would again attempt the task of pushing
era.
in the lecture are (i), that Joseph's
to a native dynasty; and
(2),
Pharaoh belonged
he was one of the Eighteenth dynasty
tliat
Kings.
I
went
of that
further,
and thought myself
justified in picking out
two great Kings
dynasty (according as one adopted a longer or shorter Egyptian
chronology)
to
wit,
Thothmes
III.
and other
reigns, as respects length
and Amenophis
III.,
whose
either of
particulars, could satisfy the requirements
of the Geneiis-story.
Of
tion
course, certainty
and perfect accuracy were then as now out of the ques-
but whatever one
may
affirm,
it
has never yet been proven that either the
longer or the shorter chronology in dispute

see an offered
scheme that
There are a number of
who
affirm that Joseph's
(i) I
would inquire
is
more
is
"untenable."
would
like to
tenable.
difiiculties
requiring explanation on the part of those
Pharaoh was a Shepherd King.
if,
as
is
maintained by
Pharaoh of Joseph was one "Apepi,"who
tliose
who hold
lived (nobody
the view, the
knows
/;o:c
ma?2y
years,
anyhow
but)
war of liberation that resulted
before the long
expulsion of the Shepherds,
how
it
happened that
\}[i&
in the
Hebrew Shepherds were
allowed to remain in that very part of the delta where the hottest of the
Genesis affirms that Joseph himself continued to live in
struggle took place.
Egypt eighty
The same
years after his elevation and died there.
Why, we
Joseph's brethren and their descendants.
true of
is
were the Hebrews
ask,
passed by and not expelled by a dynasty that could have had no sympathy
with them on any ground and that must have hated them as both foreigners
and Shepherds
to say that at the period of the expulsion they
do
It will not
number, and therefore an unimportant element,

short period between the
for that
core.
My own
equally great.
contention presents no
whatever on this point.
difficulty
(2)
difficulties
in
Apepi of Joseph and Aahmes, and Joseph's life

all of which
for a considerable time
would then overlap the new dynasty

would suggest
were yet few
would mean a very
The background of
And
though
Hebrew
the
story
Pharaoh were a Shepherd, inasmuch

Egyptianised,
admitted to be Egyptian to the
is
would be equally true
affirmed that this
it is
if
Joseph's
Shepherds became completely
as the
cannot help feeling that the coincidences with Egyptian
thought and expression that Mr. Tomkins notices would suggest to most
readers that Joseph's Pharaoh
was "
and precise and formal an Egyptian
The composition
to the
manner born."
It is too natural
belong to a foreigner.
portrait to
of the names of Joseph's
prison-keeper and wife and
law have been very gratuitously affirmed by Brugsch
father-in
the interest
(in
of the so-called higher criticism) as proof of the late composition of Genesis
Tomkins,
in this instance,
his zeal to run
names
away with
has proved that the veteran Egyptologist allowed

his
judgment
Joseph's Pharaoh belonged, and, what
Thothmes
to think of as a
I
for just such
composition of proper
as those in question are found in the very dynasty to
reign of
may add
the word "
III.,
of
is
still
which we believe
greater interest, in the very
one of the two kings of that dynasty that
it is
possible
Pharaoh of Joseph.
that
it is
Aperu "
a slight but curious circumstance that the fust lime
{i.e.,
" Hebrew")
found on an Egyptian record
is
the reign of this same Thothmes, and in an honourable connection.
brought to light by the late Mr. Goodwin.

a
Hebrew aide-de-camp
noting, because, as
is
to attend
evident
(3)
Take
The
known
"The new
to
the
xl. 15, xli.
if
of
Aahmes and
worth
Egyptians distinctively as
king that knew not Joseph," which,
Let
me
ask.
Would
all
not
Joseph's elevation occurred in the dynasty
immediately preceding, than in one before that

equally true
fact is certainly
12, xliii. 32, &c.)
admit, refers to the rise of the Nineteenth dynasty.

the phrase have more point
was
It is apparently a royal order for
His Majesty.
(See Gen. xxxix. 14,
the phrase,
in
is
It
through the Genesis-story, Joseph and his
all
brethren and descendants were
"Hebrews."
But Mr.
Twenty-second dynasty.
as late on, in fact, as the era of the
his
successors
(if
The phrase would be

Joseph
lived
under
the
Shepherds), and could easily justify any possible ill-treatment of the Hebrews
by them.
Hebrews.
And yet the native dynasty headed by Aahmes did not expel the
As far as is known, they were not ill-treated. The Nineteenth
dynasty was the dynasty of the oppressors.

(4)
Considerable interest has been lately aroused by Mr. Wilbour's discovery
of " the tablet of the seven years of famine " on the island of Sehel.
name
Unfortunately the Pharaoh's

occurred,
is,
both places where
name
is
to
era the famine
are reported as reading
at
all
three of the signs composing the
with
least,
very positive
latter
name
differently,
The
no identification with any known Pharaoh.
agreed, dates from a Ptolemaic or even
Renouf regards
is
the contrary, the discoverer and Mr. Sayce
On
albeit their reading allows of

itself, it is
said to have
is
met, undecipherable
is
be identified with Manetho's "Tosorthros " of the
half of the Third dynasty.
tablet
whose
in
it
Brugsch, deciding from photographs sent to him,
certainty.
that the
in
Roman
drawn up
the tablet as "evidently a pious fraud,

for recent practice
purpose of furnishing ancient precedent
period.
"
for the
though he also
regards the stone " as not the less interesting, as showing that there was a
tradition in
Egyptian that there had,
some
at
early date,
been a period of
severe distress through a famine which had lasted for seven years."
The name, however,
He
of view.
era
which
as Brugsch reads
identifies
it
interesting from another point
it, is
with one of two kings of the Third dynasty
Brugsch himself goes into considerable
detail to
Renouf
calls
Many
The
object of this particular tablet, e.g.,
ensure the continued payment to the " great
God
is
made
said to have been
of the tablet
is
is
and
referred to.
was
to
what
on an ancient royal
consequence of a seven years' famine
in
that occurred in the Pharaoh's reign
dream of the Pharaoh
" pious
of the cataracts" of
called tithes of all produce, basing the claim
decree that
later
them, were practised in referring to " ancient prece-
dents for recent practice."
may be
But
show with what freedom
Pharaolis referred to the heroes of the past as their ancestors.

frauds," as
an
of course, long anterior to the time of Joseph's famine.
is,
It
is
it
of interest to note that a
cannot be doubted that the story
at least a reminiscence of
The point,
name chosen by the
As stated, the name is
an actual occurrence.
however, that seems to be worth stating refers to the

author of the tablet as the Pharaoh of the famine.
almost beyond decipherment.
(Brugsch
Now,
is
positive about
it is
it)
Still,
one of the three signs
is
most probably
"tser " or " ser."
known
curious that the only
royal
names
that contain this special
sign are the two Pharaohs of the Third dynasty (to one of which Brugsch
assigns the
dynasty
Pharaoh of the famine), and two Pharaohs of the Eighteenth
viz.,
grandfather of
Horus, the
last
Thothmes HI.
king of that dynasty, and Amenophis

It
is
cartouche has but three signs (Ra ser Ka).

real
the
I.,
also curious that the latter's distinctive

It
may
famine Pharaoh of the tablet was Amenophis
be, therefore, that the

I.,
of the Eighteenth
not have seemed ancient
dynasty, but to the author of the tablet he
may
enough
of the more ancient heroes,
for a precedent.
Scanning the
he found another "ser," and
Pharaoh rnay have been relegated
To be
list
way, by a " pious fraud," the famine
in this
to the
Third dynasty.
sure the recurrence of the sign referred to in
Dynasty XVIII. may
And
paragraph to be taken too seriously.

everything, circumstances
most
trivial
Dynasty XVIII., never a Shepherd
is
it
is
this
curious to observe
how
V.
don't
&
Pharaoh.
VI.
the fashion of to-day to refer to Mineptah, son of
veritable
most important, would suggest
era for Joseph's
LECTURES
It
as
yet
wish
be the merest coincidence and without importance.
Rameses
Pharaoh of the Exodus, and some Egyptologists of note,
II., as
am
the
sorry
to say, have been in sucli haste to
impression has been
commit themselves
on the public mind that he
left
my
view I most earnestly dissent, and
appeal
to
to the
is
this view, that the
From
really so.
is
this
testimony of the
monuments.
I see no reason to change the
am more
Indeed, I
main contentions of
E-vodus Pharaoh was, he was not, nor could he
To mention
draw
on
lecture
this point.
be,
Rameses
the son of
If.
but one argument of many, and an unanswerable one, I would
special attention to the note found
part of
my
confirmed than ever in the conviction that whoever the
on page 126, particularly the
latter
it.
It is clear
from the Scripture
immediate occasion of the permission
Any
depart.
II.
an event which, indeed, was the
(or rather
command)
to the
Hebrews
to
Pharaoh, therefore, to be the Exodus Pharaoh, must answer to
That being
this crucial test.
Rameses
son and heir of the
story, that the firstborn
Exodus Pharaoh died on the eve of the Exodus
so, it
can be cor.fidently affirmed that the son of
cannot have been the Exodus Pharaoh, for his son and heir was
not only associated with his father on the throne during the latter part of his
reign, but, as the
monuments
prove, survived his father and continued to
The son of Mineptah,
reign alone for at least two years.*
"
sat
upon the throne
require, if his father
"
with his father, did not
die, as
He
was the Exodus Pharaoh.
would
lived to succeed him.
This single fact should put a stop to the confident way in which so
nowadays
who
therefore,
the Bible story
many
son of Rameses II. as the Exodus Pharaoh softened

sometimes by the phrase " The supposed Pharaoh of the Exodus." If monurefer to the
mental testimony
If asked
That
VI.
is
worth anything, he could not have been such.
who then was
the
Exodus Pharaoh,
the disaster that brought Dynasty

for
it)
"many
was
can only refer to
my
Lecture
lecture takes for granted the contention of Lecture V., viz.
years
Egypt was
XIX.
to a collapse
in confusion " (as the
such
that
a collapse that
great Harris Papyrus puts
Exodus of the Hebrews. That contention has never

the monummtal " Exodus " and the Hebrew Exodus
in very truth the
been disproved.
If
were not one and the same event, then the coincidence of two such events in
XIX. is tru^y remarkable and inexplicable.

my Lecture VI. takes it for granted that the two were one, and accordingly my main contention in Lecture VI. is, that whoever the Exodus
Pharaoh was, he must have been the last Pharaoh of Dynasty XTX.
At the time of my lectures, it however remained uncertain wlio it was that
brought the dynasty to a close.
And I am sorry to say that the last word on
that part of Dynasty
But
this point
has not yet been spoken.
of the uncertainty
is
that notwithstanding the
is
remains uncertain
my
Lecture VI.
monumental testimony
(Mineptah's son) succeeded his

to his death, there
It
given in detail in
father, nay,
The occasion
still.
In brief
that affirms
it
is
this
that Seti 11.
was associated with him previous
a difficulty as to this point met with in the
tomb of
It may be added that monumental testimony (adduced

by Chabas) gives no hint
whatever of any trouble at ttie end of Minepiah's reign.
All went on precisely as
Tliis U particularly true as respects the Delta and the relations between Egjpt
and Palestine. The sole rei^n of Mineptah's soc, for two years at any rate, was peaceful and t) all appearance prosperous.
There is not a syllable that hints of any disaster
before.
at the close of Mineptah's reign, such as an Ejodiis or the death of

Pharaoh that sat upon his thrjne."
"the
llrstborn of
Siptali,* wliich
seems to teach that Seti
succeeded Siptah
II.
point doubtless led ^laspero to adopt Seti II. as his
Exodus
This
hitter
Pharaoh.
But
the monumental testimony as to Seti's succeeding his father
my
simply incontrovertible, and accordingly at the date of

that for granted, I tried to explain (or
tomb
(apparently) of Siptah's
Mineptah
is
lectures, taking
explain away) the counter-testimony
(see the latter half of the Lecture)
and was
strongly inclined to close the dynasty with Siptah.

I
have come
way,
i.e.,
however, that the problem
to think,
by accepting both monumental
may be
solved in another
and admit that Seti
affirmations,
II.
succeeded both his father, Mineptah (which was a fact beyond doubt), and
later
on Siptah
also, as Siptah's
contradiction, but
tomb appears
This
to teach.
two Pharaohs yielded by the monuments of the peiiod,
At any
Siptah, interrupted the reign of Seti II.

contradicts no
monumental
It
fact.
is
Seti II. succeeded Mineptah, his father.

year,
and then there
But
silence.
is
long
that
it
came
to
There
is
father).
any
(as intimated) that
tomb, scarcely more than begun,

his reign at the
an abrupt end.
Then,
too,
beginning did not

possible that the
is
it
young son, and subsequent
may refer to this Seti 11. (who was a " Mineptah," as well as his
The flight was occasioned by a revolt headed by rival Pharaohs. At
rate, the
tomb
evidence of Siptah's
He may
(if it
be insisted upon) would show
Amenmes and
that after the brief reigns of

reign.
such a supposition
mention made of his second
tradition of a Mineptah's flight to Ethiopia with his

return,
Amenmes and
viz.,
rate,
undoubtedly true
his
shows that the peace which characterised

last
may appear
can be harmonised by the supposition that the only other
it
Siptah, Seti II. resumed his
may have been
have wrested the crown from Siptah, or he
The
recalled after Siptah's death.
of Siptah's
facts
tomb would argue
(on any hypothesis) an intended indignity to one who, at
reigned only as husband to his queen,
probably
best,
who was queen by an
incontestible
title.
If the supposition be
justified in
On
adopting Seti
allowed, of course
the other hand, there
is
much
with Siptah (see the details in
my
to
At
must be
of
clear:
Rameses
Pharaoh of the dynasty,
last
Maspero was
this writing, therefore, the
results
Exodus Pharaoh could not be Mineptah, son

must have been the
that
be said in favour of closing the dynasty
lecture).
But two
question remains an open one.
follows
it
Exodus Pharaoh.
the
II. as
and,
II.
(i)
The
(2)
He
therefore, either
Seti II. or Siptah, according to the order of succession adopted for the three
kings
who
followed the son of
patiently for
some "
*The reference
for granted
is
is
Rameses
find " that will clear
to the
way
that of Seti
in
II.)
which
is
in Siptah's
superinipo3(!d
tomb a
upon
tomb was twice usurped first by

and later on by Setnekht, founder of Dyaasty XX.
appears, Siptah's
We
II.
have simply to wait
up the mystery.
caitouclie (which
it is
Siptah's cartouche.
Seti II.
(it
it
taken
For, as
be his cartoutlie)
I state in my lecture that the superimposed cartouche may net have been that of tlia
Second Seti, but the cartouche of another Seti, who is represented in a tomb-picture as
a young man, only a prince at tlie time, waiting on King Siptah but not indicated as
Siptah's son and heir. (For details, sec Lecture.)
PREFACE.
THE
purpose of this course of lectures
ascertain, if possible, the position of
is
to
Abraham,
Joseph and Moses in Egypt's history.

It
would be premature
to
attempt to
fix the date
of the era in the world's chronology, although
The
such attempts have been made.
first
many
date in
Egypt's history that can be dated with precision

is
as late
on
as
Dynasty XXVI.
what goes before
is
The chronology
of
purely conjectural, and depends
on the estimates made of the gaps and uncertain

time-elements, that persistently remain such.
All that
is
possible
at
present
is
to reconstruct
such periods (longer or shorter) as can be fairly

well recovered from the
patiently
for
further
monuments, and
" finds,"
that
to wait
may
serve to
made
to fix the
connect these together.

Accordingly, no attempt has been
chronology of our period absolutely, but relatively

to its
in
own
contents.
the period
There are serious gaps even
discussed
in
utmost that can be claimed
the lectures;
is
and the
that parts of
it
have
vi
Preface.
been made out with some degree of certainty and

have become more clearly defined.
that the gaps
Where
so
much
necessarily hypothetical,
is
it
seems
reasonable to enter a caveat against the tendency
of the times unduly to prolong Egypt's chronology.
There certainly
no need of writing about " cen-
is
turies" for intervals,
when decades would answer
as well.
The
lectures are
humbly submitted simply
as a
study in the comparative chronology of Egypt's
monuments and
dogmatic
the
ever
harmony
may
any one
that
spirit,
the Bible tradition,
but as a tentative
of the
two sources
effort,
one part
in
any
looking to
What-
of history.
be thought of the positions assumed in

lecture, the
author would venture to ask
judgment may be suspended
lectures
not
are read through.

will
the
six
The argument of
the
until
be found to be supported by the
argument of another part and the connection of

the whole.
The
hope that they
lectures
will
are published with
be accepted in the
the
spirit
which they are conceived, and in the sure
in
confi-
dence that ultimately perfect harmony will be
dis-
covered between the chronological indications of the
monuments and the data of Holy

March, 1887.
Scripture.
SUMMARY OF THE LECTURES.
LECTURE
I.
Page
The Monumental Chronology of the Period covered

BY Dynasties XII.-XX.
Sources for reconstructing the Egyptian chronology
their
relative value.
A.
Dynasty XII.
its
eight Pharaohs
its
collapse
the
monumental
its
period.
B.
Dynasty XVIII.
the Manetho
lists
history, with regnal periods.
C.
Dynasty XIX.
tal
confusion of
Manetho
lists
monumen-
reconstruction.
D. Dynasties XIII.-XVII.
mental light only at
contradictory,
its
necessity
ticularly those of the
and XVII.)
to be
of
ous native line throughout

dynastic divisions
reconstructing these, par-
two suppositions,
in
monuManetho lists
Shepherd Dynasties (XV., XVI.,
a possible basis for
found
an obscure section
beginning and end
the
simply mark
the
reconstruction
viz., (1)
section
crises
in
a continu-
(2) that
its
supposed outline of the original Manetho story

tradictions
of
the
abbreviators
harmony with monumental and
the
history
;
explained thereby
con;
in
historic hints.
The Chronology:
the length of the Shepherd Era; a

clew derived from the position of the names of Shepherd
kings in the Manetho lists; corroborated by the "Set
Era "
of the Tanis tablet
Egypt's history
bearing of
place of the " Set
Numbers
xiii.
22.
Era "
in
Summary of
viii
the Lectures.
LECTURE
II.
Page
The Chronology of the Corresponding Period

THE Hebrew Tradition
The
Scripture-time indications of the period twofold,
genealogical and a definite time-period
The
value.
What
Hebrew
registers
limitations of
solution to be found in the Genesis
character
Abram and
in his representative
his " seed " one.
time-period to be measured
Abram
view
St. Paul's
which regards Abraham
of
Its initial
a strategic point in the
LECTURE
How
(2)
year
Hebrew
is
the
the calling
tradition.
III.
Points of Contact of the Tavo Chronologies

I., The Era of Joseph
The
viz.,
their relative
Hebrew time-period. (1)

The view of the "Seventy " Lep-
prediction,
;
32
four forms of the
the period
and the number 430
sius
the
is
in
certain and uncertain time-elements in the
Part
52
two chro-
nologies indicated in the chart of comparative chronol-
ogy
why
parison
five
Egyptian registers are furnished for com-
Joseph's fourteen-year period in the five

Registers discarded
last three
Register
shorter chronology than Register II.
adjusted to the
in
of
Hebrew
story
I.
the
presents a
either could be
the date of Jacob's death
the rise and progress of the religious revolution

Dynasty XVIII. Joseph's probable connection there-
each
with
polite
Joseph and Heliopolis
dogma on
sovereign
his
the influence of the Helio-
Hebrews Joseph's Pharaoh a native

elevation explicable
is there any monuthe
mental reference to .Toseph or his famine in either of the

reigns indicated by the two Registers
Summary of
the Lectures.
LECTURE
ix
IV.
Page
Part
II.,
The Eras of Abraham and Moses
82
A. Abram's Pharaoh a Shepherd king; favored by the

Hebrew story who may he have been ? why was Isaac
;
forbidden to go to
tive evidence that
Egypt? (Gen. xxvi. 1. 2) corroboraAbram's Pharaoh was a Shepherd fur;
nished by the presence of Hittites in Southern Palestine

"
also supported by the '* Set Era
as early as his day

of the
B.
Tanis
tablet.
Hints of the Hebrew story as to the status of the Hebrews as long as " Joseph's generation " survived and of
a change soon thereafter ; the " new king " ; his " knowing not Joseph " ; Rameses II. and the Hebrews (the
store-city Pithom).
The Pharaoh
C.
of Moses' birth (" Pharaoh's daughter ")
of his eightieth year ; the

the Pharaoh of Moses' flight,
Pharaoh who " died in the process of time " not Rameses
II.,
and consequently
his successor
not Mineptah
the
general harmony of the two stories.
LECTURE
V.
III,, The Anarchy at the Close of Dynasty

103
XIX., AND the Exodus
Part
Dynasty XIX. ended in disaster, and anarchy ensued testimony of the " Great Harris Papyrus of Rameses III."
translations by Eisenlohr, Brngsch, and Chabas of a pas;
sage in the historical part of the papyrus
erence to the
Hebrew Exodus.
on philological grounds;
in accord with the
known Egyptian
(2)
by
a veritable ref-
This view supported (1)

historical reasons,
Hebrew chronology and
" emigration " of that or
viz.,
no
any other era
history
the history of the reign of Rameses III. (his eighth year
an important factor)
Maspero's view of the papyrus story
criticised.
Summary of
tJie
LECTURE
Lectures.
VI.
Pagb
Part
IV.,
The Pharaoh of the Exodus
The Dynasty
of the
ville's discoveries
last
Pharaoh
of
Exodus Pharaoh
the inquiry
is,
Dynasty XIX.
and the perplexing fragments
Chabas' view.
Who
Egyptologists divided
as to the order of the last three reigns,

pollion
.124
by M. Nawas the
settled
virtually,
and why
in Siptah's
Dr. Eisenlohr's, Lefebure's
all
Chamtomb
monu-
mental indications other than the tomb fragments are

in opposition to Champollion's interpretation of them,
and support the order of the Manetho lists a solution

of the perplexing problem suggested by the relations of
who Queen Tauser probably was,
the parties concerned
;
and who Siptah, Amenmes, and the " Seti, Prince of

Cush " whichever of the two Pharaohs concerned may
have been the last Pharaoh of the Dynasty, he would
answer to the indications of the Hebrew story Setnekht's
;
curious usurpation of the
tomb suggestive.
DYNASTIC LIST XII.-XX.
DYNASTIC LIST
Dynasty XII.
XII.-XX.

IN EGYPT.
LECTURE
I.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES,
THERE
XII.-XX.
are but two sources for the reconstruc-
Egyptian chronology,
tion of
(1) the
mon-
uments, and (2) the traditions of Manetho and other

ancient authors.
To be sure, an appeal may sub-
made
sequently be
tions,
to certain Scripture time-indica-
which as far as they go furnish corroborative
proof of results reached
but the sacred writer does
not complete the story of Egypt, as that was not

Moses' object.
The statements of
monuments
the
are of course
they go, though unfortunately these

up to now cover but parts of our period.
final as far as
As
to the traditions of
Manetho and other ancient
authors, criticism has to deal with these very carefully,
one
might
say,
sometimes severely.
The
statements of Greek and Latin authors, which up to

quite recently formed the basis of our Egyptian histories, are
proven by the monuments

1
to
be of
little
Abraham, Joseph, and Moses
value.
Sayce
Professor
is
in Egypt.
severe
particularly
on
modern research obliges

us to indorse the judgment passed upon Herodotus
almost as soon as his History was published, and that
Herodotus,^ affirming
it is
''
that
not only untrustworthy, but unveracious."
Did we but possess the original work of Manetho

the Egyptian priest, who at the instance of Ptolemy
Philadelphus wrote in Greek a history of his people
professedly
drawn from the monuments,
it
doubtless prove invaluable for our purpose.

tunately,
it
would
Unfor-
has survived only in some extracts and
summaries incorporated in the works
of
Josephus
and of some Christian writers, particularly Africanus

and Eusebius, and
on of Syncellus.^
later
With great industry and
zeal Lepsius
collected
together, in his " Tables of Manetho Sources,"

historical data of these extracts,
tradition alleged to
very
fair
comparing the
adding thereto every
have been Manetho's
idea of their value
may
so that a
be obtained by
The comparison
lists.
will
be sure to
convince any one that Chabas' estimate was
though severe, when, referring

fusion of the
lists,
the
to the
just,
extreme con-
he affirmed that without the
as-
monuments it would be an impossible

gather from them what Manetho really did
sistance of the
task to
1
Ancient Empires of the East,
'^
Julius Africanus died a.
t>.
Preface,
232
p. xxii.
Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea,
A. D.
George Syncellus lived in the eighth century. His work was a

compilation from other abbreviators.
2 They form the middle section of the " Konigsbuch," Berlin, 1858.
270-340.
The Egyptian Chronology.
He
say.
adds
" All the versions bear traces of
terpolations or of falsifications."
It is certainly, therefore,
in-
not without reason that
greatest reserve should be exercised in quoting from
them, and especially in basing an argument upon
The one fact, however, that can be attributed

Manetho beyond any doubt is his division of
them.
to
Egypt's history into Dynasties, or Houses,

sion which,
however
it
be interpreted in
divi-
its details, is
of greatest convenience in handling the narrative.

It
must not be inferred from what has been
that the
Manetho
worth.
The
visions,
lists
and particularly
lists,
his dynastic di-
have proven an invaluable help
with more or
said
are valueless, or even of little
in locating,
names
any contro-
less of certainty, the scattered
gathered from the monuments.
Still,
in
versy between the two sources of reconstruction, a
monumental
Certainty
mean
fact or date
therefore,
must be accepted
the
in
present
as final.
inquiry,
will
certainty as assured by monumental indica-
tions.
It is
indications
only
when
may be
these
fail
that the
Manetho
accepted, though even then sim-
ply as a temporary bridge over a chasm.
Advancing
to our task,
the
reconstruction
the chronology of the period covered
XII.-XX.,
that
detain us long.
nemhat
I.,
by Dynasties
of
Dynasty XII. need not
chronology
of Dynasty
Its
founder was one Ame-
xii."
who mounted
^
of
the throne after a
Les Pasteurs (Amsterdam, 18G8),
p. 14.
war of
Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt
succession,
ries
and became the ancestor of a notable
of kings, some of
whom
The order of
latest era.
periods of
were venerated
se-
in the
succession and the regnal
eight sovereigns have been fairly well
its
recovered from the monuments, though there re-
mains an element of uncertainty as to the exact

time-period of the Dynasty arising from lack of mon-
umental information as
to the time that should be
allowed for the associated reigns of one or two of
Pharaohs.
the
The
reigns
of these
Amenemhats
and Usertesens furnished Egypt with a strong and
During the
beneficent government.
first six
reigns
Egypt greatly prospered. Nubia was conquered,

and the name "Cush" first appears on the monuments.
The mines of the Sinaitic Peninsula were
occupied and worked.
Great public works were ex-
ecuted, looking to the regulation of the Nile inun-
dations and the artificial irrigation of the country.
Architecture, painting, sculpture, and literature di-
vided the attention of these Pharaohs, equally skilled
But the Dynasty

have suddenly collapsed for the last two
in the arts of peace
seems
to
reigns
and of war.
brother and a sister
were
brief (but
nine and four years respectively), betokening trouble
some kind.
of
after ruling
At any rate, the

Egypt for about 170
brilliant
years,
Dynasty,
came
to
an
end.^
1
Both Maspero
(in his " Histoire
"History of Egypt," vol. i.

this Dynasty, and both make the
(in his
p. 98, note 5) and Brugsch

have discussed the chronology of
Ancienne,"
p. 120)
total
somewhat
larger, not allowing suf-

Leaving now Dynasty XII., and passing over for
the present the obscurer part of our period,
nasties
sider
XIIL-XVII., we would next con-
of Dynastv
xviii.
Dynasty XVIII.
The Manetho
lists
Dy-
Chronoio-v
'
covering Dynasty XVIII. are in
a state of great confusion.
Even from a monumental
point of view, the Dynasty
is full
it is j)Ossible
to recover
of problems.
Still,
from the monuments the order
of succession with but few elements of uncertainty,
and
to
Its
gather a
of the dynastic period.
founder was one Aahmes, Egypt's liberator from
the Shepherds,
phis
fair idea
I.,
who was succeeded by
and he by his son Thothmes
AmenoThothmes I.
his son
I.
was succeeded by three of his children,

a daughter
and two sons, as they are generally regarded. The
first of them, Thothmes 11. married his sister, and
was completely dominated by her, she being the vir,
tual ruler,
the masculine Queen Hatasu.
The
of her husband-brother did not last long, and

obscurely.
it
rule
ended
Hatasu succeeded, nominally as Regent
younger brother, but for a time at least she

assumed the style and even the dress of a king,
to her
some fifteen
young Thothmes to be
ruling as such
years, and only allowing
the
associated with her
ficient for the associated parts of the later reigns.
in the earlier four reigns
The amount
when
of overlapping
can be gathered from the monuments; but this
is
not true of the later reigns, and forms an element of uncertainty. The Turin
I'apynis makes the sum 213 years by counting, though with a slight error,
the regnal periods and without allowance for any overlapping.
lists
make
the period 168,
The Manetho
The
a number probably much nearer the truth.
dynastic period adopted in the text
is
probably quite correct.
Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt.
Her reign, though

Thothmes
HI. He disbrilUant, was resented by
honored her monuments and ignored her rule, dating
could no longer be avoided.
it
his
own
reisrn
from the date of his brother's death.
Egyptologists are
now
pretty well agreed
years would be
eighty-one
ample
to
Aahmes
period from the accession of
that
cover the
to
the
first
year of Thothmes HI.
The monuments
reign to a day.
yield the period of the latter's
It
was
fifty-four years, less
about a
The monuments yield but seven years each

to his two successors, Amenophis II. and Thothmes
ly., but assign to the next Pharaoh, Amenophis III.,
a reign of some thirty-six years. They also yield the
twelfth year for his son Amenophis lY or Khuenaten,
month.^
.,
though
it
is
probable that he survived for another
year.
The
by
It may suffice to say that monudifferent scholars.
indi'cate that only what may be
data
would
mental
called a long generation really intervened between
rest of the
Amenophis HI. and
the
Dynasty
Seti
I.
is
differently treated
of the succeeding Dynasty,
intervening six Pharaohs (Amenophis IV.,
the three Heretical Kings so-called, Horus the Reactionary, and
Rameses
I.)
being contemporaries.
limits of uncertainty of this part of the
Dynasty
The
will
be more apparent in a later lecture, and need not

detain us now.
1
Brugsch's History, vol.
i.
p. 314.
We may
then at once consider Dynasty XIX.
In the case of this Dynasty, what has been said

respectino;
^ the confusion attaching to the
i-
Manetho
hsts and the need of
monumental
chronoiogy
^^ Uvnastv
xix.
information to set matters right, will be well
illus-
The annexed diagram comprises six of the

Manetho lists of the Dynasty given by Lepsius in his
trated.
" Tables," the
first
of
which we
may
for the
moment
regard as the standard Manetho, and compare there-
The comparison will show how

would be, with Manetho alone, to recon-
with the other

impossible
it
five.
struct either the order of succession or the regnal
periods of this Dynasty.
It will
confusion attaches to even
how
be observed
the dynastic division in
IV. and V., these beginning Dynasty XIX.

with an interpolated " Sethos " instead of with the
Lists
" Armais " of the other
by them
to the previous
lists,
Armais being relegated
Dynasty.
In this particular instance
it is
fortunately possible
from monumental indications, tabulated
in the last
column, to reconstruct with a good degree of certainty the earlier two-thirds of the Dynasty and the
latter third with a
good degree of probability.
In
monuments show how
the
this case, therefore, the
Manetho
cated
that
lists
need
to
be corrected.
We
have
indi-
it in the diagram by putting in italics the parts

must be omitted altogether, and by enclosing
the parts that must be transposed and placed after
Sethos
I.
But even when
this
has been done,
crit-
icism would next have to deal severely with the
regnal periods of the
lists.
The monuments now make it certain that Dynasty

XIX. should be headed by Rameses I., and that he
should be followed by Seti I., Rameses IL, and MiThe further order of succession is not quite
nejDtah.
so sure, there being some uncertainty as to whether
the order should be that adopted in the diagram, or
whether
Seti 11. should be
made
There
thus end the Dynasty.
to follow Siptah
is
also
and
some uncer-
tainty as to the regnal periods of the seven Pha-
This
raohs.
is
indicated, in the
monumental column
of the diagram, by putting in parentheses the periods
claimed by some for what they consider good rea-
numbers being the years yielded by
sons, the other
the monuments.
We
are thus brought to the middle section of our
period,
that
chronoiop:y
ending with Dynasty XVII.
of Dynasties
xni.-xvn.
beginning with Dynasty XIII. and
tion
that
remams
It
mysterious.
some
is
a secc
portions oi
It is
i.
it
indeed only
as obscure as
it
respecting
beginning and close that the monu-
its
is
ments have anything to say. The so-called "Turin

Papyrus," e. g., shows that the Sebekhotep who
founded Dynasty XIII. was the immediate sucand
cessor of the last sovereign of Dynasty XII.
;
there are a few other monumental remains which

show that he and his successors, for a while at least,
ruled over
all
Egypt.
At
the other end of the sec-
The JEgyptian
tion there are a
number
of
Clironology.
documents^ that connect
Dynasty XVII. with Dynasty XVIII., and which

further show that one of the Manetho abbreviators,
Africanus, correctly reported
posed of synchronous reigns,
the
herds,"
Dynasty XVII.
com-
Shepherds being the real rulers and
whom
the Thebans being vassal princes, one of

was, Aahmes,
as
" Thebans and Shep-
who succeeded
eigners and so founded
The Manetho
lists
in expelling
it
the for-
Dynasty XVIII.
covering; this section are in a
They
state of almost irremediable confusion.
con-
tinue to accentuate the dynastic divisions, but they
names except six of Shepherd kings. They

agree for the most part in making Dynasty XIII.
"Theban," and Dynasty XIV. '^ Xoite " but they
yield no
assign to each an apocryphal
number of
an equally apocryphal dynastic period.

differ so, as respects
kings, with
But they
the remaining Dynasties (XV.,
XVI., and XVII.), that the work of reconstruction

is
made
a serious task,
some
believe impossible.
Manetho Dynasties, however, are the

" Shepherd " Dynasties. And as neither monuments
nor papyri mention a word as to the rise of the Shep-
These
last three
1 They are the " Sallier Papyrus, No. I.," which establishes the synchronism of the Shepherd King Apcpi with a native prince called Rasckenen; an
inscription in the tomb of one Aahmes, who served under King Aahmes in the
war of liberation,
an inscription covering four reigns
showing a
line of native princes of the
inscrijition
of a courtier, also called
in the latter part of

III.
For a
full
" History," vol.
name
the "Abbott Papyrus,"
and another tombAahmes, but surnamed Penneb, who lived

Aahmes' reign and survived into the reign of Thothmes
of Rasekenen,
account, see Chabas' " Les Pasteurs," pp. 16-38, and Brugsch's
i. p. 239 ; also, Dr. Birch in " Rev. Arch.," 1859.
10
herds and but
little
portant to discover,
of their
if
we
fall, it
can,
did say of the Shepherd Era.
becomes very im-
what Manetho really

To be sure, in view of
the particularly glaring contradictions of the
lists
of these three Dynasties, the prospect of reaching
any
safe conclusions
Nevertheless,
nal
Manetho
may
believe
it
appear very discouraging.
possible to gather the origi-
story, in outline at least,
from the very
contradictions of the abbreviators, an
outline that
can, moreover, be corroborated in several ways.

Dynasty.
A glance
at the
above plan will make the proposed
Manetho reconstruction somewhat

two columns
11
The
clearer.
^^resent the lists of Eusebius
last
and Afri-
canus (we start with but two of the abbreviators,

so as to
make
the hypothesis less confusing)
column preceding
double
Manetho
exhibits
the
the
proposed
nor
Eusebius,
reconstruction.
Assured
neither
that
whatever their
sent Manetho,
would intentionally misrepre-
bias,
it
Africanus
may
be assumed that their contra-
dictions simply reveal misapprehensions of Manetho's
dynastic indications, and particularly of his explana-
tory remarks.
It
is
not likely that the work of
Manetho's they quoted from contained any plan or
Manetho had one
for
and only those who attempt
to
chart of the Dynasties, even
personal use
his
if
describe such facts without such a chart

difficult
it
is
to
present them in
know how
perspicuous
way.
We
believe
may be
that
harmonized,
the contradictions of the

if
we may suppose
lists
that in his
review of the period Manetho was endeavoring to
make
that
fixcts,
two features of the curious history, but

proved difficult, so correlated were the two
clear
it
to
put them into language clear enough to
prevent misapprehension.
The two
points
it is
sup-
posed Manetho emphasized are: (1) that there was

a continuous native line, Theban in its inspiration,
all
the
way through
the period from
Dynasty XII.
Ahraham, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt.
12
to
Dynasty XVIII.
line thus survived,
tunes,
history
and from without,
and
it
(2) that
though the native
had a history of varying
marked by
for-
troubles from within
history full of crises, which
by his dynastic divisions.

To make our meaning clearer, let us suppose that
Manetho's story, in outline at least, was something
he sought
like this
to indicate
That during the period of the
(1)
so-called
nasty XII. the native Theban line ruled

and, as was
really the
case,
all
Dy-
Egypt,
without a challenge
from any quarter.

(2)
That during Dynasty XIII.
except
that
the
this
sovereignty, for
other, passed to another
was
also true,
some reason or
Theban family, the House
of the Sebekhoteps.
(3)
That the history of the native
was one of
line thereafter
disaster.
(4) That, first of all, the sovereignty of Lower

Egypt was wrested from it by the Xoites, who
during the so-called Dynasty XIV. confined the
Upper Egypt.
(5) That it was while Egypt was thus divided
that the Shepherds came and conquered.
(6) That the Shepherd Era lasted through the
but that
three Dynasties, XV., XVI., and XVII.
divisions
dynastic
these
were intended by him simply
to mark the three stages of the Shepherd rule,
viz., the first stage, marked as Dynasty XV., during
Thebans
to
13
which the Shepherds occupied Lower Egypt, having

swept the Xo'ites out of the way
marked
as
the second stage,
Dynasty XVI., during which the Shep-
herds possessed themselves of Upper Egypt
Thebans havingr
surviving in
in their turn
also,
the
been driven out, and
Ethiopian Province, which was
their
added to the crown in the time of Dynasty XII.
and the
marked
third stage,
Dynasty XVII., dur.
as
ing which time the Thebans, allowed to return, were
recognized by the Shepherds as vassal princes, themselves
accepting
the
doubtless
position,
sullenly,
but awaiting their opportunity to recover complete

independence.
Now, supposing
this outline to
have been substan-
tially the original
Manetho
carefully the
of the two abbreviators, to under-
stand
lists
how each made
story,
his mistakes
it is
for,
as their lists appear, they are really
each other.
Each
contradictory
complements
to
though inaccurately and
reports,
obscurely, a genuine
easy, scanning
Manetho statement.
Thus, taking Eusebius
first, it
is
evident that he
grasped more accurately than Africanus Manetho's

statement as to the continuity of the Theban line
throughout the period

" Theban " even the
ties,
XV. and XVI.
first
for
he
set
down
in his list as
two of the Shepherd Dynas-
But
in the case of the other
two dynasties, XIV. and XVII., he was
in all likeli-
hood influenced by the explanations Manetho made

as
to
the relations
of parties in those Dynasties.
14
He was
probably, for example, led to consider the
" Xoites" as the true
Dynasty XIV. because of the
emphasis put by Manetho on the shrunken sovereignty of the Thebans, and possibly also on the personal prowess of the Xoite Pharaohs
failed to
note that the Theban line
and
he
so
survived in
still
Upper country, though with a shorn dominion.

As respects Dynasty XVII., he was probably led
in fact, his
to report it a " Shepherd " Dynasty
only Shepherd Dynasty
because, while undoubtedly
the
Manetho mentioned the native
line as surviving in
that period (for African us quotes that), he probably
yet more on the fact that in that Dynasty
laid stress
the Thebans were only vassals, and the Shepherds
were the
real rulers of Egypt.
Turning next
to
Africanus'
it
list,
is
also easy,
with the reconstructed Manetho story in mind, to

explain
its
accurately
is
anomalous features.
He,
numbered the dynastic
like Eusebius,
divisions
but
it
evident that he failed yet more than Eusebius in
grasping their true significance.

pletely overlooked the
first
He
Manetho
indeed com-
point,
viz.,
the
continuity of the Theban line throughout the Dynasties notwîthstandinsr

its troubles.
CD
impressed with
its
troubles,
He was more
more influenced by the
emphasis Manetho put on his second point,
the
contestants and the enemies of the Thebans.
Like
Eusebius, he
made
the Xoites to be the true
nasty XIV., and doubtless for the same reasons.
DyThe
15
remaining three Dynasties he understood to be Shep-
herd Dynasties, his very description of tliem sounding

like a veritable
quotation,
" Shepherds," "
Other
Shepherds," and " Other Shepherds and Thebans,"
and because they were

in the
in reality the de facto^ albeit
view of an Egyptian priest not the de jure,
Dynasties.
But the reconstructed Manetho story not only

helps us to see how Africanus and Eusebius understood, or rather misunderstood, their author, and
serves to reconcile their otherwise inexplicable contradictions
it
will
be found to be in harmony also
with the other Manetho
The Josephus
lists.
lists
do not accentuate the dynastic divisions as clearly

as those of Africanus
and Eusebius, but they really
yield the same story.
Josephus was more concerned
Avitli
Manetho's traditions respecting the Shepherds
than with the chronology of the

quoting at
Hebrews.
all
was
to
era.
identify the
But the very
His object in
Hyksos
traditions he quotes
as
the
would
Egypt was marked,

by stages that
however sudden the initial movement was, the conquest of the country was effected by degrees and
that there was a marked difference in the attitude of
show that the Shepherds' stay
as the reconstructed story
in
would
say,
the Shepherds, comparing the earlier and later stages,
that whereas they were

potic,
at first merciless
and des-
they changed erelong to another mood, and
became more
tolerant,
nay,
almost Egyptianized,
Abraham, Joseph, and Hoses in Egypt.
16
though the Dynasty was hated none the
less,
and
remained throughout a government of foreigners.
The
detain
contradictions of the remaining

as all of
us,
gathered from the
them were
lists
need not
really compilations,
of Africanus, Eusebius, and
lists
Josephus.
It
may
be added that the outline we are im-
agining to have been the original Manetho story

is
not mere fancy
we have
abbreviators,
for not only does
it is
help
it
lists
us, as
of the
harmony with the very few
also in
monuments
hints the
and the
seen, to explain the confusing
furnish respecting the earlier
later order of events.
It
has already been
monuments certify that the earlier

such of them at least as are assignable
stated that the
Pharaohs
to
Dynasty XIII.
ruled over
undoubtedly true as
hotep ly.
This was
Egypt.
on as the reign of Sebek-
late
but there
all
is
no hint that succeeding
Pharaohs were obeyed so far north as Tanis. Sebekhotep v., for example, is traced no farther north
than Bubastis
from which one
may
fairly infer
an
already shrunken dominion.
Traces of the subse-
quent Pharaohs are met only
in
Upper Egypt, and
at length only in Ethiopia.^
That Egypt
w\as
wêakened and divided
may
be
gathered from the exceedingly brief reigns of the
Turin Papyrus
is
for there
is
scarce one of
them that
assigned a longer reign than four years, while

1
Brugsch's History,
vol.
i.
p. 192, also p.
387.
The Egyptian
Chronology.
17
some of them were counted by months, and some

all of which betokens an era of dis-
even by days,
puted successions and probably assassinations.
Shepherd Era,
to the
it
As
has also been stated that the
monuments have nothing whatever
to say of their
coming, but they do have something to say of their
going
and the glimpse these important monumental
texts give of the condition of things
of the reconstructed story.
is
precisely that
They bring to view a

somehow to have
native line of princes that seems
survived
but they are vassals, and the Shepherds
are the masters of the land.
Another argument in favor of the hypothesis is

what may be styled the continuity of Egypt's history and civilization, notwithstanding its apparent
interruption
by the Shepherd sway.
of Dynasty XYIII., as
it
The Egypt
emerges out of obscurity,
though of course in some respects modified by its

severe discipline, is the very same in every essential
Egypt of the Usertesens and SebekNow, one can

understand how such a survival would be possible
after a period of subjugation, however long, that did
particular as the
hoteps of Dynasties XII. and XIII.
not really annihilate the native succession; but
would amount
to a miracle
if
it
witnessed after even a
period of 150 years of a foreign yoke that recognized no native line, to say nothing of the longer
period which
rule.
some would assign
to
the Shepherd
Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in
18
It is not altogether
Egijpt.
without reason, then, that
we
reconstruct the history of this obscurer section of our
period on the basis of the reconstructed Manetho

lists,
and
find the
key
to the problem's solution in the
hypothesis of a continuous native line throughout

the period, notwithstanding
monuments
establish the
its
The
varied fortunes.
synchronism of the latter
part of Dynasty XVII. with the closing years of the
Shepherds
and
if
why may not it have

parts?
May not the
this is true,
been equally true of other
native line have maintained at least the semblance
of continuity
at
any
all
through those dark ages
rate, possible in this
way
to explain
It
is,
what
is
otherwise inexplicable.
But granted that the
outline given of the history
of this obscure section of our period
may
be claimed
more than hypothetical, the inquiry will still remain as to its chronology. It may be asked. Is it
possible to even conjecture with any show of reason
as to the probable time covered by these Dynasties,
XIII. to XVII. ? We think it is. Much of course
depends on the length that must be assigned to the
as
Shepherd
rule.
This
is
prolonged to centuries by
some, to be sure, but simply on the basis of the
Manetho numbers.
These numbers, however,
specting the Shepherd

extricable
discussed
unsafe to
Era
particularly, are
in
re-
in-
No two writers
them agree in their results. It is indeed
accept any numbers of the Manetho lists
confusion.
that have
On
without corroborative evidence.

there
is
19
the other hand,
a possible clew as to the chronology of at
Shepherd Dynasties, suggested by the very
least the
position of the
named Shepherd kings
Manetho
in the
lists.
It is true that the lists
other in
this, as in so
appear to contradict each
many
For
other respects.
it
will be observed that Africanus puts all six of the
Shepherds in Dynasty XV.
Eusebius puts
while
at least the four only whom he gives

them
Dynasty XVII. But this is probably only another
stance of the
way
in
All
we may suppose
that
if
in-
which the two abbreviators un-
derstood Manetho's statements.
explained
in
is
enough
easily
Manetho
really
intended the six names to cover the entire period of

the Shepherd occupation, from
end.
If,
therefore,
we may
its
beginning to
suppose that this
is
its
what
Manetho meant, then Africanus was right in putting

the beginning of the list in Dynasty XV., but erred
when he put all six

monuments prove
of the
list in
that one of
The
that Dynasty.
any
them, at
Apepi, belonged to the Seventeenth Dynasty
rate,
for
he
was a contemporary of the Rasekenen with whom

began the war of liberation. What Manetho probably said was that the Shepherd rule in
to the native line could
stages,
important
its
relation
be distinguished by three
enough
to
be marked
oflf
as
Dynasties, and that their government was formally

erected
in
Dynasty XV., under
Salatis,
the
first
AhraJiam, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt.
20
He
Shepherd Pharaoh.
probably added that he was
succeeded by the five names that followed,

ing, not that they all
mean-
belonged to Dynasty XV., but
that the rest of the Shepherd rule
was covered by
those names.
That Eusebius put the names
Dynasty XVII.
in
followed of course from his conception of that Dynasty
But it is possible,
also, that he would be justified by the facts in putWe are not to
ting even Salatis in Dynasty XVII.
XVI.
were long.
imagine that Dynasties XV. and
The
It is altogether likely that they were brief.
dynastic division was intended to mark not so much
as the only Shepherd Dynasty.
the time they occupied as the relative position of

the Shepherds and the native line throughout the
era.
All the traditions suggest that the invasion of
Egypt was sudden

its
at the start,
progress, imtil the galling
whole land.
seat at
that,
Salatis
Memphis
to
as possible.
his rear,
advance to the conquest
of
establish his
Having done
he would be able to
Upper Egypt.
complished, he would not be likely

long, and as a consequence
in
yoke was riveted on the
would be sure
as soon
and so secured
and rapid enough
it
is
to
This ac-
remain there
not likely that the
banished princes would be long kept out of Upper
Egypt.
What would be more
natural than for
them
very soon to cross the border, and gradually creep
down
the river, and so inaugurate that period of col-
lisions,
of
which tradition speaks, which ended
in
mutual concessions and at
21
last in recognition,
the
Shepherds contenting themselves with a suzerainty

of the Upper country, and the native line accepting
the position of vassals, until the end came.
impossible, therefore, that the king
It is
not
who conquered
Lower Egypt was the same that conquered Upper

Egypt also, and that he even survived into the socalled Dynasty XVII.
It may help us to understand
why
Eusebius
He
probably gathered from Manetho's statement
made but
the one Shepherd Dynasty.
that the time occupied
by Dynasties XV. and XVI.
was inconsiderable, and
that,
were
in the country, the
though the Shepherds
Thebans during those two
earlier stages of the occupation did not

Salatis,
to
but kept up the succession, though confined
Dynasty XV.
in
succumb
Upper Egypt, and
to
in
Dynasty
XVI. to Ethiopia. He also gathered that at length

the Thebans found it expedient to acknowledge Salatis, and so inaugurated the third stage, marked as
Dynasty XVII., which Eusebius inferred could properly enough be called a Shepherd Dynasty, not only
because it was a de facto government, as were the
it was acquiEgypt themselves and for
other two stages indeed, but because
esced in
by the princes
so long a period.
the
supposition
It
of
cannot but be observed
harmonizes
all
the facts of
how
the
case.
Reasoning in
this
way, then,
it
is
evident that
the major part of the period covered by the
six
22
reigns
could easily enough be assigned to Dynasty
XVII?
If this clew, then, furnished
by the very contradic-
Manetho lists, be accepted, it would sugthe Shepherd Era may be carried back from
tions of the
gest that
the date of the Expulsion scarcely farther than the
foundation of the government by the
of the
first
names Manetho has preserved, the time occupied

by the conquest up to the occupation of Memphis
being at most but a few years.
six
Why
tho
lists
names ? The answer may probably

" Apepi " for while six of the Manethe six make Apepi the fourth king. The
did Eusebius report but four
name
be found in the fact that his last
give six names, five out of
is
is not unfair, that there were two, if not three kings between
the Apepi who was contemporary with the Kasekeuen of the " Sallier Papyrus " and the Shepherd who was Aahmes' contemporary.
inference therefore
probable tliat, discussing the war of liberation, Manetho stated

began under Apepi and he probably referred to Apepi as the last great
the last whose sway was undisputed, or as the Shepherd in
Shepherd king,
whose reign the resistance began which issued in Egypt's freedom. And
Eusebius may have thence inferred that the Dynasty ended with him. The
shorter lists probably looked on the commencement, and the longer, the end of
It is also
that
it
the liberation conflict, as the proper closing-point of the Dynasty.

2
That Eusebius
calls the
niscence of a genuine
Shepherds " Phoenieiaus,"
Manetho statement, but another
hension or of inaccurate reporting.

probable, Semitics.
modern
The
The
is
doubtless a remi-
instance of misappre-
Sliepherds were,
great migration from
it
is
more than
the world's cradle
which
writers believe issued in the Shepherd Invasion of Egypt, can be
best explained, as Dr. Brugsch does, as Semitic in

readily be understood
how
the movement, as
fragments of other peoples found

could be found.
The
in its path,
it
its
inspiration.
But
it
can
swept along, dragged with
it
and sought helpers wherever they
Phosnicians became very early the world's carriers, so
that there would be nothing unlikely in the supposition that they were pressed
into the service of the Semitics
valuable indeed
seemed
the
may have been
and helped them by sea and by land.
most important section of the invaders.
So
may have
And Manetho may have
their assistance, that to
many
they
so emphasized what the Phoenicians did, that Eusebius M'as misled thereby as
to the ethnic character of the
Shepherds themselves.
But
this
23
clew does not remain unsupported.
corroborated, indeed, in a very remarkable
It
is
way by
monumental time-period of the Shepherd Era, which

was discovered a few years ago at Tanis.
an interesting circumstance to find
It is certainly
any era
at all
this one, if
mentioned on the monuments
such
it
be, is the only
for
The
one known.
known, computed time simply
Egyptians, as far as
by the regnal periods of their sovereigns, not by

eras.
It is consequently more curious still that the
only instance of an era thus far discovered should
have respect to the Shepherds.

It is
found on a tablet at present
in the
Boulak
The tablet is a memorial stone which was

originally set up in the sanctuary of the Great Temple at Tanis by an Egyptian courtier, named Seti, at
the instance of Rameses II., and as an act of homage
Museum.-^
on the king's part
to his father.
Unfortunately, the inscription does not state the
year of Rameses
II.
may have been
It
year of his sole reign
the
his fifth year,

as
is
commemorate his
have been set up in the first
or
it
For a
full
known, he was
may have been
set
up
in
in Tanis,
kint:
inasmuch
to Tanis.
as
There
account of the tablet, with Dr. Birch's translation, see " Reciv. p. 33
also, Chabas in the " Zeitschrift " for 1865
ords of the Past," vol.

also, Mariette's "
1864.
to
date of his Asiatic campaign,
the tablet refers to a visit of the

^
was dedicated.
the stone
intended
and so
father's death,
when,
when
La
Stele de I'au 400,"
and De Rouge,
"
Kev. Arch.," Feb.,
"
24
some uncertainty, amounting however
therefore
is
few years only, as to that end of the era men-
to a
on the
tioned
fourth day of
The tablet
the month Mesori [i.
tablet.
is
dated " the
e.,
the twelfth
month] of the four hundredth year of the king of

the Upper and Lower country, Sei-aa-jiehti-neh-ti.'"
is commonly abbreviated to " Set-neb"
pehti," or
Set-neb," and the era spoken of as the
name
This
*'
No wonder
Set Era."
that Brugsch says
that
" must ever continue to be the most wonderful
this
memorial stone " of the many recovered from the

temple-city;
the " Set-neb-pehti," from whose
for
reign the era dates, can be none other than a Shep-
This
herd king.
and
as
is
also
conceded by
is
Egyptologists;
all
agreed upon by most of them, he can
only be identified with the " Set Shalt " of another
Shepherd monument discovered by Mariette, and he

can be none other than " Salatis," the
first
of the six
Manetho Shepherds.^
1
History, vol.
ii.
p. 94.
There can be no
See Canon Cook in " Speaker's Com.," vol. i. p. 448.
doubt that " Salatis " is a Greek transcription of the original Semitic " Shalt
2
or " Shalati," the " powerful " or " powerful ruler."
It
is,
of course, to
him
alone that can be referred the inscription found by Mariette on a Tanis statue,
" Set Shalti, beloved of Sutech, lord of Avaris."
Now,
as
might " or
Canou Cook suggests, the

"
translation of the Semitic
" Set Shalti " being the

conjectural, all
same
is
it
wliioh he adopted for his second cartouche,
cartouche name.
While, therefore,
At any
rate,
all
seems
both names mean the
first of the six Shepherd kings that the name

by any possibility be referred. There would be a prothe first Shepherd king's adoption of the name " Set," as the era to
gave a name probably coincided, as Canon Cook says, with the
thing,
which
name
first
not mere assumption.
and
it is
only to the
of the Tanis tablet can
priety in
" Set-neb-pehti " (i.e., " Set, lord of
powerful lord ") of the Tanis tablet was probably the Egyptian
25
Egyptian Chronology.
TJie
If the exceptional character of the dating of such
we
a Rameses tablet seems inexplicable,
member
that
it
was
up
set
are to re-
at Tanis.
Tanis was altogether associated with the Shepherds
by the Egyptians.
While not really founded as a
new town by them,

of
Numbers would
as a
famous passage
in the
Book
lead one to surmise, the spot hav-
ing been occupied by sovereigns of Dynasties XII.
and XIII. and possibly

doubtedly adopted
and
a
so
new
as
city.
It
was
Dynasty XVIII.
it
that
it
became
their principal town,^
them
dismantled,'^
the Shepherds un-
before,-^
an important strategic point,
added to or rebuilt
identified with
was
it
and was so
that after they evacuated
and from that time and

it
virtually
all
it,
it
through
was entirely ignored by Egypt's
became a great city and

It
a royal residence with the rise of Dynasty XIX.
became the favorite capital of Rameses II. It would
sovereigns, and only again
seem, moreover, that
its
association with the Shep-
herds was never quite forgotten
nay, that the
in-
habitants of the region had preserved the Shepherd

traditions.
traditions,
It certainly
sovereigns of the Nineteenth
that the
Dynasty should have

as to give his
name
shows the influence of these
so
honored the Shepherds' God
a place in a royal cartouche.
It
" formal recognition of the god Set as the chief object of worsliip to the DyIt is in this way that Egyptologists identify " Set ueb pehti " as
nasty."
" Salatis," the first kinj;.
1
Maspero's Histoire,
Idem,
p.
p. 100.
171 and p. 206.
Idem,
p. 105.
26
was a novelty in Egypt
for the son of a native sov-
ereign to be called Seti, so that the succession em-
braced a Seti
I.
and a Seti
II.
and a Prince Seti;
more remarkable because it is known

that the naming was exceedingly repugnant to the
Theban priests.
The wonder therefore diminishes that, as the
and
this is the
chance discovery shows, a prince of the royal family,
named
command
himself
ereign's
Seti,
the
commemorating
at his sov-
deceased
the
Seti,
and erecting the memorial
father,
have dated
it
king's
at Tanis, should
with the traditional Shepherd Era.
Undoubtedly, we
may
fairly
gather from the circum-
stance that the Shepherd Era yet survived at Tanis
and was
in popular use there, or at
could be gathered from the

sufficient
any
rate that
rojâl registers
it
and with
accuracy to be dated to a month and a
day!^
1
As an
incidental confirmation of the fact that the " Set Era" was known
and that they looked upon the " Set neb pehti " of the Tanis
to the Egyptians,
tablet as the representative
y^
( C-)
/^Z^^\
^"^
.1
r.iii
Shepherd king, it may be mentioned that when

Aahmes, Egypt's liberator, wanted a throne name,
"
he curiously enough took that of " i?a-neb-pehti
It is as though he retorted to the
(^'g- !)
Shepherds just thrust out, and Avho looked on
" *Se?-neb-pehti " as their great ancestor:
^^
throne your Set and put
<^^
new era."
may be regarded
Ra
in his place,
"I
begin a
It
as a further incidental
confirmation of the knowledge of the era as

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
surviving at Tanis, that Rameses

of Dynasty XIX.,
who
it
I.,
still
the founder
sustained intimate relations
with the town, should also have taken for his throne
of Aahmes', and adopted
de-
and so
name a simple
variation
in his cartouche (Fig. 2), " Ra-men-pehti."
Like
27
But granted that the dating of the

Brugsch regards
as
it,
" a survival of a
tablet was,
new method
of reckoning first introduced by the Hyksos," and

granted that the " Set-neb-pehti " was none other
than the " Set Shalt " of Marie tte's monument and
the
^'
Salatis "
Manetho
of the
lists,
then
it
follows
that but 400 years
elapsed between Salatis and

Rameses II.
The initial year of the " Set Era " would of course
be the year when Salatis assumed the style of an
Egyptian Pharaoh,
a date surely important enough
mark the beginning
to
of an era
and to
fix
its
precise place, therefore, in the Egyptian chronology
becomes a very simple arithmetical problem. It is

but needful to subtract from the 400 years the
amount of the
the
first
or the
interval
fifth
between the Expulsion and
year of Rameses
II. to
obtain
a period of about 150 years for the Shepherd rule,
a period which
for the six
As
sion
to the
named
is
not too short nor yet too long
kinsrs.
o
time that must be allowed for the inva-
and conquest,
i.
e.,
up
to the establishment of
a formal government at Memphis,
it
is
impossible
Aahmes, Rameses sought to emphasize "Ea" instead of the Shepherds'

"Set;" but Aahmes had called him "ne6-pehti" ("lord of might"), and so,
for distinction's sake, Rameses called him " mew-pehti" (" firm " or "established in might").
Such facts will appear more to the point, probably, when
it is discovered that these hieroglyphs occur in no other known royal cartouche
up to that time, nor afterwards until Dynasty XXIII., which was a " Tanite "
House, and so
associations.
may
similarly be construed as a reminiscence of
its
Shepherd
28
at present to reach
any assured
have been short
for all
movement
conclusion.
the traditions
rapid and decisive.
some time not only
in Egypt.
It
Still,
luded to
may
make
the
to seize the strategic points of
them against
no great length of time was needed
Possibly the
for this.
must
undoubtedly took
the Delta, but to provide for keeping

surprises.
It
Numbers passage already
al-
afford the best time-indication of this
mind of the sacred author the one
interval; for in the
town, Hebron, certainly bore some relation to the
The passage does not
other town, Zoan.

suggest, as
some have inferred from
herds were Hittites
but
it
it,
necessarily
that the Shep-
probably referred to the
Hebron and the rebuilding

of Zoan were the first-fruits of one and the same mi-
fact that the founding of
gration.
It
is
invasion as in
now
its
the fashion to regard the Hyksos
inspiration a migration, and, accord-
ing to Brugsch and most Egyptologists, a Semitic one.
But though the wave was, as is likely, a Semitic

movement, it seems to have brought in its train
tribes
of other peoples,
Phoenicians.^
tics
found
it
some of the
and
necessary to use the Phoenicians as carIt looks as thoug-h
Hittites stopped in Southern Palestine,
where Abraham met them subsequently,

Hebron, which they founded.
settled
at
Hittites
probable that the pastoral Semi-
and the Hittites as builders.
riers
and
It is
particularly
Num.
See note 2 on page
xiii. 22.
22.
29
Others of them seem to have gone on with the

Semitics
and these
it
may have been who
rather rebuilt, for the Shepherds the
Numbers
^'
Shepherds entered Egypt before they
had come
felt it safe
seven years would be ample, and ten
terval before the formal assumption
In
to
to stay.
years most probably a long time, to allow for the
style of
or
seven years elapsed after the
act as though they

rate,
built,
" of the
So interpreted, the passage would
passage.
suggest that some
At any
Zoan
by
in-
Salatis of the
an Egyptian king.
this
way
it is
easy to see that the entire Shep-
herd period, comprising both the conquest and the

rule,
It
may not have been more than 160 years.

may be added, by way of confirmation of the
cor-
rectness of the conclusions reached, that this " Set
Era "
of
the Tanis tablet can
be paralleled by a
Hebrew time-period which covers almost

ground.
we
It will
the same
be found possible indeed, before
are through, to harmonize the chronological data
both of the monuments and of the Bible, and in so
way
remarkable a
as to justify an appeal to scholars
not unnecessarily to extend a possible shorter chro-
nology to a longer one, which
is,
to say the least,
equally hypothetical.
As
to the
XIY., there
time covered by Dynasties XIII. and

is
no means at present of deciding; for
the indications which some wôuld gather from the
fragments of the Turin Papyrus are purely hypothe-
30
tical,^
and the Manetlio numbers are untrustworthy.
But happily
this question does
not directly bear on
the special inquiry of these lectures, which

ascertain the position of the
Hebrews
in
is
to
Egypt's
history.
It will
be enough to discover in the sequel, from a
comparison of the Hebrew and Egyptian traditions,
making
the interval between the birth of Abraham and the
Exodus a little more than 500 years and so the
that both chronologies substantially agree in
question as to the time-period of Dynasties
and XIV.
we
may
be dismissed
XHI.
though
are sure that a fair discussion would lead to a far
shorter chronology for
it is
for the present,
them than
is
Aside from the very fragmentary character of

not certain
tory, vol.
i.
how
its
often claimed.
this
important manuscript,
divisions are to be understood.
p. 36) affirms
that "
its
Dr. Brugsch (His-
long series of kings was arranged by the
views," and that, " as the case stands, no

means of removing the difficulties which are inseparable from the attempt to restore, the original list of kings from the
author according
mortal
man
to his
own ideas and
possesses the
fragments of the Turin Papyrus."
TO
32
LECTURE
in Egypt.
II.
THE HEBREW CHRONOLOGY.
THE
subject of this lecture has been often dealt
with as simply a chapter in the Bible's chronology, and without any special reference
to
its
possible bearing on the Egyptian view of the era.
But numerous monumental "finds" have made it

scarcely possible to study the history of the Hebrews
in Egypt as narrated by the sacred writer without
comparing
it
with the statements of the Egyptian
scribes.
In truth, the interest of the majority of
students
of ancient
Egypt has
originated
in
the
Biblical relations of the theme.
Possibly the most diligent student of the era before
us has been Lepsius,
a name that Egyptologists
nounce with reverence.
His labors have had their
reward, in that the student of
may
differ
accurate, and
will
time,
however he
his works.
The
by him are exhaustive and
long survive, notwithstanding that
his theory has already

It will
all
from him, must consult
historical data collected
pro-
become
obsolete.
be impossible to discuss the
many
questions
preliminary to the present inquiry that beset the
The Hebrew Chronology.

investigator,
such
Hebrew,
of the
as, e. g.,
33
the question of the value
compared with the Greek and
as
other versions of the Old Testament.

said,
be
however, that for the purpose of these lectures
Hebrew has been adopted
the
may
It
but not
the exclusion of the other versions for
to
Aside from any pre-
and comparison.
reference
as the standard text,
possession (some
may
call it
one
prejudice)
may
have respecting the authority of the Hebrew Old

Testament, the sequel will show that
nay
easier, to
it
as easy,
is
harmonize the Egyptian story, at
least
of the period under review, with the time-indications

of the
Hebrew
text, as
would be the case were any
other text adopted as the standard.

It
met
may
also be
premised that
difficulties
were
monumental
in attempting to reconstruct the
chronology of our period,

will
if difficulties
equally great
be found in attempting to reconstruct the Old
Testament view of
The Hebrew chronology
it.
and remains, a stubborn problem.
There
are,
is,
it is
true, interpretations of the Scripture time-indications

for
which plausible arguments
may
be adduced; but
no one of them has as yet commanded universal

acceptance, and
case
for
it
looks as though this
some time
to
come.
hoped that any revision

text,
now
called for,
It
may
be the
can scarcely be
of the received
Hebrew
would seriously modify the
Pentateuchal time-indications; so that the problem

is
likely
to
remain a question of interpretation.

3
34
monumental "finds" to dewhat the sacred writer meant by his time-
will be for
It
Egijpt.
cide
future
indications.
The Scripture
time-indications
with our period are
that
have to do
presented in the two forms
of (1) genealogical indications, and (2)
a definite
time-period.
As
two
to the genealogical indications, there are
features that very soon impress themselves on the
investigator:
(1)
that,
according to
registers, only a generation or
two
the
at
Hebrew
most
inter-
vened between the death of Joseph and the birth

of Moses; and (2) the jealous care with which the
record guards this fact, and disallows
its
being ex-
plained away.
Thus,
e. g.,
the writer not only
tells
us that Moses
was a son of Amram, who was a grandson of Levi,

but that his mother Jochebed was " a daughter of
Levi,"
statement which, taken
literally,
would
of course ally her to the generation preceding her
husband's
that
infer
so that one
might therefore reasonably
by a " daughter
"
of
Levi was simply
intended to be understood a female scion of Levi's

house.
But the narrator
forestalls
any such
in-
us explicitly that we are to understand " a daughter of Levi " as literally such,
ference,
and
tells
inasmuch as Jochebed,
was
whom Amram
took for wife,
really his aunt, or, as the narrator puts

1
Ex.
ii.
1.
it,
" his
The Hebrew
father's sister
that, as
so
"
35
Clironology.
such, she
must have
been really Levi's daughter.

It follows, therefore, that
of Levi, and
really a grandson
was
at least,
side
Moses, on his mother's
way
consequently that in this
but four generations
intervened between him and Abraham.
mains
fact
so,
This
re-
moreover, notwithstanding another curious
which the tables
yield,
that
his brother Aaron's wife, Elishaba,
in the case of
who was
of the
house of Judah, seven generations really intervened
between Abraham and
Such
show us that the number of
facts certainly
generations one
tion
herself.^
by
may
is
no
indica-
the length of the period covered
itself of
by them.
be able to count
Generations
may
be,
and
are, longer or
shorter according to circumstances, and can only be
of chronological importance
when
the genealogical
tree gives a basis for calculating the length of the
generations.
The genealogical
indications
of the
Levitical registers, therefore, while invaluable for cor-
roborative purposes, are not sufficient of themselves

to enable us to reconstruct the Bible chronology.
definite time-period
for this purpose
such a
we
way
and
as to
make
are to understand
(1)
The period
is
consequently a necessity
is
it is
given, but unfortunately in
it
somewhat uncertain how
it.
first
Ex.
Compare Ex.
mentioned
vi. 20.
vi.
33 and Ruth
iv. 19.
in the story of
Abraham,
36
Abraham
Jose])h,
and Moses in Egypt.
(Gen. xv. 13-16).
It
is
there mentioned
as a prediction.
And
13.
he said unto Abram,
Know
of a surety that
thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that
and
shall serve
them
and they
shall afflict
is
not their's,
them four hun-
dred years
And
14.
I
judge
whom
they shall serve, will
shall they
come out with great
also that nation,
and afterward
substance.
And
15.
thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace
thou
shalt be buried in a good old age.

16.
again
But in the fourth generation they shall come hither

for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
God promised Abram

merous
posterity
and he counted
was because
it
that he should have a nu-
" and he believed in the Lord,
to
him
And
for righteousness."
of this faith of his that
God
uttered the
Abram
special prediction, already recited, respecting
and
it
his posterity.
(2)
The
time-period next occurs in the
story
(Ex.
xii.
40, 41, 51),
where
it
is
not only
twice mentioned, but with a special emphasis

40.
Now
Exodus
the sojourning of the children of Israel,
who
dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

41. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred
and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass,
that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of
Egypt.
51.
And
it
came
to pass the selfsame day, that the
Lord
did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by

their armies.
TJie Hebreiv
The next time the period
(3)
New Testament (Acts vii.
37
Chronology.
is
met,
is
in the
speech of Stephen's,
6), in a
who, while rehearsing before the Council the history
Hebrew people,
promise to Abram of
of the
naturally referred to God's

a
numerous
posterity,
therefore quoted the Genesis prediction with

period,
passage
6.
its
and
time-
though he really gives but a summary of the

:
And God
spake on this wise, That his seed should
and that they should bring them

and entreat them evil four hundred years.
sojourn in a strange land

into bondage,
The last time the period occurs, is in an argument of Saint Paul's (Gal. iii. 17). Paul was maintaining the thesis that "justification is by faith and
not by works of the law;" and referring to the fact
that Abraham himself was a believer, and that God
made the " covenant of promise " with him as such,
(4)
argued
that
thence,
nothing
ever militate
could
against that irrevocable covenant, and,

ularly, that the
17.
And
before of
God
it
intended
to,
come between a
this I say, that the covenant, that
God
in Christ, the law,
and thirty years
partic-
law of Moses, subsequently given,
could not, nor was

believer and
more
after,
was confirmed
which was four hundred
cannot disannul, that
it
should
make
the promise of none effect.
Though introduced
way, the passage
itself
therefore
in
this
incidental
shows that Saint Paul had in
38
mind both the Genesis prediction and the Exodus

number 430,
he did not profess to use it with any precision as to
fulfihnent; and that though he used the
details.
Taking the four passages, then,

period occurs, and bearing in
really divides itself into
connec-
their
two parts
is the time-period indicated? and (2)

measured ?
The
which the time-
easy to see that the problem suggested by
tions, it is
them
in
mind
What
(1)
How
is it
to be
of answering both questions was
difficulty
The " Seventy " felt it; for in translating the Exodus passage, they even modified the
received text, by making it read (Ex. xii. 40)
very early
"
Now
felt.
the sojourning of the children of Israel
dwelt in the land of Egypt and in
the land of
The
was four hundred and thirty years."
numbers
who regard
number
In the
430.
the statements and
Lepsius,
e. g.,
to
also deprecates
any
rejected
work on
explicitly men-
reflection
it,"
though he
on the authority of the
Old Testament such a course might imply.

thus rejecting the
1
Sinai,"
translation
is
to
the
dedication of his
Baron Bunsen, he
chronology
tions his "entire abandonment of
'
There
the four passages as so contradictory
be worthless.
to
as
of
Canaan
difficulty
has, moreover, survived to the present time.
are those, indeed,
who
While
number 430 he puts emphasis on
be found in Part
II.
of his " Egypt, Ethiopia, and
a volume of Bohn's Antiquarian Library.
See pp. 362, 403.

" the
Levitical
registers
of generations,
a far
as
more certain guide," and adds " If we compare

the number of generations in this period, we shall
find that there were only four for four centuries."
:
In view, however, of the undoubted genuineness

of both the Genesis
and Exodus passages,
would
it
seem more philosophical to acknowledge the difficulty, for the moment, of reconciling them, than
summarily
pronounce against the authority of
to
both or either of them.
And
surely any possible
interpretation of the passages that
would harmonize
them may be accepted, though with
reserve,
and
thus relieve one of the need of rejecting them.

Allusion has just been
made
to the
way
in
the " Seventy" attempted to solve the problem,
by adding what
is
which
viz.,
really an explanatory clause.
be sure, no addition to the text that would imply
To
it
Holy Scripture can be defended on

grounds. It can be looked upon only as a
to be a part of
critical
Nevertheless, it is true that the view of the

" Seventy " is in general harmony with Saint Paul's
gloss.
view of the period
for
undoubtedly he dates the
period from the " covenant of promise," and conse-
quently must have included in

of
Abraham
Hebrews,
his descendants,
tion of the
With
the whole history
up
to the time of the erec-
Hebrew commonwealth.
this general
Saint Paul
it
thereafter, as well as the history of the
it
is
view of the " Seventy " and of
easy enough to
agree, and for a
40
number of
It is evident,
reasons.
comparing
e. g.,
the Old Testament forms of the period, that the
time-statement of the prediction was not intended

to
be
its
The Exodus statement, on
purpose.
the contrary, professes on
The
statement sufficiently
exact, but a general
accurate for
prediction
is
its
very face to be exact.
indeed uttered in two forms that
serve to complete and explain each other.

It is
admitted that any one reading the Genesis
passage by
itself
would be sure
" four
hundred years "
period,
and to explain
to understand
" fourth generation " as
but saying the same thing in another form
would only be the case

prediction.
When
an exact
to be intended as
its
as long as it
the prediction was
so the exact time-period
its
known and
but this
remained a
fulfilled,
and
recorded, as
it
Exodus passage, then the most natural

inference respecting the two texts would be that
is
in the
stated,
was given
viz.
that in the earlier text an indefinite
and
in the later the
statement was intended to be exact.
In the Genesis
for a definite period,
passage the period
is
simply counted by generations
while in the Exodus passage
by years, but
to
One can hardly
hundred and
counted not only
is
a day.
fail
to observe
Exodus narrator makes of

twice repeating
it
it,
his
what a point the
number, not only
but twice asserting that the four
thirtieth
year was completed on the
very day of the Exodus.
The Hebreiv Chronology.
41
Thus interpreting the Old Testament forms of the

period, the New Testament forms of it need occasion
but Httle trouble.
Stephen and Paul both had
and the other the Exodus, time-indication.
number would have been

their purposes.
as
to
details.
Either
accurate for
sufficiently
Saint Paul, indeed, while adopting
Exodus number,
the
suf-
one the Genesis,
ficient justification in quoting, the
uses
It follows,
with
not
it
therefore,
precision
that the Old
Testament 430-year time-period that came to an

end on the very day of the Exodus, instead of
being
discarded,
measure
table
is
be
to
accepted
as
the
of time the Bible has given
with to thread our
way back from
veri-
where-
the date of the
Exodus.
But the second element of the problem then presents itself

Granted that the Old Testament timeperiod with which
we
430, and granted that
are concerned
it
came
to
of the Exodus, the question arises.

of departure for the period
The
tion
is
the
number
What
is
the point
difficulty of satisfiictorily
confessedly great
is
an end on the day
for
answering
this ques-
undoubtedly a study
simply of the two passages containing the prediction

and the fulfilment would leave the impression that
the time-period
is
to be dated
from
Israel's
descent
But such a conclusion would very soon

be challenged by what may be styled another equally
to
Egypt.
Scriptural conclusion.
Thus Saint Paul,
it is
certain,
42
would require us to date
it
from Abraham's day.
Moreover, aside from an Apostle's authority on the
which
other
things being equal, one may believe was not intended
there a very grave
be
subject,
asserted,
to
particular instance,
in this
by the
casioned
difficulty oc-
is
Levitical registers.
For
if
the Ex-
odus passage must be regarded as making hraeVs

sojourn in Egypt to have been 430 years, the registers
would deny
this,
and assert that Jacob and
his
descendants could not have sojourned in Egypt so

long.
These registers indeed create the

forms:
(1)
difficulty in
two
they show that only four generations,
that could cover about
400 years, intervened be-
tween Moses and Abraham
and
(2) the specific time-
indications of the generations given in the registers
themselves
make
it
impossible to adjust these genera-
tions to a 430-year period dated from Israel's descent

to Egypt.^
1
It is difficult to adjust the time-period,
even when dated from Abraham's
day, to the few generations between Jacob and Moses.

er's
Commentar}',"
says that "
vol.
p.
i.
301
),
Canon Cook
referring: to the line
(" Speakthrough Jochebed,
involves two miracles for which there
is no authority in Scripmust have been ninety-five when Jochebed was born, and
Jochebed eighty-five when Moses was born." The Canon doubtless exaggerates the difficulty for no miracle was required in Jacob's case, who was
ninety-one when Joseph was born. At the same time all would admit that
such cases are exceptional and all must perceive how serious the problem becomes if it is deemed needful to add some two centuries more to the interval.
And if some still imagine, as a way out of the difficulty, that some links of the
chain in this genealogy, as in others of Holy Scripture, may have been omitted,
ture,
it
viz.,
that Levi
such a suggestion could hardly be entertained in the present case, in view of

the precision with which the sacred writer establishes the exact relationship of
all
the parties concerned.

These registers at
first
sight
seem
43
to
be utterly
in-
different about the chronology of the era; but a closer
examination shows how curiously the historian does,

after
all,
give sufficient time-data to enable one to
form an idea of the lapse
of time,
for all needful purposes.
Any
draw out
in a
sufficient at least
one who attempts to
scheme the time-indications referred
to
be interested in discovering what checks the
will
Pentateuch furnishes on any attempt unduly to prolong the period.
the four generations only,
e. g.,
line
is
registers
as the Genesis
mention a
from Moses back to Abraham,
through his
what
But the
instead
father
to
that are enumerated
between Abraham and Moses, just

passage predicted.
ond
made
Reference has just been
of
his
sec-
this
time
mother;
and,
an impressive fact to the investigator, in
this line the leno;th of
each
life in
the chain
is
o-iven.
how Levi lived 137 years; Kohath,

his son, 133 and Amram, his son and Moses' father,
Taking now these simple elements, the line
137.
The
writer tells
;
through Moses' father as well as that through
his
make
the
mother, let any one attempt therefrom to

family-tree,
and he
will soon discover the utter im-
possibility of spreading these generations
time-indications over
with their
period of 430 years,
if it
must be dated from Jacob's or Joseph's descent
to
Egypt.
In this
way
the Exodus passage would seem to be
contradicted not only
by Saint Paul, who quotes
its
44
number and
dates
in
Egypt
from Abraham's day, but by
it
the genealogical indications of the Pentateuch.
Exodus passage must be interpreted
cordingly, if the
as teaching that the 430-year period
from
Ac-
Egypt, the
Israel's descent to
appear insuperable.
culty would be yet
It
may
is
to be dated
difficulty
would
be added that the
more emphasized
diffi-
to find that a
comparison such as Lepsius has instituted
-^
between
the genealogical indications already referred to and
other co-ordinate indications found in extra-Pentateuchal registers serve only to establish beyond contradiction the brevity of the interval
between Jacob
and Moses.
must be clear, to
revise the interpretation of the Exodus passage so as
to bring it into harmony with the genealogical timeThere
is
a necessity, therefore,
it
indications of the Pentateuch, and likewise with Saint
In some
"Seventy" be-
Paul's understanding of the time-period.
way
must be
it
interpreted, as the
lieved, to cover a Canaanitish as well as an
sojourn.
sible
And
if
the question be asked, Is this pos-
may
the reply
Egyptian
at
once be made.
For while without Saint Paul's hint
it
It is possible.
might not have
been discovered,
it
sideration of the
two Pentateuch passages
is
yet true that a careful conwill
show
that not without reason did Saint Paul carry the
time-period back to Abraham's day.
The key
to the solution
^
may be
Lepsius' Egypt,
found,
etc., p. 458.
we
imagine,
Hebrew Chronology.
TJie
in the Genesis passage,
to refer to
Abram
45
where the time-period seems
lumself and his seed.
This
may
be gathered not only from the fact that the " four
hundred years" of the thirteenth verse must be the
same time-period
verse as to come
as that referred to in the sixteenth
an end " in the fourth genera-
to
God was
tion," but because
evidently dealing with
Abraham as the representative of his posterity.

Some may perchance demur at this but one cannot long dwell on the place of Abraham in the Bible
;
without observing that in
all
the divine transactions
with him God regarded him
as a representative be-
liever.
He and
his seed are
contemplated as so com-
pletely one that their history
is
a part of his and his
Moreover, as respects the imme-
a part of theirs.
diate point before us, can one help observing
how
wonderfully the history of the Hebrews in Egypt

reflected that of
and sojourned
Abram
there,
He went down
and was
to
afflicted there,
Egypt,
and was
God had plagued

Pharaoh's house because of him, and sent away
Nay more, God seems to
with much substance.
sent
away
too, at the last, after
in
Egypt
be strangers in a strange land, just as
Abram
lay stress on the fact that the
were
to
himself at that very
Hebrews
moment was
land not yet in possession,
a sojourner in a
suggestion that not
only completes the parallel, but seems to hint that

the period mentioned was intended to cover both
sojourns.
Is
not
it
possible
to
para^Dhrase
the
46
Genesis prediction with this idea in mind, and so
make
clude
clearer
may
It
what
was probably intended
it
be paraphrased thus
nant I make not with thyself alone.

faith in
my
to in-
" This cove-
Because of thy
promise of a numerous posterity, I
And
clude that seed of thine in this covenant.
show how true
this
I will foretell
is,
in-
to
something of the
Thou shalt become a great multitude.

The history of thy seed shall be a repetition of thine.
Thou hast been a stranger in this land since the day
days to come.
thou crossed the River

in
so shall thy seed be a stranger
Even thy
a land not theirs.
shall
be repeated in
tliat
there
so shall thy seed be.
plagued him
because of thee
because of thy seed.
And
substance, so also shall
judged Pharaoh and
thy day.
Thou
shalt
yea, be buried in
Egypt
so will
as thou wentest out with
be with thy seed
it
occur, dost thou ask
afflicted
so will I judge
The end
will
go to thy fathers
a good old age.
they
When
not go out thence empty-handed.
all this
seed shall
Pharaoh sent thee away
he thrust out thy seed.
shall
Thy
Thou wast
be a stranger in that very land.
Egypt
history in
of thy seed.
Some
will
not be in
in peace;
four gen-
must intervene before all shall

this
be fulfilled. This history of thee and thine
history of sojourn in a strange land and of persecution, that has characterized thy life and will be
will cover some four
repeated in that of thy seed
erations of thy seed
hundred years
but at the end of
this
long
j)^^^*^^'
The Hebreiv
Al
Clironologij.
long after thou hast fallen on sleep, thy seed shall
come out of the land of
be ripe for vengeance.
rites Avill
Is
now
claimed for
it
that
It
at
is,
Their iniquity
is
as
much
It
may
at least be
harmony with the headship

a view
character of Abraham,
New
an Old Testament
idea.
possible interpretation of the
Gen-
any rate, a
in
it is
and representative
is
Amo-
full."
such a paraphrase unfair
that
and with
Moreover, by that time the
great substance.
not
their sojourning,
as
The prediction was suggested by the

very nature of the covenant God was at that moment
The covenant included
enterino; into with Abram.
him and his seed and the prediction, while forecastesis
passage.
ing the history of his seed, regards that history as
The sixteenth verse particularly states that that

when the prediction was uttered,
should " come hither again;" thus hinting that the
time that should elapse was to be dated from Abram's
own day.
his.
seed, yet in his loins
This interpretation of the prediction
is,
moreover,
not out of harmony with the Exodus passage as
can be interpreted
for
it
is
*'the children of Israel" of the
possible
to
regard
Exodus passage
simply a parallelism for " the seed of Abraham

the Genesis prediction.
They
are called in
it
as
" of
Exodus
" the children of Israel " because that had come to
long continued, the specific designation of

the descendants of " Abram the Hebrew." It is to be
be, as
it
Ahraliam, Joseph, and Moses in Egjjpt.
48
noted that the Hebrews had in fact two names.
It is
evident from the Genesis and Exodus story that the
Egyptians knew and referred to them as " Hebrews."
Among
themselves, however, this name, while never
entirely disused,
came
to
be used
less
and
less,
un-
that of " the children of Israel "
came to be the
almost constant designation. At the same time their
descent from " the Hebrew " was never forgotten
til
so that
an apostolic
letter
New
even in
Testament
times could be addressed " to the Hebrews."
The
sacred writer
fulfilment to
God
to
who
Abram
the exact
wâs recording
a day of the
prediction uttered
by
evidently regarded " the children of
Israel " and " the seed of
Abraham
" as convertible
terms, and, however obscurely some
may
still
think
he expressed the thought, no doubt intended the

430-year period to coincide with the 400 years of the
prediction.
The whole period was a period of

The Egyptian sojourn
journ and persecution.
so-
of
the seed of Jacob was but the culmination of the so-
journ of the Genesis passage, which contemplated the

history of
Abram and
his seed
The two
as one.
by the dominating
passages must be
interpreted
thought of each.
In the prediction the thought
is
of the history to
come
as the history of
seed, or rather as the history of
nating in that of his seed.

phasis
the
is
Abram
Abram's
still,
culmi-
In the fulfilment em-
put on the precise close which the day of
Exodus put on
that history, which from begin-
49
ning to end had been a story of sojourn and persecu-
The one passage lays stress on the representative

Ahram ; the other, on the exact fulfilment of
the prediction made to him as the head of his people.
At any rate, in some such way alone is it possible
to bring the two Pentateuch passages into harmony
with each other, into harmony with the time-indications of the Levitical registers, and into harmony
tion.
position of
with Saint Paul's understanding of the era.
And
if
any reason the attempt be disallowed, then the

true interpretation will remain an insoluble problem,
for
and one must not reject the passages, but wait

further
for
lig-ht.
Reasoning then in
this
may
way, one
conclude
that the beginning of the time-period of 430 years

is
to
be looked for in the era of Abraham; and
the only remaining question

initial
is
as to its intended
year.
As to
enough
point
this
it
might at
be naturally
first
inferred that the initial year
would be the
date of the Genesis prediction, and particularly as

Saint Paul seems to
make
this his point of departure.
But while Saint Paul evidently believed that the 430year period would carry one back to Abraham's day,
he was not indulging in a formal historical review of
the period.
definitely,
ning or end.
He
i.
e.,
used even the definite number
without regard to
its
in-
exact begin-
His argument had to do with Abraham
as the representative believer of all time

4
and
his
50
Abraliam, Josepli, and Hoses in Egypt.
God made with
strong point was that the covenant
him
the covenant of promise was made
as such
long before the time of the Lawgiver and his law.
The two dates
Saint Paul adopts, that of the covenant
of promise and that of the giving of the law, were
near enough to the real dates, and better suited the
form of
his
argument.
purpose to
It
was no part of Saint Paul's

year of the pe-
settle the precise initial
any more than its precise date of ending.

But there is one insuperable difficulty that would
riod,
prevent our adopting the date of " the covenant

of promise " as the initial year of the time-period,
that
viz.,
precision.
is
it
impossible to fix that date with
only
It is
known
that the prediction was
uttered some time during Abram's
first
sojourn in the land of Canaan, and that
he had been
wife.-'
Now, considering the emphatic way
a day,
it
was
after
Egypt and before he took Hagar
to
the close of the time-period

to
ten years'
it
is
mentioned
in
as
to
which
known
would scarcely be allowable to accept an
approximate date for
its
beginning.
Moreover,
if
the view insisted upon of the representative character
of
Abraham and
his history of sojourn be the true
one, one could scarcely err in accepting as the initial
year of the period that date which the sacred writer
himself gives with precision,

the age of Abram
when he crossed " the River," and so inaugurated
that history of sojourn in a strange land, and of
^
Compare Gen.
xv.
and
xvi. 3.
51
Tlie Hehreiv Clironology.
persecution withal, which was to culminate in the

strangely similar experiences of his seed in the land
That was an era of promise
of Egypt.
also,
and an
In truth, several times during those
era of faith.^
early years
of
sojourn
did
God appear
to
Abram
encouragement, though not in so intensely
for his
solemn and formal a way as at the time of the Genesis
prediction,
when God entered
so
into
compact with him that the historian could
to
rate,
deemed most worthy of
intended to be the
initial
intimately concerned
We may
may
definite
commemora-
year of the period that so
Abram and
his seed.
say, therefore, in concluding this review
Hebrew chronology
of our period, that one
accept from the Pentateuch story with but
hesitation the time-period of
period,
close,
sur-
would, therefore, also seem to be the date
It
of the
still
have furnished a date which the sacred
vives, but to
tion.
call it a
Abram's crossing " the River " seems
have not only given him a name that
writer
" covenant."
At any
fast
and
430
period exact to a day as
to
little
years as a definite
it
came
to a
be dated from the day which should be
the day of days in the calendar of a Jew,
the
day when " the Hebrew " crossed " the River," thus
separating himself from the past and beginning a
history without an ending.
1
Heb.
xi. 9.
Qen. xv.
18.
52
LECTURE
III.
JOSEPH IN EGYPT.
the chart which has been prepared to facilitate
IN the
work of comparison that to occupy us in the
is
remaining lectures, the attempt has been made to

indicate
these
what
is
certain
and what remains uncertain,
latter time-factors
being represented by the
dotted portions of the lines.
Scanning
first
the
Hebrew
at once be observed to
what
Registers confine us.
sum
part of the chart,
strict limits
At one end of
it
will
the Levitical
the line
it is
in addition, that, starting with
Abram's
seventy-fifth year as the initial year of the
Hebrew
but a
time-period, would
oblige us to fix the date of Joseph's
death as the year 286 of that period
and
simpler calculation, at the other end of the

fixes the birth of
thus leaving
Moses
as the year
it is
line,
that
350 of the period,
a possible interval between the two
events of but sixty-four years.
It
must further be
observed with what precision the Registers

place, in the
a yet
Hebrew
fix the
time-period, of Joseph's fourteen
years of plenty and of famine.
It should be
empha-
sized therefore, at the very start, that the dates thus
Joseph in Egypt.
fixed cannot be debated.
ing from the Pentateuch

dating
it
from Abram's
we
If
its
53
are justified in adopt-
430-year period and in
seventj-fifth year, then the
dates referred to are stubborn factors, that remain

fixed points of departure for
any
possible comparison
with the Egyptian chronology.
Scanning next the Egyptian part of the chart,

will
it
be observed that there are, similarly, fixed as
We
well as uncertain time-factors.
refer
now not
only to the regnal periods that are certain, but to

the " Set Era " of the Tanis tablet, which in so curi-
ous a way forms an almost exact parallel with the
Hebrew
time-period itself
For
if
it
years, from
some year of Rameses
all, it
are justified
certainly carries us back 400
in adopting
at
we
And
ning of the Shepherd dominion.
be observed how, within specific
the begin-
II. to
it
cannot but
limits, this era re-
mains a fixed element, whichever Egyptian chronol-
ogy we adopt, furnishing an important corroborative

standard with which to compare parts of the period
that are uncertain, and forbidding undue estimates
of intervals.
The chart presents

for
Egyptian Registers
five possible
comparison with the Hebrew time-period, repre-
senting the differing opinions of Egyptologists on the
chronology
of
our period.
five Registers Avill reveal a
comparison of these
much
less
degree of
di-
vergence of opinion among Egyptologists respecting

this period
than
may have been
imagined.
54
Abraham, Joseph, and Closes in Egypt.
All the Registers, for example, present the same
chronology for the period between the accession of
Aahmes and
the death of
of about 198 years.
And
the regnal periods of Seti
ing
to
Amenophis
seven years
and
to
Seti
which there seems good
a period
they further agree as to
I.
and Rameses
the latter Pharaoh his

^
IV.,
I.
II.,
monumental
assignsixty-
the thirty years, for
reason.'^
of July 3, 1886, may be found tlie "Proems verbal,"

unwrapping of the mummy of Eameses II., which, with
many other royal mummies, came from the Deir-el-Bahari " find." According
to Maspero, the Eameses face bears rather an animal expression than of high
intelligence, coupled, however, with a certain decision of character and an
air of kingly majesty.
The body is that of " an old man, but vigorous and
robust." He adds " It is known that the sole reign of Rameses II. was sixtyseven years, and that he must have died almost a centenarian."
2 In the "Academy" of July 31, 1886, maybe found a similarly precise
account, by Maspero, of the unwrapping of the mummy of Seti I., found also
at Deir-el-Bahari.
We are told that " the condition of the body would suggest
that the sixtieth year had been long passed, confirming the opinion of savants
that attributes to him a very long reign." But though old, it is not necessary
to infer thence that he began to reign very early.
There are indications that
look the other wa}'. It has been suggested as very probable, that his father and
Horns (of Dynasty XVII.) were brothers, and both therefore contemporaries
of Amenophis IV. for Horus was his general. If this be so, it is then likely
that Seti was no longer young when his father died. That he should associate
his son with him on the throne at so early an age would certainly suggest
some reason for such haste,
a reason that might well enough have been his
own advancing years. The monuments yield only his twenty -fifth year; and
1
In the
"Academy"
by M. Maspei'o,
of the
certainly sufficient, therefore, to put his regnal period at thirty years.

This would allow some eighteen years of an associated reign with his son, and
that much of an associated reign for Rameses II. would seem to be required
it is
by the story of Rameses' wars. As an instance of the mistakes sometimes

made by the most exact of men, allusion may be made to the fact that Maspero
(" History," p. 218) should say that Rameses II. " made war in Syria from the
time he was ten years old " whereas, putting together all the data, he could
not well have been less than thirty (he was probably at least thirty-three) at
the time of his Syrian war; for as the story of that war of his fifth year
shows, he was old enough to have sons in command of army corps. No wonder that Brugsch ("History," vol. ii. p. 67) found it difficult to refrain from
;
FROM BRITISH MUSEUM.
THOTHMES
III.
Joseph in Egypt.
The
five Registers differ
As
only: (1)
55
indeed as to three points
to the interval
between the death
Amenopliis IV. and the accession of Seti

interval
differently treated
is
by
of
This
I.
different writers
the divergence in this case, however, amounting to
As to the length of Minepsome making this eight, and others

tah's sole reign
twenty years.^ (3) As to the Exodus era
three
but twenty years.
(2)
of the Registers synchronizing this wdth the close of
Mineptah's reign, and the other two synchronizing
it
with the close of Dynasty XIX.
total di-
vergence of the
less
five
But the
Registers amounts to
than
fifty years.
Advancing now
to a comparison of the five possible
Egyptian chronologies with the Hebrew time-period,
some interesting conclusions

It will
be observed,
three of the Registers
e. g.,
(I.,
will
be reached at once.
that the chronology of
III.,
and IV.) would oblige
us to place Joseph's fourteen-year period in the reign
Thothmes
of
synchronize
it
while that of Register
III.,
with the reign of Amenopliis
II.
would
III.
On
the other hand, the chronology of Register V. would

" The presence of these grown up sons will prove
French scholar that Rameses II. could not have fought at Kadesh as a
boy of ten years." No doubt Brugsch makes the sons too well-grown but the
fact is certified to by the inscriptions, that he had sons with him who were at
chaffing the savant, saying
to a
command of named divisions.

The monuments yield but his eighth year, which was probably its limit.
The twenty years assigned by some is based on the Manetho numbers, which,
as usual, vary in the lists; some making the regnal period eight, others twenty.
It must be evident that the latter number is simply the addition of the twelve
least in formal
1
associated years
and
his eight sole years.
56
oblige us to divide the period
among
three different
Pharaohs.
We may
therefore at once reject Register V.; for
the Scripture story undeniably leaves the impression

that the period in question belonged to a single reign.
Examining next the three Thothmes' Registers

(I., III., IV.), it will be observed that they would
oblige us to date Joseph's elevation, respectively, in
the fortieth, thirty-eighth, and twenty-sixth years of

that Pharaoh.
Now, we may at once dismiss Register IV., because

it is a monumental fact that the whole reign of
Thothmes III. up to his fortieth year was a constant
succession of foreign wars, and the chronology of
Register IV. would oblige us to synchronize some of
his
most
brilliant foreign
years of famine,
campaigns with the seven
a conclusion that one could hardly
accept.
We may
also dismiss Register III., that puts the
elevation
of Joseph in
Thothmes
to consider that
I. is
first
itself to
mes, but, what
it
year of
it
might
would merely oblige us
Thothmes continued
his
campaigns
two of the plenteous years. Register
to be preferred,
adapt
thirty-eighth
for while, did necessity compel,
be accepted, inasmuch as
during the
the
for not only does
it
perfectly
the two stories of Joseph and Thothis
of
of the Register as
more importance, the chronology

a whole is more trustworthy than
that of Ref:ister III.
bl
Joseph in Egypt.
Consequently, only the two Registers

will
and
(I.
II.)
remain for the work of comparison.
Scanning these two Registers, then, it will be observed that while they both include in their reckoning the three brief reigns with which Dynasty
closed. Register
XIX.
throughout the debatable por-
I.,
tions of the era, adopts the shorter, while Register II.
adopts the longer chronology,
the difference
in time
between the two, however, amounting to but thirty

years in
all.
Accordingly,
if
we adopt
the longer chronology,
Joseph's fourteen-year period must be assigned to

the reign of Amenophis III.
shorter
the
whereas,
if
we adopt
chronology, Joseph's period must be
carried back to the reign of
Thothmes
III.
Which one
The question may be asked.

two Pharaohs is the more likely
to
of these
have been the
Pharaoh of Joseph's elevation ?

In reply, it may be said at once, that were we at
liberty to accept at will either of the
gies as equally trustworthy,
it
two chronolo-
would be
difficult to
decide which of the two Pharaohs would better an-
swer to the requirements of the Hebrew story.
monuments show
that the wars of
were virtually over
Thothmes
after his fortieth year,
The
III.
and that
he had the fourteen additional years needed yet to

live
and the wars of Amenophis
III.
were
all
over
before at least the plenteous years had passed by,
we adopt
if
that chronology, with abundance of regnal
58
years yet remaining to more than cover the fourteen-
year period.
Both of them, moreover, were great Pharaohs;

Thothmes III. was, as some think, the great-
for if
est of
Egyptian kings, Amenophis
As
behind him.
famous as
his
a builder, indeed, he
prototype.
really difficult to decide
It
was not
far
was quite
as
III.
would therefore be
between them, whether as
respects the events of their reigns or their place in
Egypt's history.
Some may, however, imagine that the era of

Amenophis is to be preferred, because, if the chronology of that Register
adopted,
is
it
would allow
the death of Jacob to
fall
fourteen-year period
whereas that of Register
in the
same reign
as the
I.
would assign the event to a date some twelve years

after the death of Thothmes III.
But there is something to be said in favor of the chronology of Register
I.
on
this
very ground
for the Genesis story of
Jacob's death and burial seems to imply that
by that
time some change had occurred, affecting Joseph's

position in
4,
5),
tells
Egypt.
The Genesis passage (Gen.
1.
how, after the days of mourning had
ended, Joseph did not himself ask Pharaoh's permission to bury his father in the land of Canaan, but
" spake unto the house of Pharaoh,'' and sought their
Pharaoh on his behalf, saying, " If

have found grace in your eyes, speak, I pray
intercession with
now
you, in the ears of Pharaoh, saying,"
etc.
To be
sure,
Egypt
Josej)li in
this
may
be otherwise explained.
things naturally suggested
59
Still,
the state of
by the words would be
complete harmony with the chronology of Regis-
in
ter
We
I.
are not at liberty to suppose that Joseph
maintained the position to which his Pharaoh exalted
him throughout
remaining career, for he lived
his
eighty years after his elevation.

likely,
is
with the
first
new
reign
change came,
it
though Joseph
was doubtless respected, and continued
to be almost
as influential wath succeeding kings as long as he

lived.^
It
Genesis
is
may
be, therefore, that the passage in
really to be explained as a hint of a
reign intervening.
At any
new
rate, the fact of Jacob's
death occurring in a subsequent reign, as Eegister
would
indicate, is rather
than against,
But there
an argument
I.
in favor of,
its
chronology.
is
a further consideration, apart from
the conviction that the chronology of Register
I. is
more trustworthy, that leads us to make the

choice between the two Pharaohs in favor of Thothmes III. as the more probable Pharaoh of Josej)h's
the
elevation.
We
refer to the
probable influence of
Joseph on the curious history of the reigns succeeding that of Thothmes III.
1 The Talmud mentions a tradition that Pharaoh,

Joseph's friend, died
long before Joseph died, and that he commanded the son who succeeded him
to obey Josepli in all things,

states
and
the same instructions in writing. It also

Egypt for they loved Joseph and trusted
See Polano's translation of " The Talmud," one of the
left
" Tiiis pleased the people of
implicitly in
"Chandos
him"
Classics," p. 118.
60
we may
If
trust the
chronology of Register
Joseph survived Thothmes
a period that
ing reigns;
viz.,
Amenophis
III.
some
I.,
sixty-six years,
entirely covered four of the succeed-
those of Amenophis
III.,
in Egypt.
II.,
and Amenophis IV.
Thothmes IV.,
Moreover, the
Scripture story would certainly suggest that Joseph
was not only not neglected

was
as long as he lived, but
enough to protect the

The question may therefore be
influential
people.
put. Is there anything in the further
rights of his
fairly
enough
monumental
Dynasty that may be explained on
history of the
the hypothesis of Joseph's presence and influence
We
think there
gress of that
is.
We
refer to the rise
and pro-
remarkable religious revolution that
culminated, in the reign of Amenophis IV., in the
establishment of a quasi-monotheism as the religion

of the State.
It
was Lenormant who suggested that " the form
of religion established by Amenophis IV. stood in a
by the
Lenormant saw
close relation to that professed at the time

Israelite portion of his subjects."^
in the
very name of the god so exclusively honored
by Amenophis
IV., " Aten," a reference to the Se-
mitic "Adonai," and asked the question and answered
"
Had
Hebrews part in this foreign and very

imperfect attempt at monotheism ? I believe one
right in supposing this."
He even finds some analit
Manuel
of Egypt, vol.
the
d'histoire (Paris,
ii.
p. 273.
1868), vol.
i.
p.
252.
Kawlinson's History
61
Joseph in Egypt.
ogies
between the
established
cult of the
Hebrews, as
finally
by Moses, and that shown on the monu-
ments of Amenophis IV.,

bread and, we
may
e. g.,
the table of shew-
add, the burning of incense.^
Diimichen also has pointed out the resemblance

"
between the god " Aten " and the Semitic " Adon
(Lord), observing that " the hieroglyphic group was
certainly used with reference to this Semitic
of God."
name
But whether these things be accepted or not, the

fact remains that scions of this Djaiasty were more
or less alienated from the prevailing creed of the
nation, and in one instance completely broke faith
with the past, and went so far as not only to
dis-
card the Theban god and his worship, but to erect
new
cult,
capital,
with
his
temple restricted to a single
the worship of " Aten."
The revolution
IV.
its
did not originate with
Amenophis
had been long brewing. It is known that

flither, Amenophis III., sympathized with the
It
"Aten"
worship, though he did not go to such a
length as his son, and completely break with the
Theban
farther
The revolution can be traced back
priests.
still,
at least to the
preceding reign, that of
Thothmes IV. In that reign, however, it was scarcely

more than a revival of interest in the most ancient
1
See Prisse d'Avenne's " Monuments Eg}7)tiens," PI. XII., where Ameis represented as hurning incense to " Aten."
Die Flotte einer Aegyptischen Koenigin (Leipzig, 1868). See particu-
nophis IV.
-
larly his explanation of
Tab.
III., p. 18.
Abraham,
62
and Moses in Egypt
Jose2jJi,
and purest worship of Egypt, that of the sun.

true that the
if it is
new
rise before the reign of
But
school of thought took
Amenophis
III.,
its
and we are
right in supposing that the rehgious revival was due
any degree
in
of course look for Joseph's

phis III.
mes
It is
III, the
we must
Pharaoh before Ameno-
to Joseph's inspiration, then
on
this account, therefore, that
Pharaoh indicated by Register
ThothI., is
to
be preferred as the Pharaoh of Joseph's elevation.
But let us look a little more closely at this religious

movement, and at Joseph's connection therewith.
What the very earliest worship of Egypt was, it
is perhaps impossible to say.
But those who have
studied the subject most carefully, have noticed that
the nearer
we get to the beginning of things

dogma becomes. And there
simpler and purer

those
who
are
affirm that the earliest theology of the
The polytheism
Egyptians was monotheistic.^
which the sacred books became so
full
One God, who, according
of
can be best ex-
plained as the result of an attempt very early

describe the
the
to
made
to
an expression
that often occurs, " manifests himself in millions of

forms."
1
is
If
there was any universal worship in Egypt,
Brugsch's "Religion und Mythologie" (Leipzig, 1884; only the first half
Eenouf's " Hibbert Lectures" for 1879. " Rev. Arch.,"
as yet published).
vol. for 1860,
Part
I.,
containing articles by
Ritual of the Ancient Egyptians."
De Rouge
Pierret's
on the "Funeral
" Essai sur la Mythologie
Egyptienne " (Paris, 1879). Lepsiu.s' " Aelteste Texte des Todtenbuchs "
Max Miiller on "Solar Myths," in the "Nineteenth Century" (Dec, 1885).
Maspero's "Histoire Ancienne" (1886), p. 25 et seq. also, his " Guide au Musee
;
de Boulaq" (1884),
p. 147,
ou the "Panthe'on Egyptien,"
etc.
63
Joseph in Egypt.
was the sim-worship, founded on the sun-myth.^

That myth in its origin was intended to be a simple
it
description of
sun in
its
phenomena.
various positions above and below the ho-
and noted
rizon,
took account of the
It
Afterwards,
on matter and on
influence
its
perceiving the
analogies
that
life.
are
so
evident between the sun's history and that of a hu-
man
life, it
became
and sought thereby
philosophical,
to explain the origin and history and destiny of all

things.
No one would
be so bold as to affirm that any
Egyptian, at least in the ancient days, accepted the

story of Osh'is and Isis as veritable history.
in
the
And
instance, symbolism, pure
first
possibly no
more appropriate and adequate a
symbol of the Divine Being can be found

than the sun.
No
and no wonder
rate, the
sun-worship
in the
is
it
stayed so long.
and though one or
another of the separate sun-gods of the
as
Ra
myth came
emphasized in certain centres,
Tum
at
at Heliopolis, Osiris at
Memphis, yet the unity

sight
At any
the only universal worship
most ancient Egypt
to be prominently
in Nature,
wonder the sun-myth originated
so early,
met
It was,
and simple.
Abydos, and
of the
myth was never
lost
of.
But
the Egyptians did not stop in their philoso-
myths form but a

phenomena in the realm of
phizing with the sun-myth.

part of mythology.
1
All
Solar
Maspero's Histoire,
p. 211.
"
64
Nature and
were thus described and similarly
life
And how
traced to their causes.
natural
was
it
for
them, while dealing with the causes of the phenom-
ena met with in Nature, to find themselves wrestlinsr

with the problem of the One Great Cause of all
things
It
is
easy enough to see that the other so-
called deities of
sun-gods
ceptions,
things.
it is
i.
those not distinctively
e.,
were originally but
expressions for con-
more or less philosophical, of the origin of

The view serves to explain the multitude
of local deities,
For
Egypt
expressing the same conception.
all
certainly true that in the earliest
no one of these had the pre-eminence.
Egypt
These
local
show what philosophical conceptions

of the Supreme Being and his attributes were most
deities simply
potent in their
Thus,
localities.
e. g.,
the
Memphis
priests, explaining the origin of things, believed that
they were made by some Creator; and they called him
"Ptah," "the maker or shaper," looking on him as
The Theban
the Demiurge of the universe.
priests
put more emphasis on the inscrutable and mysterious
who was
him "Amen,"
character of the Being

being, and so called
But
in the beginning these
the author of
were perfectly
nate conceptions and co-ordinate deities

as
such,
them
all
wherever known.
was the
idea, that
power, of the One God,
And
yet,
co-ordi-
recognized
underlying
never entirely
who
all
"the concealed."
lost its
simply " manifests
himself in these almost numberless forms
meaning
Joseph in Egypt
65
thereby to express the variety of his attributes.^

While, however, these local conceptions gave
way
this
never
lost
through
many
to
The
influence.
its
all
local polytheisms, the
rise in
sun-myth
Heliopolite priests,
changes of Dynasties and of dogmas,
persisted in emphasizing the story of Osiris or Ra,
who was
really Egypt's one God.
no matter where he
tian,
lived,
at death to be identified with
that eternal
The pious Egypwas most anxious

and
Osiris,
enjoy
to
which could alone be possessed by
life
becoming one with him.^
Now, while
this
all
was
true, circumstances
were
ever bringing some one of the local cults into promi-
The establishment
nence.
phis,
e. g.,
would be sure
of the
to
make
capital at
its
Mem-
god"Ptah"
So, wdien
more important throughout the realm.
wâs elevated from the rank of a mere provin-
Thebes
become the capital, it was natural that

Amen," should then come to the fore.
its
Moreover, when we remember the place Thebes
occupied in Egypt's history, it is not to be wondered at that its priests, who were so devoted
to Amen, should assert and maintain his pre-eminence.
At first, to be sure, these claims were not
cial
town ^
to
local god, "
put forth to the exclusion of Ptah or of the solar

gods
1
but in time
Amen was
so far
pushed to the
Hibbert Lectures (1879), pp. 89, 215; also, De Eouge', in "Kev. Arch.,"
2.30, on " The Seventeenth Chapter of the Ritual."
1860, p.
2
Hibbert Lectures,
Maspero's Histoire,
p. 184.
p. 206.
66
dim the
front as to
lustre of the other deities,
Ra and
at length to claim the place of
and
be called
to
" Amen-Ra."
not
It is
ies
difficult, also, to
understand what jealous-
such pretensions would excite
among
the parti-
sans of the other cults, nor to understand
how
the
Pharaohs, aware of what could happen should the
Theban
power
grow too strong,^ would do all in their

curb the development of the Amen-cult;
priests
to
only, however, to discover that
it
was a power be-
hind the throne that they must recognize and even

favor.
Whether Amenophis
growing tyranny,
and not much
Thothmes
is
known
is
Amen
was
resist
resist
the
His reign was short,
of him.
IV., whose reign
priests
aught to
did
not known.
have tried at least to

the
II.
But
his successor,
also brief,
seems
to
the encroachments of
under the pretext of a dream
for
and of a special Divine command, he cleared away

the sand that was fast burying the old Sphinx, and,
connecting
which
it
sun-god "
it
once more with the ancient worship of
was a
relic,
emphasized the worshij) of the
Hormakhis,"
i.e.,
Horus, or the sun, of the
some reason he did not lono;

survive, and his end is obscure. But it is evident, notwithstanding the meagre account we have of the details of the movement, that there was in that reign a
marked revival of interest in the purer worship of
two horizons.
But
It did
for
happen
at the close of
Dynasty XX.
the sun,
plained from
Joseph in Egypt.
67
may not
altogether be ex-
revival that
its political side,
but could be adequately
explained on the supposition

influence of Joseph.
The monuments
probably
tian
made
history.
who, next
III.,
to
much
yield
information respecting the subsequent reign,

of Amenophis
and
of the presence
that
Thothmes
III.,
the profoundest impression on Egyp-
He was
a remarkable
Pharaoh, as
The
respects both his public and private history.
one fact of
his
however, that most stirred the
life,
Egyptians was that
this great
Pharaoh should take
to wife, not a scion of the royal house, nor
Egyptian, but a foreigner,
even an
foreigner, as
agreed to by Egyptologists, of Semitic blood.
is
now
Canon
Cook emphasizes, as he expresses it, "the strongly

marked Semitic features, not to say Jewish, of the
mother of Amenophis IV., as gathered from the porWhy the great
traits found on the monuments."^
Amenophis thus departed from
Egypt, no one can affirm
of her influence on
an epoch
it
the traditions
but the sequel, that
him and on her
son,
of
tells
shows what
created in Egypt's history.
Doubtless Amenophis was influenced in what he

did, partly at least,
by the
ations already mentioned
politico-religious consider-
but his marriage undoubt-
edly strengthened whatever purpose he had formed

1 Speaker's OommeTitar}^
" Denkmaeler," vol. vii. abt.
PI.
XII.
vol.
iii.
i.
p. 460.
For her
also, Prisse
portrait see Lepsius'
d'Avenne's
"
Mouuinents,"
68
of resistance to
craft led
Theban
him
the Amen-encroachments.
still
priests,
to maintain
State-
with
relations
the
and outwardly he showed them favor
but he also showed marked favor to the ancient sun-
worship of Heliopolis, and at length, according
to
some, established, though not to the exclusion of the
Amen-worship, the special sun-cult, which received

twin
Even
development under his son's reign.
fullest
colossi,
its
those
erected in his reign, that are so conspic-
uous a feature of the Theban
plain,
completely domi-
nating the horizon in the South as the Sphinx does
can only be explained as identifying
in the North,
the king with the sun-god Horus, of the two hori-
At any
zons.
festival,
Amenophis
rate,
celebrated
III.
which a scarabaeus connects with
his eleventh
year, of a boat of the solar disc, called " Aten-nefru,"
i.
e.,
" the most lovely Aten,"
therefore, inclined
Birch says, deemed

degrees."
The
the
to
He was
new dogma,
but, as Dr.
it
needful " to introduce
it
by
son,
Amenophis
IV.,
on reaching the throne,
at once openly revolted against the
ency
doubtless,
Amen-ascend-
and that no one might misunderstand
his
purpose, worshipped the sun exclusively, regarding

the visible sun, that
is
so important to the life of the
God who is the

source of all blessing.
He even founded a new capital, and made it the centre of his new cult and was
earth, as symbolical of the invisible
Birch's History of Egypt, p. 108.
69
Joseph in Egypt.
so
much
in earnest that
to "
Amenophis
he changed his name from
Khuenaten," as though he would not
He had
even be called by Amen's name.

courafire of his convictions,
and
build an " Aten " sanctuary in
Karnak temple
against the
wards destroyed, and
Now
dicate,
if,
as the
its
Thebes
though
was
after-
materials appropriated.
Joseph was exalted in the

III.
over
itself,
it
chronology of Register
reign of Thothmes
also the
enouarh to
felt stroni:
would
in-
last quarter of the
and continued
all these succeeding reigns,
I.
may we
through
to live
not find the key
and
to the evidently increasing influence of the creed

ritual of Heliopolis in his connection therewith ?
It is at
story, that
any rate
Joseph became connected with Heliopolis,
home
the old-time
into
its
true, according to the Scripture
of sun-worship,
priestly house,
flict
and even married
as startling
from the
Egyptian as from the Hebrew point of view.

over, the Hebrews, his kindred,
tained a recollection of the
seem
to
More-
have
of that alone, amid the Divine discipline that
deavored to
re-
Heliopolite ritual, and
instil into their hearts, as
en-
into their creed,
the faith of Jehovah and his spiritual worship.
In the sun-god ritual at Heliopolis the sun-bull of
Mnevis^ ^7^) phiyed an imwas the bull which was colored in
Osiris (the white bull
portant part.
It
when painted on inscriptions

was made in gold or brass.
gold
Lcpsius' Egypt, Ethiopia,
and when
etc., p. 413.
cast,
Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in J^gypt
70
In Egyptian symbolism, while the gods were sometimes represented as
men with characteristic emblems,
they were also represented by
Amen,
animals.-^
e. g.,
was symbolized by a well-grown goose, Ptah by a

beetle, Thoth sometimes by an ibis and sometimes by
by a
a dog-headed ape, Anubis
with the sun-gods.
bird (the
bull.
this
all
was
Ka was
Osiris.
Both the Osiris-Phoenix and
home
the Ra-bull, " Mnevis," had a
Now,
it
Horns' symbol was the hawk.
"Phoenix") represented
symbolized by a
So
jackal.
was doubtless
purest symbolism, though
at
Heliopolis.
in the first instance the

it
degenerated, as
it
was
sure to do, into a disgusting animal-worship.
The most celebrated of the sacred animals were

the bulls, called by different names at various local
centres, but all pointing to the same god.
The
" Mne vis-bull " at Heliopolis was called " the soul of
The "Apis " bull at Memphis was called "the
Ra."
incarnation of Osiris."
At first this latter was a
pure sun-god
complex
but at length
deity,
both Ptah and

life
of
father,"
and was
said to
Osiris,
and was
Ptah and soul of
its
wâs
it
developed into a
have proceeded from

called "
Osiris."
It
The second
was "without
generation was of heavenly origin, " a
ray of light from the sky fertilizing
its
mother."
The deceased Apis bull became an Osiris, and took

the name of " Osiris-Apis," of which the Greeks
The bull-worship at Memphis,
made " Serapis."
1
Maspero's Histoire,
p. 28.
Joseph in Egypt.
therefore,
came
at
to
was not
strictly the
71
pure sun-worship.
It
be mixed up with the Ptah Avorship, just as
Thebes the
later worship of
"Amen"
was devel-
oped, as stated already, into the mongrel conception

of
Amen-Ra."
''
The sun-worship was best maintained in its purity

where all the sun-gods comprised in the
at Heliopolis,
sun-myth had their recognition, and the doctrine of

the Divine Unity was clearly enough taught in
its
This idea was represented by the
theological school.
white bull Mnevis, whose worship, symbolizing as

did " the soul of Ra," kept before the
mind
worshipper the thought that there was after
it
of the
but
all
one God.
Is
lost
it
a mere coincidence, then,
when
the
Hebrews
heart amid the perplexities of the wilderness,
that they should have returned, as
by an
instinct, to
a worship with which they had probably been only

too flimiliar
We
new
of
all
life
know how, amid
that led
them
the uncertainties of their
to think themselves deserted
Moses and Moses' God, they
bull
and worshipped
it,
a time before in Egypt.
savs,
there
no
up the golden
doubtless as they had done
many
is
set
doubt
For, as
Lenormant
but that "during;
sojourn in Egypt the monotheism of the
had become somewhat materialized."^

serve to give a greater point to the
1
Manuel,
vol.
i.
p. 254.
their
Hebrews
Such
command
fjicts
writ-
Ahraham, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt
72
ten
by God's own
finger,
that,
while enumerating
the very forms of worship with which they were fa-
any
miliar, forbade symbolic worship of
description,
and put the command in the Decalogue, as a moral
A purely
prohibition of universal obligation.
ual worship
is
the most difficult of
all
and apostasy therefrom natural and
dency
operative
is
day, which, innocent as
and
it is
an aid to devotion,
as
The
easy.
ten-
symbolism of our own
in the
still
spirit-
achievements,
claimed to be in
is
itself
as important a step
toward idolatry to-day as ever.
Nevertheless,
it
can-
not be doubted that Joseph to a certain extent con-
formed in Heliopolis to
not have married into
coming
its
its
He
sun-worship.
priestly house without be-
at least formally associated with its school
and without showing some sympathy with
To be
ing.
sure,
some may think
Joseph that he should,
many
for so
if
he
did,
to
remember
it
its
teach-
a reflection on
even appear
to abet
as
indefensible.
Besides, Joseph probably
One can under-
simply symbolism.
how Joseph, though

Hebrew faith, might have
stand
But we
Second Commandment
that the
had not yet been given.

regarded
it
years a style of worship that from the
Scripture's standpoint seems
are
could
retaining to the full his
seen in the sun-worship
of Heliopolis not only the purest of Egypt's creeds,
but a symbolic
way
of expressing his
but One God, the source of
there
is
ing.
Moreover, he
may have
own
belief that
all life
regarded
it
and
bless-
as a choice
Joseph in Egypt
between
He may have
evils.
73
reasoned that
it
was
not only easier but wiser to supplant Egypt's polytheism by emphasizing one of
which could be
purest dogmas,
its
easily explained
as teaching
mono-
If he could not at once overthrow the gods of
theism.
Egypt, he could try to mitigate the horrors and indecencies of the idolatrous mysteries,
tion to a purer
their
own
atten-
and more beneficent worship which
priests
could teach, and which had been
sung from ancient times
He
by drawing
in
many
beautiful
doubtless found a possible ground for
hymns.
sympathy
with the Heliopolite dogma, in the original symbolism of the sun-worship, that representing Ea, as
did,
both as a
bolize
man and
a bull, did so
on the one hand the
it
simply to sym-
and on the
intelligence,
other hand the creative and upholding strength, of

the one God,
who
is
the Author and the Sustainer
of the universe of matter and of mind.
From
such a point of view
it is
easy enough to
explain the rise and progress of the religious revolution that characterized the middle history of
XVin.
of
It
Dynasty
throws light on that curious marriage
the third Amenophis, that
undoubtedly can be
adequately explained by the presence
of some
Joseph's kindred in the court
It certainly
circle.
of
points to the inspiration of her conceded influence
on the king respecting the new

old.
It
would
son, an
also point to
influence
was yet so
Joseph's influence on the
cult, that
great enough by that time to
Ahraliam, Joseph^ and Moses in JEgypt.
74
lead
Amenophis
virtually to
as well as Thebes,
abandon Heliopolis
itself
and establish a new centre for
Around the
grown up corruptions and
a yet purer form of the sun-worship.

old centre had doubtless
abuses, which Joseph found
The only thing
or control.
sible, to
and
worship,
done was,
to be
induce the king to break with

establish
to
impossible to reform
it
" Atenism,"
altogether,
it
exclusive
virtually
recognizing
if pos-
but
creed
and
one
god
" Aten," the very
of "
Lord
name
" of
to "
name suggesting the Semitic notion

all.
The change of the king's own
" the glory of Aten,"

of God" would certainly show
Khuenaten
or " the glory
i.
e.,
his
own warm sympathy

It is
"
new
with the
from considerations such as these, that we are
led, therefore, to prefer the era of
the
theology.
date
of Joseph's elevation
heresy (as some regarded
it)
Thothmes
III. for
inasmuch as the
certainly took
its rise,
though with feeble beginnings, before the time of
Amenophis
III.,
and the heresy
itself
can be best
explained in connection with the presence and
ence of Joseph.
Besides, as already seen,
it is
clusion to which the chronology of Register
influ-
the conI.,
that
more trustworthy than the other, would lead.

But whether in the end it will appear that
Thothmes III. or Amenophis III. was the Pharaoh
is
of Joseph's elevation,
can be
said, at present, that
them would abundantly satisfy the condisuggested by the Hebrew narrative.
either of
tions
it
'^'jrm
,^T^!^'^^
FROM BRITISH MUSEUM.
AMENOPHIS
III.
75
Joseph in Egypt.
(1)
Each
of
them had a reign long enough and
of a character to answer the requirements of the
story of Joseph.
Both were native sovereigns; and consequently all the arguments that point to a native
rather than to a foreign prince, like one of the
(2)
Shepherds, would equally well apply.
No one with an unprejudiced mind, reading the

Hebrew story, would for a moment think of Joseph's
Pharaoh
There are a number
Shepherd king.
as a
of incidental hints, scattered throughout the narrative,
which, brought together, find their most natural
interpretation
in
we may
which Joseph knew so
an example that " aside,"

Gen.
xlvi.
34,
turn to the advantage
shepherd
Take
an Egyptian Pharaoh.
if
so call
''
to
for every
To
an abomination to the Egyptians."
is
in
it,
how
well
of his brethren,
as
be sure, there are those who, believing Joseph's

Pharaoh to have been a Shepherd king, and perceiving
explain
point of
the
the
to suit their
it
forced are
their
'^
view
but
explanations.
All,
however,
is
must
all
would surely not be suggested

reader.
have
aside,"
feel
how
Shepherd king
to
natural
to
tried
the
ordinary
enough,
if
the
Pharaoh were a native sovereign, and particularly
if
of a Dynasty whose founder had expelled the hated

foreigners,
and who continued
to hold in abhorrence
the very occupation that would
Shepherd kings.
call
to
mind the
76
may
Mention
also
be made of two important facts
touched upon in the Hebrew story,
viz.,
Joseph's
connection by marriage with the priestly house of

Heliopolis at PharaoKs instance,
in several connections
all
As
former point,
hints given
that Joseph's Pharaoh
Egypt from one end of
king over
to the
and the
is it
more
it
was
to the other.
likely that such a
connection would have been sought for Joseph, or
if
sought granted, under a native or a foreign rule
As
to the latter point,
it
is
not certain that such
a universal sway was true of any Shepherd king.
The Delta was doubtless in the complete possession

of some of them for a time, but it is not likely that
their sway over Upper Egypt ever amounted to
much more than a suzerainty.^ Certainly none of
the Shepherd kings
ever so ruled the whole land
as to be able to introduce such important
reaching
fiscal
arrangements as
is
and
far-
asserted in Scrip-
ture of the Pharaoh of Joseph.

It
may
be further stated, that even
if
a recon-
structed chronology would allow the era of Joseph

to
be synchronized with the Shepherd Era, there
would be an inexplicable
difficulty to
remove, occa-
sioned by the continued presence of the Hebrews in

Egypt subsequent to the Shepherds' expulsion. The
question might in such a case fairly enough be
1
Gen.
Maspero,
the
xli. 45,
Fayoum."
46;
xlvii. 20, 21.
in his " Histoire," p. 167, says "their
sway was scarcely beyond
11
Joseph in Egypt.
asked,
Why
were not the Hebrews
also
expelled
from the Delta along with their Semitic neighbors ?

"Why, in view of the hatreds begotten by the very
occupation of the Hyksos,
fied as
a hatred that only
time passed by, so that the very sight of one
was enough
to
evoke
it
anew,
shepherds allowed to stay
On
were
explicable.
It
the
Hebrew
the hypothesis of Register
Joseph to Egypt long

all is
intensi-
I.,
which brings
Shepherd expulsion,
after the
can be readily understood
how
in
the time of Thothmes HI. a simple Hebrew should,

for distinguished services to the
State, be raised to
honor, just as Daniel and Mordecai were rewarded
long after in the farther East.

his evident spirit of loyalty to
It is clear, too,
how
Pharaoh's interests,
coupled with his unfeigned piety, would check any
undue jealousy or suspicion of the

hypothesis best explains,
also,
precautions which Joseph
felt
when
ment
it
became needful
foreigner.
the spirit of those
prudent
it
to provide
of his brethren in Egypt.
The
We
larly to his successful effort to get
for
to
take
the settle-
refer particu-
them assigned
to
a part of the country not only suited to their occupation, but
where they could dwell apart from the
Egyptians, and
so, at least for
a while, not arouse
prejudice against themselves, either as foreigners or
shepherds.
It is
easy enough to see, in view of
these circumstances,
how
all
neither Pharaoh nor his
house nor the Egyptians would be apt to think of
78
danger
connection with the single family thus
in
allowed to live and thrive on Egyptian
And
soil.
it
but needful to suppose that during the remainder
is
of his
Joseph acted with the prudence of the
life
earlier years, to
how
understand
his character
would
continue to be respected, and his influence on be-
would be maintained
half of his people's interests
through every change of government he survived,
and
as long as
he lived
and that only thereafter
could any suspicion and persecution of the
Hebrews
begin.
The
tian
narrative of Joseph
whole
in its
is
and
spirit
indeed intensely Egypin every detail,
even to
names and places. It is as much so as the story of

Moses, whose Pharaoh is universally accepted as a
native sovereign.
At any rate, the chronology that
obliges us to place Joseph's elevation in the reign
Thothmes
either of
this
much
case he
It
of Amenopliis
confirmation in the
III.
finds
fact that in either
would be an Egyptian king.
may
be added that either of them would be
also a great
made by
III. or
the
Pharaoh
Hebrew
for such
story.
also the impression
is
Joseph's Pharaoh was
a sovereign whose word was law,
who
could change
the very constitution of society in his realm, and
become
1
in one sense a despot,
Brugsch's History,
extenso in his books,
H. G. Tomkins
vol.
i.
Ebers has entered into this question in

well-known insight and accuracy. Rev.
p. 265.
and with
his
also, in his valuable
to the " Victoria Institute."
though in another
works, originally contributed as papers
Joseph in Egypt.
under Joseph's
sense,
And
ruler.
the
The
Amenophis.
a really beneficent
was equally
Thothmes and the great
curiously enough,
of both
true
tuition,
79
great
this too
history of the
monuments would
show that both of these sovereigns were at once

the most powerful and the most beneficent of
Egypt's Pharaohs.
If the objection be
urged to the identification of
either of these Pharaohs as Joseph's Pharaoh, that
there
is
no
monumental
indication
of Joseph's
would appear that there were two occasions, referred to ou the monuBoth, as was to be
suffered from prolonged famines.
expected, have been claimed as the famine of Joseph's day. The first would
carry us back, however, to the days of Usertesen I., the second king of Dynasty XII. (See Brugsch's " History," vol. i. p. 135; also "Records of the
Past," vol. xii. p. 63.) This era is one in which some have located Abraham,
1
It
ments,
when Egypt
but to which no one would now assign Joseph.
mentioned by Brugsch (vol. i. p. 261). It is found

of one Baba, whom Brugsch would synchronize
with the period of the Rasekenens, one of whom, the first, was Apepi's contemporary. Brugsch, who regards Apepi as Joseph's Pharaoh, believes that
The
other famine
is
in an inscription in the
tomb
in this instance the famine alluded to
Baba
is
that of Joseph's day
as an officer of the native prince,
who
acted under
tlie
and he regards
instructions of
Apepi, his suzerain, or of Joseph, Apepi's chief. But according to the chronology of the era as determined by both the Hebrew and Egyptian registers,
Apepi must be considered as an impossible Pharaoh of Joseph, but may

have been Abraham's Pharaoh. So that if Brugsch is right in his surmise that Baba was Apepi's contemporary, there may, curiously enough, be
in his tomb-inscription an allusion to the famine that brought Abram to
Egypt. The monuments, therefore, thus far yield no allusions to Joseph's
famine.
There is, however, a monumental allusion to a granary officer in a subsequent reign who occupies a position so like Joseph's that one is certainly
tempted at
first
was Amenophis
thought to identify the two, and particularly as his Pharaoh

III.
dated Jan. 23, 1880.
M.
first directed attention to him in a letter

be found in " Trans. Vict. Instit.," vol. xiv., ap-
Naville
It is to
pended to Rev. H. G. Tomkins' paper on " The Life of Joseph."

describes
some
XLIL), which,
pictures (see Prisse d'Avenne's " jMoinimeuts," PI.

as he says, reminded
him
]\I.
Naville
XXXIX.-
strongly of Joseph and his employ-
80
AhraJiam, Joseph, and Moses in
l^gjjpt.
presence in either reign, nor a hint even of any
event of the fourteen-3êar period,
it
can only be
Not as yet. For the monumental history of

the two reigns, while reasonably full, remains incomplete.
But the objection would be of equal
force with respect to the reign of any other
There were other
supposed Pharaoh of Joseph.
replied,
fixmines in
scarcity,
Egypt,
but
doubtless prolonged seasons
there
is
but two of them; and
of
monumental information of
this has
reached
us,
not on
A minister
named "Khaemha" stands in the presence of Amenophis

bow before him, showing that he is of exalted rank.
He speaks to the king, and has under his command all the tax-gatherers and
all that concerned the granaries.
He has the strange title, " The eyes of the
ment.
III.,
while
all
others
king in the towns of the South and his ears in the provinces of the North,"
knew the land perfectly, and that,

had gone throurjhout all the land of Egypt (Gen. xli. 46), " His
resemblance with Joseph I find particularly striking, considering that Joseph
seems to have been a purely civfl officer, and to have had nothing to do with
Mr. Tomkins was impressed with a scene in one of the
the military class."
which, as
M.
Naville says, implies that he
like Joseph, he
pictures where the great
man
is
decorated with a royal collar of gold, the gift
was the case with Joseph.

It is to be remembered that both M. Naville and Mr. Tomkins make
Apepi to be Joseph's Pharaoh, so that it was impossible for them to regard
this " Khaemha " of Amenophis III. as Joseph.
They were simply impressed
with the resemblances between the two as illustrating the Scripture story.
When, however, as seen already, we know that Amenophis III. could be the
Pharaoh of Joseph's elevation, or at least that Joseph was his contemporary,
it is certainly tempting to identify " Khaemha " as Joseph.
But there is one
reason that would utterly forbid the identification,
a fact not alluded to by
either M. Naville or Mr. Tomkins, but which Plate XLII. makes clear,
that
of the king, just as
the great "
Khaemha "
is
represented as offering first-fruits to the goddess
and the garden. However one may believe

any degree the purer sun-worship of
the Heliopolite school, it could scarcely be credited th.at he conformed to
So that it
the Egyptian usages as respects the other gods of the pantheon.
Rannu, the patroness
of the field
that Joseph could have countenanced in
would seem
to be necessary to disallow
any
identification of "
Khaemha"
Joseph.
as
COMPARATIVE
n-i
f=r
3A,^J,enl CKjuatiott,
iJ
CHHONOLOGV
Aeotiticn, of
Ao^ttwb toTAetêtM;
of
Mil
ihl
II
M M
,.j
1.
liJj_LlI
IM^l^^py
.^
SetBra. af 00'yea.iâ."
ZE
aYeafa i*fore xpu.taio
Years
Ze/o-rc
^^Q\
WrmAmTn ^pUs
^pu.laUr.
mr
'^-
AW
-^
\M.
Hi
ii^'kif"
Joseph in Egypt
81
any royal monument, but discovered by the merest

accident in private tombs.
however,
tion,
its
utmost
Granting to the objecnot militate
force, it does
against the fact that not only the era of Joseph, but
Hebrews taken
of the
many
as a whole, does
fit
itself, at
points of contact, into the history of
authenticated by the
We
We
way.
satisfactory
monuments, and
history of Joseph.
we
trust,
in a
very
have been reviewing the

are next to deal with the
era of Abraham, and then of Moses.

reach,
Egypt
some important
And we
conclusions.
will
Still,
work of comparison has not been ended. It is

only begun but as far as the monuments at present
the
allow
us to
reflects
we
comparison in no particular
upon, but the rather supports, the Hebrew
No one
tradition.
bring to
go, the
light.
possess,
can say what more any day
We
must be grateful
and wait patiently
for more.
may
for the light
Abraham
82
Joseph, and Moses in Egypt.
LECTURE
IV.
ABRAHAM AND MOSES.
Hebrew
mentions
THEEgypt
made by Abraham and
tradition
a brief visit to
the question
is
therefore
a natural one, whether
its
be fixed in the Egyptian chronology.

date in the
It
Hebrew
time-period
date
can
Its precise
not mentioned.
is
can only be approximately gathered, but near
enough
According to the Genesis
for our purpose.
story, the visit
was made not very long
Abram
after
had crossed " the River," and certainly before he had
been ten years
in the land of Canaan.
indeed, be far out of the
way
in
One
cannot,
supposing that
it
was made somewhere between the second and the

fifth
year of the Canaanitish sojourn
for that
would
allow sufficient time for Lot's subsequent settlement

in the
all
Jordan valley, and the battle of the kings,
of which happened,
it is clear,
before the specified
when Abram took Hagar to wife.^ If

the visit was made then, somewhere between the
second and the fifth year of the Hebrew timetenth year,
Gen.
'^
Gen. xvi.
xii.
10 to end, and
3.
Compare
xiii. 1, 2.
verse 16.
83
Abraham and Moses.

period,
it
requires but a glance at the comparative

to observe that the
chart of the two chronologies

visit
ruled
must have been made while the Shepherds
Egypt
Hebrew
for the fifth year of the
time-
period coincides, in the adopted Egyptian Register

(Register L), with a year of the Shepherd Era which
was, indeed, some eighty-five years previous to the
Expulsion.
The question may
be asked, whether
therefore
such a conclusion would find any support in the
Hebrew and Egyptian
may
story
To
stories.
this question it
be replied at once, that as far as the

concerned, there
is
militate
ag;ainst
Hebrew
nothing that would
such a conclusion, but the rather
everything to favor
An
it.
Genesis can hardly
fail
between the Egypt
of
Joseph,
is
to
unprejudiced reader of
observe
the difference
Abraham and
the
Egypt
of
a difference that cannot adequately be ex-
plained by the simple lapse of time.

clear that the
It is at
Pharaoh who received and
once
so hospita-
bly treated Abram, notwithstanding that he brought

with him his flocks for keep, was an entirely differ-
ent style of
man from
the king
who
shared with his
people a hatred of foreigners, and particularly of the
shepherd
Abram
into
reconcile
And
class.
the
while those
Dynasty XH., and
Hebrew
story
so
who push back

are obliged to
with a native reign,
monumental history of native

Pharaohs evidence to show that strangers were
have found
in
the
84
must
allowed to enter and to dwell in Egypt,
all
admit that these are exceptions to the
and that
rule,
much contempt for foreigners

our own day. Outside peoples
the Egyptians had as

as the Chinese of
were looked upon

if
as
barbarians, to
be tolerated,
need be, within their borders, not hospitably en-
tertained.
What
story present
sis
the reception of
a contrast with this does the Gene!
characterized
that
Pharaoh and
amid
even
There
Abram
is
a cordiality that marks
with his herds, a simplicity
the relations between
him and
his princes, a tenderness of treatment
occasioned
plagues
the
by
Abram's
prevarication, that one can hardly connect with a
proud and arrogant Egyptian prince.
enough explained
chronologies
if,
All
is
easily
as the comparison of the
two
would suggest, he were a Shepherd
king, himself a Semitic or at least a foreigner.

If
it
be asked who he was, one can of course only
And yet it would be a supposition in

whose favor much can be said, scrutinizing the two
chronologies, if we should suspect him to be the
conjecture.
very Apepi (or Apophis) that a Manetho tradition
made the Pharaoh of

of the Manetho
was a simple inadvertence

the
^
Hebrew
that
afflict
so
the
many
perfectly possible that
lists, it is
that substituted Joseph's
Considering
Joseph.^
confusions and misplacements
it
in quoting the tradition,
name
for Abram's.
For
if
time-period be correctly dated from the
Lepsius' Konigsbuch, middle section, Dynasty
XVIL
(Eusebius' List).
Ahraham and Moses.

Abram,
calling of
it
impossible that Joseph could
is
have lived in Apepi's time, while

of
85
it
might be true
Abram.
Moreover, as far as the Egyptian chronology
concerned,
the
eighty-fifth
year previous
Shepherd Expulsion could very readily

of Apepi.
reign
has been
It
stated
is
to
the
fall in
the
already that
the monuments establish the fact, suggested also

by the Manetho lists, that the Shepherd kings of
Dynasty XVII. were really suzerains, and that they
recognized a native line as vassal princes.
now add
that
it is
possible to gather from the time-
indications, imperfect as they are,
able
for
of the
two
the
We may
lines,
a quite
which are
satisfactory
With regard to the native

monuments prove that there were
the
princes
four
at
least
to
Aahmes, Egypt's
in
father of
Aahmes.
Shepherd
line,
were two,
if
the
the native
line
previous
viz.,
three
"
Then, as to the contemporary
Manetho
lists
indicate that there
not three of them, that intervened
between the King Apepi who was suzerain

(or
"
Ta
Sekenen Ra," and Kames,
liberator,
princes, each also called "
Ta
idea
era of Apepi.
line, e. g.,
first
avail-
to the
Sekenen Ra) and the Shepherd king who
was contemporary with Aahmes
for
it is
in this
only that Apepi's position in the Manetho
lists
way
can
be explained.
As
to the
time covered by these contemporary
suzerains and vassals,
it
can be said that while
it is
86
impossible to be certain as to this,
in Egypt.
it
can neverthe-
be approximately gathered.
less
It
certain,
is
e.
Kames' reign was
the native line, that
as to
g.,
short,^
"
but as to the three " Ta
one can only conjecture.
princes
unknown
It is
whether they were father, son, and grandson, or

If Maspero's surmise
father and two sons.
judging from the appearance of his
rect,
the third
Ta was about
down
As
the
to
mummy,
when
struck
lists
regnal periods of the contemporary
we
;
eight
MaManetho
are completely dependent on the
and these, as
numbers, are
the
cor-
in battle.^
Shepherds,
netho
forty years old
is
usual with the
great confusion.
in
lists
is
Still,
six out of
Apepi sixty-one years
give
while the variations respecting the
which follow are considerable,
it is
and
two or three
at least clear that
eighty-five years previous to the Expulsion
would
be sure to bring us into some year of Apepi's reign.
Beyond any doubt, the same period would be ample

to bridge
Ta
I.
the interval in the native line between
(Sekenen Ra), who was Apepi's contemporary,
and Aahmes, who expelled the Shepherds.

1
Brugsch's History,
In the
vol.
"Academy"
i.
p. 252.
Chabas' Les Pasteurs,
of July 31, 1886,
may
p. 41.
be found Maspero's detailed
was among the " find " at Deirforty and of a vigorous frame.
Serious wounds, particularly one inflicted on his head with a mace, show that
he was struck down in battle. There was also some delay in securing his
body for the embalming was done only after decomposition had set in, and
account of the unwrapping of the

el-Bahari.
The mummy is that
all
was done
in haste.
mummy.
of a
It
man about
Abraham and Moses.
87
Calculating the probabilities in this
meagre data
available,
one would certainly be
putting Abram's
fied in
time, and before the
There
is,
way from
to
visit
war of
Egypt
liberation
the
justi-
in Apepi's
had begun.
moreover, a Scripture fact that certainly
serves to corroborate the view that Abram's Pha-
We
raoh was at least a Shepherd king.
refer to
the Divine prohibition that forbade Isaac to go to
Egypt.
We
learn from Gen. xxvi.
1, 2,
that there was a
famine in Isaac's as well as in Abram's day, and that
minded
Isaac was
that
not
shall
at first to seek relief in Egypt, but
" the Lord appeared unto him and
down
Egypt; dwell
it
may
which
deemed inexpedient
seek an asylum in Egypt ?
be asked, was
just then for Isaac to
The
in the land
Go
thee of."
tell
Why,
into
said,
it
precise date of the prohibition can only be
approximately gathered, but
it
would seem from
its
position in the narrative to have been not long before
the
Esau's marriage, which would
time about 100 years
old.
make
Isaac at
That date would
be the one hundred and twenty-fifth year of the
Hebrew
Register
.after
time-period, which
I.
date
in
would coincide with the
Aahmes' accession, or
the
Egyptian
fortieth
thirty-five
year
years after
the expulsion of the Shepherds.
There
is
no need, however, of fixing with greater
precision the date of the occurrence, in either the
88
Hebrew
or the Egyptian chronology.
It is
enough
to perceive that at the date of the prohibition the
Shepherds were no longer in the land, and to gather,

as can be done from the Egyptian history of the
years thereafter, that the
the hated foreigners and
of
spirit
all
of
enmity towards
that would remind one
them not only survived through all those years,

It was simply awaiting its
but became intensified.
opportunity for revenge,
an
opportunity that did
not come until the time of Thothmes HI., when the

great " war of vengeance," as it was called, against
the Asiatics broke out, and only
came
to
an end in
the complete subjugation of the peoples as far as the
Long
Euphrates.
after Isaac's time Joseph discov-
ered that the feeling against the Shepherds was
still
dominant among the Egyptians.
Amid such
hate and spite surely
it
was not
any time from the date of the Expulsion

mes' own day for an Asiatic to be found
much
less for
safe at
to
Thoth-
in
Egypt,
one such to repair thither with flocks
and herds.
So that
not to
may
in the
Divine prohibition laid upon Isaac
go thither, even under
stress of famine,
we
find confirmation, albeit incidental, of the gen-
eral correctness of the
adopted chronology, suggest-
ing on the one hand that Joseph's era was certainly
subsequent to the Shepherd Expulsion, and on the

other hand that Abraham's Pharaoh must have been
a Shepherd.
Abraham and Hoses.

There
89
yet further corroboration of the surmise
is
that Abram's Pharaoh was a Shepherd king in the

fact
mentioned by the sacred writer, that when Abram
came
Canaan he found not only "the

the land," but, more specifically still,
into the land of
Canaanite in
the Amorite and the Hittite, and, what
is
yet more
noteworthy, a settlement of Hittites around Hebron.-^
Modern research seems to have settled the point ^

that the original home of the Hittites was in the
Southern Caucasus and in Cappadocia and
other parts of Asia Minor, and
way
spread by
of Cilicia into
Northern Syria, found-
Their principal capitals, as late
ing there an empire.

as Dynasties
some
that they thence
XVIII. and XIX., were Carchemish on
the Euphrates and Kadesh on the Orontes.^
North-
ern Syria seems to have continued to be the habitat

of the " Khita " as late as the time of Rameses II.
There
is
no monumental evidence that the Khita
inhabited Palestine earlier than that date*

this
on
ground, indeed, that some have disallowed the
identification
the Hittites
of
monumental Khita,
tites of
of Genesis with
the
or regard them at least as Hit-
another stock.
Gen.
Maspero's
Wright's Empire of the Hittites (2d ed.).

Brugsch's " History," vol. ii. p. 3 also Professor Sayce's "
It is
xii. G
xiv. 13
xv. IG; xxiii. 10.
Ilistoire, p. 179.
loscription," in the "
Academy" of
A New Hittite
and criticisms thereon in the

" Academy " of Octoher 30, by Professor Cheyne and Dr. Neubauer also Professor Sayce's reply, November 6 also Rev. H. G. Tomkins in the " Academy,"
Nov. 13, 1886.
Oct. 23, 1886,
Abraham^ Joseph^ and Moses
90
But the presence of those

Palestine at so early a date
in Egypt.
Hittites in Southern
is
sufficiently well ex-
by the modern theory which Maspero^ and
plained
have developed, and which connects those
others
Hebron
Hittites with a great migration
which ended
only in the Shepherd Invasion of Egypt.
Maspero regards the migration
movement, others
as a Canaanitish
wave
as a Semitic
but both sides
hold that in trending southward from the startingpoint
it
its train
either pushed forward or dragged along in
some of the
Hittites
and Amorites, who had
by that time occupied Northern

in the path of the migration.
Syria,
and who were
Palestine itself was
al-
ready occupied by many other sons of Canaan, and

these were
mountain
obliged
take refuge
to
fastnesses.
Now, according
principally in
to the theory,
the great bulk of the emigrants pushed on and in-
vaded Egypt
and Amorite
left
but some of the fragmentary Hittite

tribes stopped
on the way, and were
behind in Southern Palestine, scattered among
the original Canaanitish tribes.

ried in the vicinity of
And
Some
of these tar-
Hebron, and founded there a
Numbers passage^ would

seem to teach that these Hittites built Hebron some
seven years before the main body of emigrant invaders, who continued on their way, founded Zoan
town.
the famous
in Egypt.
^
Histoire, p. 161 et seq.
Num.
xiii. 22.
Abraham and Moses.

It
is
91
not necessary to infer from the Numbers pas-
sage, as
some have done, that the Shepherds were

There are many reasons for beheving
Hittites.
The con-
with Brugsch that they were Semitics.^

nection between the two
Numbers
cities in
the mind of the
writer probably was, not that they were
by the same race, but were the

of one and the same migration.
But
necessarily founded
first-fruits
it
will
be perceived that the very presence of a few
Hittites in Southern Palestine as early as
day,
when
was
still
dence
is
the real
home
Abram's
Khita much later on
of the
any
in
Northern Syria, would show,
to
be placed in the theory referred
if
the Shepherd Invasion had already occurred
Abram came
As
such,
to
confi-
to,
that
when
Hebron.
therefore,
it
a valuable hint, in
is
its
chronological bearing, which the sacred writer gives
when, once and again, we are
told
that in going
through the land Abram found therein, not simply

Canaanites, which would not have been so decisive,
but Amorites, and particularly " sons of Heth," and

that he found a
home
of the latter at Hebron.
There can, therefore, scarcely remain a doubt that

the invaders were already in
came
into
Register
then
I.
Palestine,
just
would indicate
irresistible
as
Egypt when Abram

the
chronology of
and the conclusion
is
that his Pharaoh was a Shepherd
king.
1
History, vol.
i.
p. 198.
Abraham, Joseph, and Hoses
92
We
in JEgypt,
need not dwell on the yet further confirma-
which the " Set
tion of the conclusion thus reached,
Era
" of
the Tanis tablet furnishes.
Accepting the tablet as yielding a genuine Shepherd
era,
whose four hundredth year was the
the fifth year of the sole reign of Rameses
whose
initial
Manetho
year was the
lists, it is
or
and
II.,
year of Salatis of the
first
easy enough, comparing the two
chronologies, to find
Hebrew
first
time-period.
its
points of contact with the
And
found that the
will be
it
year of Salatis coincided with the fifty-ninth
first
year before
Abram
Abram's seventy-fifth
at that date
year
must have been
Ur, and was but sixteen years
old.
still
And
so
that
living in
accordingly
the Semitic migration, which issued in the Shepherd
must have started on its way about the

time of Abram's birth.
The " Set Era " thus curiously enough confirms
Invasion,
the correctness of the interpretation that dates the
Hebrew
and
time-period from the calling of Abraham,
also points to
Abram's Pharaoh as a Shepherd
king.
In view, therefore, of the

pointing one way,
sion that
circumstances
all
scarcely avoid the conclu-
Abram's Pharaoh was a Shepherd.
Turning now
Hebrew
we can
many
to
time-period,
the remaining
viz.,
of Joseph and the Exodus,
that
it
interval of the
between the death

will
to note its points of contact with the
be interesting
Egyptian chro-
"
Abraham and Moses.

nology of Register
drawn
way
to the
At
I.
in
the outset attention
may be
which the Hebrew writer would
marked chanoe occurred
lead us to infer that no
the status of the
93
Hebrew people
as long as
in
Joseph
lived, nay, as long as Joseph's brethren lived,
nor
indeed as long as what he styles " that generation

It is therefore a curious fact, in this connec-
lived.
age of but one of Joseph's brethren,
tion, that the
Levi, should have been preserved in the Levitical

Registers.
It
is
as
though that
link in the chain of
This was the case, indeed,
life.
from several points of view.

tor, e. g., as stated
was an important
life
It is
an important
fac-
in the second lecture, in deter-
mining the question how the Hebrew time-period
must be measured.
may now
It
equally important factor in

point before us
nology of Register
one year.
I.
was born two, or
that Levi
shows that
if
the chro-
can be trusted, Levi survived
I.
the accession of Seti
bearing on the special
its
for the chart
be said to be an
as
even possible
It is
many
as four, years
before Joseph, instead of but one year, as adopted in
the chart
in
which case
his death-year
would coin-
cide with the date of Seti's accession, or even with
Rameses
that of
dence,
it
would be
is
in
both
stories.
while
it
I.
Now,
if this
truly remarkable
be a mere coinci-
for in either case
it
such perfect accord with the data of
For as
to
the
Hebrew
story,
e. g.,
suggests that no special change occurred in
the position of the
Hebrews
until
all
of Joseph's
94
Abraham^ Joseph^ and Moses in Egypt.
generation passed away,
it
undoubtedly suggests that
no long interval elapsed between the end of Joseph's

generation and the accession of the " new" Pharaoh,
with
whom came
nology of Register
a marked change
I.
and the chro-
would abundantly sustain that
suggestion.
Then, as to the Egyptian story,
if
the close of
Joseph's generation really coincided with the accession of Seti
(and yet more with that of Rameses
I.
the Egyptian history would
how
tell
"
new
I.),
" such a
Pharaoh was, and how he would regard any claim of

Joseph's people on the national gratitude, even
knew aught of
new Dynasty.
Rameses
Its founder,
most but a very few years,

than two.^
He
Joseph's history.
mate Dynasty, except that
it
he
I.,
reigned at
probable not more
is
it
The Dynasty was
if
belonged to a
in
no sense a
legiti-
was recognized by the
day as the only possible government.

A de facto government was perforce recognized as
one, dejure.
Rameses I. and Horus, the last king of
Dynasty XVIII., may have been brothers, as Brugsch
priests of the
believes,^
and both may have been sons of King Ai,
as he also suggests
but even thus Ai himself was
but a courtier to Amenophis IV., and, simply by consent of the priests,
mounted an empty
throne.
More-
over, added to the irritations which the consciousness
of the "newness " of the Dynasty would occasion,

1
Maspero's Histoire,
History, vol.
i.
p. 214.
p. 460,
and
vol.
ii.
p. 8.
it is
Abraham and Moses.
95
be remembered that Horns and Rameses
to
I.
were
contemporaries of Amenophis lY. the Reformer king;
and
it is
even possible that Seti himself was also living
That they were
at the time, though young.
all
out
of sympathy with the religious revolution of the

" Aten " king, is well known. It was Horus who reestablished the old religion and dishonored Ameno-
phis lY. and his
He
monuments.
probably based his
best claim for recognition on his religious partisan-
When,
ship.
then,
we
recall the probable influence
"
of Joseph on the establishment of that purer " Aten
worship,
can be understood
it
how
a would-be sym-
pathizer with the old religious forms would be inclined to persecute rather than to
people.
At any
political
or
power and
the very
Seti
rate,
he
otherwise,
I.,
if
favor Joseph's
for
desired
to
any reason,
check
the
of
the
Hebrews, would be
man who would
feel
no compunctions in
influence
doing*
o so.
His " knowing not Joseph" can be taken

or to
mean
his entire ignoring of
literally,
Joseph and his
services to the State.
There
is
nothing, therefore, in Egyptian history or
chronology that would forbid our regarding Seti

(or
even Rameses
began the change
I.) as
the Pharaoh under
in the status of the
Hebrew
I.
whom
people,
change that went from bad to worse rapidly
enough, until in the time of Rameses H. the Hebrews
had become
slaves, obliged to
do such duty to the
96
State as slaves had to render.

ries,
the most dreaded
bricks, they
toil
They worked in quarof Egypt.

They made
dragged stone, and they builded; and
under circumstances that made the burden
all
of life
intolerable.
It
is
now
Eameses
certain, at
Ex.
i.
I.,
that the
one of the two special
cities
Hebrews
mentioned
11 as built by them for Pharaoh as store-
The
cities.
was under
rate, that it
the son of Seti
II.,
built Pithom,
in
any
discoveries of M. Naville, under the aus-
pices of the "
Egypt Exploration Fund," have settled

And as that is so, it
that point beyond dispute.
must also have been he who devised that cruel method
of controlling the increase of the
which
in the providence of
of Moses by the Pharaoh's
God issued in the finding

own daughter and in the
adoption into the royal family
Hebrew children.
To the objection some may
built
was the same
be replied that
this does
itself
of one of the
urge, that the narrative
suggests that the Pharaoh for
were
Hebrew population
as the
whom
"new
the store-cities
king,"
it
may
not necessarily follow.
The
sacred writer does not pretend to accentuate the

ferent Pharaohs of the story with precision.
narrative
is
dif-
The
concerned, not with the succession of
the sovereigns, but with the spirit which actuated the
whole Dynasty.
There
is
a parallel
instance
of
the indifference of sacred writers to the succession
of kings, in the story of the
fall
of Samaria that
Ahraham and Moses.
97
One reading the

Second Book of Kings
issued in the Israelitisli captivity.
seventeenth chapter of the
would be sure
"
to imagine that the " king of Assyria
of the fifth verse
But
sixth verse.
was the same
in point of fact this
The king of verse

king
of verse
as the
king of the
was not
was Slialmaneser
was
Sargon, a
and
so.
tlie
The
usurper.
some have
imagined, but was not concerned with the mere
writer was not ignorant of the fact, as
historical succession.
us, a
Similarly, in the story before
study of the narrative with the help of chrono-
logical indications will reveal therein at least four
Pharaohs, and those not

one to another.
The "
therefore, have
though
whom
is
it
the
all
new king " may
easily,
or even
father,
been Seti
I.
that
it
certain
cities
were
immediate successors
built,
his
was Rameses
and
in
II.
for
whose time
Moses was born and from whose face he
fled in his
fortieth year.
The attempt to fix Moses' place in the Egyptian

chronology is made an easy task by the certain data
regarding his place in the Hebrew time-period furnished by the Levitical Registers. Moses' place in
the
as
is
Hebrew
time-period
is
as certain a time-factor
the place of Joseph.
Comparing then the two chronologies,

be so very
difficult to differentiate
it
will
not
from the Hebrew
story the reigns of the Pharaohs to which the events
of Moses'
life
may
be assigned.
7
98
The
(1)
first third of his life
would seem
to
Rameses
II.
fallen entirely in the long reign of
Register
have
would indicate that Moses' birth oc-
I.
when Rameses was at least thirty-eight years

and consequently when he had been reigning
curred
old,
He was
alone about nine years.
old enough, four
years previous to this date, to have sons in at least
formal
command
enough
to
army corps so that it is easy

"
understand how the " Pharaoh's daughter
of
who found and adopted Moses could be Rameses'

own daughter. She was doubtless quite young, and
her father may have looked on her adoption of the
babe as a
child's fancy,
which there was no
special
reason to disallow.
By
(2)
the
the time Moses reached his fortieth year,
Hebrew
date that for the time terminated his
Egyptian career, Rameses
II.
would be about seventy-
eight years old, with yet some eighteen years of

before him.
Inordinately large as was his family,
death had been busy among them
who
life
really succeeded
him was
for the
Pharaoh
his thirteenth son
Rameses indeed associated this son Mineptah with

himself on the throne some twelve years before his
death
so that
Moses
fled
from the face of Rameses
about six years before Mineptah became colleaguePharaoh.

stance
the
Attention
for,
position
may
be drawn to
this circum-
considering Moses' peculiar history and
he would
occupy among the royal
princes as the adopted son of Mineptah's
sister,
it
Abraham and Moses.
99
could scarcely happen that Mineptah should be ig-
norant of his
flight,
when he
offence
or that he would condone his
But God
returned.
to
testified
Moses in Midian that " they were dead that sought

his
Putting
life."
these
circumstances together,
they would certainly exclude Mineptah as a possible
Exodus Pharaoh.
(3) It will be observed that Moses' eightieth year,
which the Hebrew story synchronizes with the Exodus date,

close of
is
made by Register
Dynasty XIX.,
I.
to coincide with the
not, be
it
observed, neces-
sarily with the close of Siptah's reign, as the chart
suggests, but with the close of the third of the three

brief reigns after
succession
may
Mineptah (whatever the order of
be), with
which Pharaoh the Dynasty
ended and Anarchy began.
occupy us
This point
will,
however,
the closing lecture, and so need not
in
detain us now.
The one hundred and twentieth year of Moses

Hebrew date of his death, and the date that
(4)
the
concluded the period of the wandering and began the

period of the Palestine conquest and occupation
made
to synchronize in Register
of Rameses HI.,
next lecture,
quiry
for
is
a date which,
I.
be seen in the
in-
not until then, or at the very earliest not

it
have been possible for
the Hebrews to have entered Palestine so well.
way
is
with the tenth year
as will
one of singular importance in our
until the year before, wôuld
this
it is
possible to
fit
In
Moses' entire career, as
100
in
Egypt
given in Hebrew story, to the Egyptian chronology
and history.
Before concluding,
example
tion to a single
sacred
may
it
be well to draw atten-
way
the
of
said) to accentuate the succession of
precision, nevertheless
which the
Pharaohs with
makes no mistake
We
oping the progress of the story.

statement of Ex.
in
not attempting (as has been
writer, while
"And
in devel-
refer to the
came to pass in
23,
the king of Egypt died." Now,
ii.
process of time, that
it
most writers have considered that the reference here

is
to the death of
to
the conclusion
the
tioned
Rameses
that
one to
have
consequently
and then, jumping
II.,
the
Pharaoh men-
next
whom Moses was

been
his
sent
have
son,
must
inferred
thence that Mineptah must have been the Exodus
Pharaoh.
But
it
two chronoloojies
is
only needful
to see that this
to
is
compare the
The
a mistake.
two chronologies would show that the reference

in verse 23
II.
to
at
all.
pass
died,"
in
all
probability
The very form
in iirocess
would
is
not to Rameses
of expression,
'*'
It
of time, that the king of
seem
to
came
Egypt
imply that a considerable
time had elapsed since Moses'
flight,
certainly a lon-
ger time than the eighteen years Register
I.
would
allow for the interval to the death of Rameses II.
Further, the narrative introduced by the passage in

question certainly suggests the near approach of the
end.
The king who
died, therefore, " in the process
Abraham and Moses.
101
of time," and so late on as to be quite near the
Exodus,
may have been
the second, or, as
Rameses
Hkely, the third successor of
XL,
is
more
but neither
Rameses himself nor Mineptah his son. The statement is made at all, to introduce a new chapter
in the story, and, as
later stages.
mark one
evident, to
is
of
its
shows that lapse of time did not
It
mend
matters,
refers
inaugurated a
and that the death
new
to
which he
of cruelty.
stage
The
connection implies that with the accession of the
new Pharaoh
was
i.
the latest Pharaoh
e.,
a superadded cruelty,
there
which led the Hebrews
and which led God
to cry mightily unto God,
to
interfere.
The next
lecture will deal with the date of the
Exodus, and attempt

of Dynasty
to identify
And
XIX.
Register
I.
it
with the close
indicates that the
Dynasty did not end with Mineptah, but with one of

three Pharaohs who followed him. Allowance must
accordingly be
made
for these three regnal periods
and, allowance thus made, the conclusion must be

reached, that the passage in question did not refer
to
Rameses
to properly
II.
at
all.
weigh what
It is
is
but necessary, indeed,
said of
any Pharaoh
in the
how any interval of time, and

any number of Pharaohs required by the Egyptian
chronology, can find room in the story.
narrative, to perceive
In conclusion,
mony
we may
of the two stories
say that the general haris
assured.
102
It
only remains for
us,
now,
to
compare the two
chronologies somewhat
so
gather thence,
indication
as
to
the
Pharaoh,
era
ourselves.
if
more carefully,
possible, a more precise
of the
Exodus, and
task to which
we
will
as
who was
to
its
next address
103
The Exodus Era.
LECTURE
V.
THE EXODUS ERA.
THE
close of
much
as
Dynasty XIX.
obscurity as
not only
attaches
to
the
is
its
involved in almost
rise.
Uncertainty
regnal periods,
but to
and so renders any

argument based on the history of the Dynasty as
the
order of the
succession,
yet but hypothetical.
Accordingly,
by Egyptologists.
variously handled
its
history
All
is
authori-
however, agree in the view that the Dynasty
ties,
came
to
an end amid disaster and confusion.
there no
Were
other ground for this view, the so-called
" Great Harris Papyrus of Rameses IH." would be

sufficient
to
settle
Medinet-Abou,^ and
the point.
is
It
was found near
dated the thirty-second year
of Rameses IH.
In the earlier part of the document Rameses recounts his good deeds, and commends to the people the son
whom
on the throne.
The Arabs who
he was at the time associating
He
then
tells
the
story
of his
Mr. Harris refused to indicate the place of

it originally belonged to the royal library,
but was hidden with other works in some extempore grotto for safety, and
there remained until these last days.
1
their " find."
It is
sold
it
to
probable that
104
own
Egijpt.
succession, prefacing this portion with a very
brief but important statement respecting the period
of anarchy that had been brought to an end by
now
XX.
Setnekht his predecessor,

the founder of Dynasty
Remembering
generally regarded as
the habitual reticence of the Egyp-
tians respecting national disasters, the formal state-
ment of the Harris Papyrus is certainly remarkable,

and deserves more attention than it has already
received.
It cannot be a reminiscence, as some
have imagined, of the Hyksos period,
for that
came to an end, as is known, with the rise of
Dynasty XVIII.
period to which
rise of
refers
came
to
we
of
III.
Hebrew Exodus.
The papyrus
a large
133 feet in
is
its
length,
we have
one,
first
paragraph of
is
Of
and
it
this historical part
papyrus was
by Dr. Eisenlohr
Der grosse Papyrus
is
these, the last
concerned.
historical part of the
lated and published
in this
admirably preserved, and
with which this inquiry
The
not
measuring some
comprise the historical part so called
simply the
may
a veritable reference to the
divided into seventy-nine leaves.
is
coupled
it,
language,
believe, that
papyrus of Rameses
five
an end with the
so explicitly assigned to
fair interpretation
unfairly suggest,
)f
it
to the papyrus, the
Dynasty XX.
The date thus

with a
and according
first
in 1872.-^
Harris, Leipzig, 1872.
trans-
The
105
The Exodus Era.

same year
read before the London " Society of
lie
Biblical Archaeology " a paper "
on the
political con-
of Egypt before the reign of Rameses
dition
III.,
probably in connection with the establishment of the

Jewish religion." ^ This paper furnishes an English
translation of the historical part of the papyrus.
In 1873-1874 Dr. Eisenlohr revised his transla-
and added a translation of the

The same year
greater part of the papyrus.''^
of this
tion
part,
Dr. Birch published a translation of the
of the document.^
papyrus
tinder
will
the
be found in the
joint
third
first
complete translation of the

"
Records of the Past,"
of Drs.
authority
Eisenlohr and
Birch.
In 1873 M. Chabas, in his " Recherche s,"

lates
and
discusses, in a
last five leaves,
severely
criticising
many
places.
trans-
very patient and scholarly
way, the
Dr.
paragraph by paragraph,
Eisenlohr's
renderings in
Dr. Brugsch, also, has given, in his
" History of Egypt,"
a translation of the historical
portion.
Considering the
possible
bearing of
portant passages," as Brugsch
Hebrew
history,
it
will
several translations.
calls
^'
the
im-
them, on the
be well to compare these
Dr. Eisenlohr's
is
his latest, as
found in the " Records of the Past," coupled, indeed,

of the Society's " Transactions."
In
See "Zeitschrift "

Vols. vi. and viii.
*
fi
vol.
i.
History, vol.
ii.
for 1873
p. 137.
and 1874.
Idem, 1873.
Recherclics, p.
9.
AhraJiam, Joseph, and Moses in JEgypt.
106
This translation reads
with Dr. Birch's authority.

thus
" The land of Kami had fallen into confusion. Every

one was doing what he wished. They had no superior for
many years who had priority over the others. The land of
Egypt was under chiefs of nomes, each person killing the
Other events coming
other for ambition and jealousy.
it.
as chief.
He
him ... no
before
Kharu amongst
A-ar-su a
Distressing years.
after
them
placed the whole country in subjection

offerings
were made in the interiors of
the temples."
Dr. Brugsch's translation

"
The people
who lived
those
of
Egypt
is
lived in
banishment abroad. Of
none had any to
in the interior of the land,
So passed away long years, until other times

The land of Egypt belonged to princes from foreign
They slew one another, whether noble or mean.
parts.
Other times came on afterwards during years of scarcity.
Arisu, a Phoenician, had raised himself among tliem to be
a prince, and he compelled all the people to pay him tribthe gods were treated like the men. They went
ute
care for him.
came.
without the appointed offerings in the temples."
Chabas' translation
is
" It happened that the country of Egypt was (or, had
been) thrust outside. To all who remained in its interior

there was no master during numerous years in the beginDuring a time the Egyptian country belonged to
ning.
Oerou,2 governing the
prising.
1
Vol.
2 It
cities.
It
was extraordinary,
sur-
Other times came afterwards for a few years.

46.
" governors," literally, " mouths,"
viii. p.
means
the people were ruled.
Compare Gen.
xli. 40.
i.
e.,
men by whose
"
word
"
"
The Exodus Era.
among them, and
Areos, a Syrian, was an Oer
country paid homage to him

like
men.
Offerings were no
It will at
107
the whole
and the gods became
more made
in the temples."
once be observed that the special part
of the paragraph of the papyrus with which this
review
is
concerned
the passage,
viz.,
is
simply the
those translated
first
by
sentences of
Drs. Eisenlohr
and Birch,
"
The land
Kami had
of
fallen into confusion.
Every
"
They had no superior
one was doing what he wished.
and by Dr. Brugsch,

"
The people of Egypt lived

those who lived in the interior
care for him " ^
in
of
banishment abroad. Of
the land none had any to
and by Chabas,
" It happened that the country of
To
outside.
master."
who remained
be observed that the translations of the
by Brugsch and Chabas
that of Dr. Eisenlohr

free translation.
There
The
original
in
quite agree, while
seems to be at best but a

is
no wonder, therefore, that
Brugsch should animadvert,

1
Egypt had been thrust

was no
in its interior there
It will
clauses
all
his " Geschichte
as
he does, on the labor
Aegyptens " (Leipzig, 1877),
p.
589,
"
Das Volk von Aegypten Icbte in der Verbannung im Auslande.

Jedermanu der im Innern des Landes geblieben war, entbehrte eines
reads
Fiirsorgers."
2
The
original reads, "
or, literally, " fut le
II est
arrive,
pays d'Egypte
jete'
que I'Egypte
au dehors."
s'etait jete'e
au dehors
108
JEgypt.
of his predecessors, evidently alluding to Drs. Eisenlohr and Birch, affirming that " several of
them had
completely mistaken the sense of the document just
in its
most important passages."
There can be no doubt as to the general
correct-
ness of Brugsch's and Chabas' renderings, after ex-
amining the elaborate discussion the
latter gives to
these two clauses of the papyrus, justifying, as he
more
does, his translation (of the first clause

larly)
by numerous
original
words
illustrations of the
rendering can
He
use of the
and trans-
in a variety of connections,
much
lating the clause with as
make
of
particu-
precision as a literal
it.
shows that the verb
J^^j/j "khaa," which

by "jeter" or "se Jeter," has indeed
he translates
two meanings,
(1)
throw,
to
^-
stones or to cast into the water;" and

forsake, quit."
ples of
its
He
in
as
also mentions,
throwing
(2) " to leave,
and with exam-
use in that sense, a secondary meaning of
" se Jeter,"
escape, flee
viz.,
" to throw one's
" so that,
therefore be too bold
Egypt had fled
to withdraw,
"
we would not
as he says,
if
we
translated, ike country of
outside, for it is
or intention of the phrase."
self,
the veritable meaning
And he
concludes that
" the translation which indicates an emigration of
the Egyptian population

incontestable value
also justified
is
therefore founded on the
of the Egyptian words
by the context," referring
to the
it
is
next
The Exodus Era.
where
clause,
remained
distinct
mention
is
made
who
of those
in the country.
should be added that Dr. Birch seems to have
It
been so
far influenced
by Chabas' discussion
have modified the view taken

the Past
"
109
The
the " Records of
in
for in his " History of Egypt"
"
interval
as to
he wrote
between the reign of Siptah and his
successor
Setnekht was one of great disturbance.
From
'
the
Great Harris Papyrus
it
'
great exodus took place in Egypt.

of the troubles for many years^
it
appears that a
In consequence
says, there was no
master.'*
It
should also be added that the Hieroglyphic
Dictionaries have adopted the two significations of
the word urged by Chabas,

tionary
ret's,
both
the great Dic-
by Dr. Brugsch^ and the smaller one of

as also
Pier-
a special Dictionary of this very
papyrus by Dr. Piehl.

It
should be mentioned, moreover, that none of
the authorities quoted identify the papyrus
dus " with that of the
Hebrews.
The
"Exo-
translation of
by
by Dr. Brugsch, and apparently adopted by Dr.
Chabas, virtually agreed
the clauses insisted upon

to
1
'^
Page
13G.
In Brugsch's "Diet. Hierog.," vol.
signed the two meanings,
(1)
iii.
"to lay
p. 1025,
aside, cast
the verb
"khaa"
is as-
away, reject;" and
" to demit, relinquish."

In Pierret's " Vocab. Ilierog.," p. 391, he quotes Chabns,
and
gives, (1)
put aside, throw, reject, or send away " (2) " to leave, quit."
In Dr. Karl Pieiil's " Diet, du Pap. Harris, No. I." (Vienna, 1882),
(2)
"to
he gives the two meanings,
"expulser, expatrier."
p. 69,
110
Birch
may
be accepted, therefore, with the greater

because
confidence,
based
on
purely philological
grounds.
Aside, therefore, from
any
specific reference
of
the papyrus, one will not certainly be far out of

the way,
if
Chabas' conclusion be accepted, that the
however obscurely and

indirectly, to an " emigration from Egypt^' for some
an emigration
reason, " of a part of its population^''
papyrus statement
refers,
compared with the population left behind,

that those left behind were no longer able to hold
so large,
the country.
The context would
also
gration was most disastrous in
country.
emi-
suggest that the

its
In some way those
effects
themselves without a legitimate head
upon the
behind
left
;
found
and as a con-
sequence, government not only, but society as well,
Then
speedily resolved into confusion and anarchy.
the document
tells
how
the country was
to its always envious neighbors,
left
a prey
and how there
sulted eventually a foreign despotism,
which
re-
in turn
was followed by a reaction, of which the papyrus

speaks, in the shape of a national uprising, and
how
the end came in the re- establishment of a native
Dynasty,
in the person
Rameses' predecessor.
that such
is
a fair
of one Seti the Victorious,

It
summary
can scarcely be
denied
of the teaching of this
very brief but suggestive narrative of the royal

scribe of
Rameses
III.
The Exodus Era.
Do we
Ill
then strain out of this document, in any
illegitimate or forcible a
way, a covert allusion
to the
Hebrew migration and its results ?

Beyond question, the Hebrew tradition adequately
explains the story of Rameses.
The Exodus of the Hebrew population
(1)
of
Egypt, "with the mixed multitude" that went out

with them, was surely large enough to leave the
northeast part of the Delta comparatively empty.
The
(2)
destruction of Pharaoh and of his chosen
and horsemen would
captains
for the land of
rendering
nome
states,
it
Egypt being
needful, in the
should look out for
a condition
sufficiently
left "
first
itself,
account
without a head
"
;
instance, that each

just as the
papyrus
of things that would inevitably
lead to the jealousies and ambitions of which the
papyrus
also speaks.
(3) History would simply repeat
vasion
No
story.
better
itself in
the in-
opportunity for foreign
intervention could be furnished than intestine struggles
would
(4)
And
afford.
history would also simply repeat itself in
the re-establishment of the native line

chief,
by a shrewd
ready to take advantage of his opportunities.
But this is not all. The propriety of referring to

Hebrew Exodus the passage of the papyrus may
be justified, not only by a fair interpretation of the
the
words and the

stories.
It
is
possibility
of harmonizing the two
also possible to synchronize the era of
112
the papyrus narrative with the era of the
and
Exodus
of the Palestine occupation.
To be
sure, there
here, which the
an element of uncertainty
is
monuments have not yet removed,
both as respects the order of the succession and the

regnal periods of the closing third of Dynasty
still
it is
possible, nevertheless,
true order of succession
may
no matter what the
be,
and adopting
the regnal periods simply the years which

tologists
would
chronism.
XIX.
all
for
Egyp-
allow, perfectly to effect the syn-
Assigning to Mineptah either the eight
monumental years or the twenty claimed by some,

and giving to Seti 11. his two monumental years or
the four claimed for him, to
Siptah seven,^
we
Amenmes
five,
and to
then reach the era of anarchy, and
then the subsequent re-establishment of the mon-
archy by Setnekht.
And though
the precise length
by these events cannot be stated,

all Egyptologists would agree in allowing for the interval between the close of Djaiasty XIX. and the
of time occupied
Rameses III. about thirty years,

a
period certainly long enough and yet not too long.^
A glance at the chart will show that the fortieth
accession of
year after the Exodus

occupation
i.
e.,
would, on the
the date of the Palestine

basis of the
chronology
mentioned, coincide with the tenth year of Rameses

" The
1 Maspero in his " Histoire," p. 259, says of the Mineptah successors
Manetho lists seem to attribute to them all but a dozen years at most."
2 This would abundantly cover the reign of Setnekht, which was not long,
and the "many years " and "years after" of the papyrus story.
:
113
The Exodus Era.
ni.,
date whose importance and bearing on our
inquiry a very slight acquaintance with the history

of the reign will reveal.
It
was
in the eighth
year of Rameses
but two
III.,
years previous, that occurred the war which, considered in
its
Egypt and to Palestine, may

a most marked providential prepa-
results to
be regarded as
ration for the
Hebrew occupation
of the promised
land.
The story of the war is written in full on Egypt's

own monuments, and there is not a modern history of
Egypt but furnishes a more or less detailed account
of
it.
Maspero may be
sophical view of
plication of
hint that
it
it
it,^
have furnished a philo-
said to
though without the remotest ap-
to the
Hebrew
could be so used.
eighth-year war of Rameses
story, or with
even a
According to him, the

III.
was
in fact a life
and death struggle between Egypt and a new power,

It was
a great confederacy of Asia Minor tribes.
really
another wave of migration, comprising Da-
naens, Tyrseniens,
Shakalash (the later
Sicilians),
Teucrians, Lycians, Pelasgians, and a host of other

tribes.^
Instead of passing on westward, they marched
southward, conquering and almost annihilating the

peoples through whose countries
They took Northern
Syria,
Histoire, ch. vi.
'^
Chabas' Eeclierches, pp. 30-50
they journeyed.
and broke up into
Brugscli's History, vol.
ii.
frag-
p. 147.
";
114
Egijpt.
ments the great Hittite Empire, with which Egypt

had made an alliance
with which
in the time of
Rameses
had maintained friendly
it
II.,
and
relations all
through that reign and Mineptah's and, as far as
known,
The
until
is
anarchy came.
Hittites had gradually
come
to be the domi-
nating power throughout Syria and Northern and

Central Palestine,
the
Egj^ptians
the
seem
to
only people, indeed,
have
regarded
whom
as
their
equal.
But the new power " completely disintegrated

the Hittite Empire, as Maspero says,-^ converting so
much
of
it
as survived the crash into a host of petty
kingdoms without any central authority.
Having
done this, the wave rolled on towards Egypt, and by
a concerted movement the attack was delivered by
sea and by land.
Fortunately for Egypt,
all this
took time, and the
long march gave Rameses time to receive them.
The
conflict,
which was the turning-point of the war,
took place in his eighth year, between Raphia and

Pelusium, under the walls of a fortress called the
tower of Rameses HI.
The
victory
fell
Rameses
to
and
as a result, the confederacy of Asia
ples
was hurled back whence they came, and the
wave
Minor peo-
of Asiatics, instead of emigrating to the Ara-
bian peninsula and the African shores, as had been

the fashion for centuries before, was obliged to go
1
Histoire, p. 267.
Compare Lenormant's Manuel,
vol.
i.
p. 297.
The Exodus Era.
115
westward, ultimately peopling a good part of the
European peninsulas, especially Italy and the islands,

where they became the prehistoric and historic peoples with which all are
now familiar.
how the Asia Minor mi-
But can one help seeing
gration, that so effectually broke the backbone of
the great Hittite Empire, really prepared the

for the entrance into Palestine
way
of the Hebrews under
Joshua, and for the easier conquest and occupation

of the land
Undoubtedly,
it
adequately explains the phenom-
ena which the Hebrew tradition makes so evident,

of the almost numberless petty tribes, with their several chiefs, that could all be called " Hittites " or
by
other Canaanitish names, which Joshua set himself

to conquer.
Moreover, as
no more
to conduct in person a
That
direction.
not end
year
historians agree,
all
it
He had
was
in the
defeat
Libyan
that
in that
year did
another in his eleventh
West, against the Libyans,
who were aided by some of

peoples, who seem to have
ships to the
campaign
great victory of his eighth
his wars.
but
Eameses needed
coasts.
those same Asia Minor

fled
for safety in their
But they met with such
the
Libyans never after disturbed
also
had a campaign, a naval one,
Egypt.
Eameses HI.
against the Arabians, and some minor expeditions

into the Sinaitic peninsula,
whereby he restored
to
116
the realm those ancient mining-districts.
It should
be observed, in passing, that the very fact shows that
Egypt and, moreover, it is

clear that by that time the Hebrews had been long
out of the way. In a few years Rameses was able
to reconstitute the dominion of Egypt to proportions
they had been
it
lost to
had not known, certainly since the time of Seti
We
say Seti
II.; for it is
curious to know,
what
is
II.
as-
sured by the monuments, that the Egypt of Rameses

II.,
as respects the eastern Delta
tions,
home
is
nothing
all
to indicate the slightest trouble
or in their foreign relations, at least in that
direction, during those
feel
There
of Seti II., his son.
through those years
It is
Syrian rela-
its
continued to be the Egypt not only of Mi-
neptah but
at
and
two
reigns.
because of such facts as these that so
many
compelled to give up the view that Mineptah
It was not, as far

was the Exodus Pharaoh.
known, until the disaster occurred, whatever
may have
been, that inaugurated
the Harris Papyrus, that
the
as
it
anarchy of
any change occurred in

Rameses HI. found
Egypt's relations with the East.
the Syrian province gone, and Bedouins to the east
of the Delta contending for

after the victory of his
its
possession.
Even
eighth year, he seems to
have been content with the result that hurled back

the
new
Asiatics
whence they came
for
he seems to
have maintained only a semblance of authority on

the eastern Mediterranean coast, simply maintaining
The Exodus Era.

garrisons
there.
vaders, as
some
117
Crushed by the Italo-Greek
in-
them, from their ultimate locale,
call
and impressed by Rameses' great victory, the Syrians
made no concerted
independence, and the
effort for
petty tribes in Palestine proper found enough to
do
in
Hebrews the
contesting with the

If there
of that land.
possession
were disturbances of the
bal-
ance of power on the coast or elsewhere, these were

temporary, and they were easily
but partial and
enough reduced by the generals in the neighboring

As Chabas says, Rameses III. " did not
garrisons.
put these small
conflicts
among
he was not there in person
his victories, because
but they do explain the
a Khitan chief and an Amorite chief
presence of
in
the pictures portraying nations subjugated."
may
It
be added that the state of things thus
described
can
"Aperiu"
are mentioned in the reign of
III.,
i.
e.,
some
two names.
for
which so
disallow
also
Hebrews,"
if
that a band of
one
and
in
that of
But
all
if
IV., it being
"
the
Aperiu " be
becomes clear enough by bear-
Palestine and the Syrian peoples.

1
identify the
Rameses
ing in mind the relations Rameses
see
may
some
Rameses
that
"Aperiu" are mentioned
alleged that this could not be
" Hebrews."
fact
One argument against the identification,

much may be said,^ urged by those who
it, is
in this reign
"
the
explain
III.
sustained with
It can be under-
For a discussion of the identification of the " Aperiu " with the Hebrews,
special "Essay on the Aperiu" appended to these Lectures.
tlie
118
stood that
tite
Rameses' generals could capture a Hit-
if
and an Amorite
some Hebrews,
chief,
they could also capture
in a possible conflict or intervention.
is, moreover, the more probable,

"
because the
Aperiu " of both Rameses III. and IV.
This explanation
war
are described as
as
captives, those of the latter
"bowmen," whereas
the
even
"Aperiu" of Rameses
II.
are pictured simply as foreign slaves.
Taking the data of these years, however, that are
how
unquestionable,
well do they
Hebrew time-period?
the
in with the
would point
Rameses
ninth, year of
when
the
to the tenth, or
stories,
by Rameses
peninsula,
even the
the earliest possible
Hebrews could
cross into Palestine,
e. g.,
(1)
fit
into
The date of the reconquest
of the mining regions of the Sinaitic
III.
when
suffi-
III. as
but there are incidental details that neatly

both
only
are, indeed, not
general arguments, already referred to
ciently, that
date
There
fit
the
Hebrews could not
possibly have
been near; (2) The existence of the Amorite

that faced Moses and the Hebrews at Kadesh,^
tribes
the
very position that could well enough give trouble to
an Egyptian garrison.
It is therefore certainly more

mere coincidence that an Amorite chief
should be among the chiefs captured by Rameses'
generals.
(3) The peculiar significance, in view of
than a
the history recounted, of the description given (Josh.

i.
4) of the promised land the

1
Deut.
i.
7,
compared with verses
Hebrews were about

19, 20,
and 41-46.
The Exodus Era.
119
to enter, as " the land of the Hittites."
The phrase
but a year or two before would have struck terror
minds of the
into the
Joshua,
it
though he
When
Israelites.
uttered
does not sound so formidable.

said, " the
land that was, but
It
is
by
as
no lon-
is
ger, the Hittites' land," referring to the utter disin-
tegration of the once great empire
by the
Asiatic
invaders.
Thus, on philological and historical grounds,
it is
equally possible to maintain that in the brief story

of the Harris Papyrus there was a veritable refer-
ence to the
Hebrew
migration.
incident of the era, as told
that
by
is
by
the
There
is
Hebrew
not an
narrator,
inconsistent with the state of things suggested
the Rameses' story.
Mention
may
be made of
even so small an incident as the question whether

the
Hebrews
fled
or were thrust out.
Both were
true in point of fact; and, curiously enough, the
Egyptian word of the papyrus, "khaa," as Chabas

shows,
may have
as that
refers
word
may
is
either or both meanings.
As
far
whom it
may have
concerned, the people to
have been " thrust out " or
" thrust themselves out."
If it
be suggested that
the allusion of the papyrus, though a possible allusion to the
Hebrew Exodus,
decisive,
may
it
is
but indirect and not
be replied that
pected that any allusion at
all,
it
was not
much
to be ex-
less a distinct
mention of the misfortune, would be made on an

Egyptian monument. The Egyptians could scarcely
120
be expected to perpetuate on their walls or inscribe
on a papyrus
roll
an account of a
disaster.
As
is
well known, allusions to even the Shepherd conquest
and domination are but few, and those most indirect

and uncertain of explanation. Nevertheless, the allusion in the Harris Papyrus
perfectly applicable to the
is
no other known event of that

Further,
copy of
clear enough.
this invaluable State
reached our day,
it
may
is
to
era.
be wondered at that but a
if it
It
Hebrew Exodus, but
sinofle
document should have

it was simply a
be said that
good Providence that preserved this single copy to

Egyptology for it came near being destroyed by an
;
explosion near Mr. Harris' house in Alexandria, that
damaged other manuscripts. The Arab

excavators who sold the document to Mr. Harris in
1856 showed him a sack full of papyri that, as they
affirmed, were found in the same place.
Unfortunately, he was able to buy but a few of them, among
them being the so-called "Harris Magic Papyrus."
As Chabas says, ^' What has become of the rest?
a
seriously
sack
full
of papyri,
been solved
It
may
rarity of
how many problems might have
"
!
be mentioned
else
explanation of the
any monumental reference
of the papyrus, that
meses
also, in
III. felt it to
we may be
to the
be needful to mention
we might have had no monumental
whatever
to
it.
He had good
anarchy
thankful that Rait
at all
reference
reason for mentioning
The Exodus Era.
He was
it.
associating his son
121
upon the throne, be-
He
ing anxious to secure the succession.^

feel his
did not
tenure of the crown to be so secure as to re-
quire no justification.
His reference, therefore, to
the circumstances under which Setneldit mounted

the throne, to which he himself succeeded, was really
an appeal to both the gratitude and the fears of the

nation.
Not, however, to delay on these points, there
beyond question good reason
to believe that
is
the
papyrus alludes, and distinctly enough, to the He-
brew migration.
Such a reference
fair interpretation
of
by
its
its
language, by
general agreement with the
tion, and,
it
may
be added, by
justified
is
its
by a
chronology,
Hebrew
tradi-
the impossibility of
referring the Rameses' story to any purely Egyptian
emigration from Egypt, of that or indeed of any

other
era.
Before concluding, allusion

different
way
in
be made to the
which Maspero interprets both the
allusion of the Rameses' story

tion.
may
and the Hebrew
Instead of seeing in the
tradi-
Hebrew Exodus an
adequate explanation of the anarchy of which the
papyrus speaks, Maspero sees in the Exodus simply

a consequence of the anarchy.
He
says
that " one
can easily understand how, in the midst of general

disorder, a foreign persecuted tribe should quit its
1
He
lived but
2 liistoire, p.
two years afterward.
262.
122
in Egypt.
quarters and gain the desert highway without being

energetically combated
by
ancient masters, them-
its
selves too menaced to trouble themselves
We
the flight of a band of slaves."

length, because
it is
quote this at
a fair example of that free
cism of Scripture facts in which
The Bible
much about
story reveals
no
many writers
criti-
indulge.
such period of internal
disorder previous to the Exode, but rather a gov-
ernment undisturbed,
Israel's
Exode,
Moreover,
albeit tyrannical.
was not a
strictly considered,
flight
but a thrusting out, although Pharaoh did soon

change
mind, and did feel
his
" energetically "

slaves.
to
to be
it
combat the departing band
This Pentateuchal story
is,
Exodus
from the Egyptian

state
Maspero's ver-
certainly receives no countenance
scribe.
That papyrus
document, and, interpreted
emigration from Egypt of some of

if
of
moreover, in pre-
cise accord with the papyrus story.
sion of the
worth while
language means anything, also
is
a veritable
fairly, tells
its
of an
inhabitants, and,
tells
us that the pro-
longed anarchy quelled by Setnekht w\as a consequence

of that emigration.
It cannot,
without violence to
the construction, be considered as teaching that the
emigrants took advantage of an era of confusion.
The two
sequence of
came
first;
ing to
is
traditions point therefore to the
events, the
disaster,
confusion ensued.
find, therefore, that
possible to identify the
whatever
it
same
was,
It is certainly refresh-
on so many grounds
it
Egyptian emigration as
123
The Exodus Era,
Hebrew Exodus. There is no need to

aspersions on the Hebrew tradition, nor on the
the veritable
cast
Hebrews.
be stated that Maspero was not indulging
It should
in
any formal
papyrus.
criticism of the
He was
combatting the view that looks upon Mineptah as

the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
identify Seti H., with
whom
He knew
that Pharaoh.
He was
seeking to
he ends the Dynasty, as
that the period of the three
brief reigns following Mineptah's
was an era of con-
tested successions, and he finds " only in the years
that precede and follow Seti H. conditions favorable
He
to an Exode."
fusion, to
guage
looks on that era as one of con-
which he could refer the papyrus lan-
amid
which confusion, he
the
imagines,
Hebrews, seizing their chance, departed.
But not
Papyrus
tory
we have
seen, does the Harris
really tell another story
itself,
XIX.,
only, as
will
the Egyptian his-
as respects those closing reigns of
not support Maspero's view.
Dynasty
There
is
an
order of succession of the three Pharaohs, which
we
may
for
venture to
which much
call
may
the
monumental order and
be said, that will equally avoid the
need of identifying Mineptah as the Exodus Pharaoh,

and of regarding the Exodus as occurring in an era
of confusion,
an order,
it
is
claimed, that
made in a remarkable way

the monuments and the Hebrew tradition.
this final point we devote our last lecture.
may
be
to harmonize with both
And
to
124
LECTURE
VI.
THE EXODUS PHARAOa
WHICH king
it
out of Egypt,
It
can be
said,
was who thrust the Hebrews

is still
a matter of conjecture.
however, that during the past few
years the problem has been brought within narrower

limits.
Until recently Egyptologists have been divided as

to
even the Dynasty of the Exodus Pharaoh
some
being strongly in favor of assigning him to Dynasty
XVIII., while others, following

preferred Dynasty XIX.^
De Eouge's
lead,
Happily, the labors of the
Egypt Exploration Fund Committee have decided

the question as between the two Dynasties.
It
Naville, the Committee's able explorer,
was M.
who, while unearthing the mounds at Tel-el-Maskhuta,
had the good fortune
to discover that they covered
the long-sought store-city Pithom, one of the two
such towns built for Pharaoh by the Hebrews.
he was
able,
upon the
vincing
by the evidence of monuments found
spot, to
connect the place in a very con-
way with Rameses

1
And
II. of
Dynasty XIX.
Report on Egyptian Studies, 18C7,
p. 27.
as
The Exodus Pharaoh.
125
founder, proving beyond appeal that Rameses
its
who oppressed
was one at least of the Pharaohs
II.
the
Hebrews.*
Accordingly, the Exodus story must be harmonized,
if it is
And
ever to be done, with the era of Dynasty
the practical question, therefore, to be
whether
is,
it
is
XIX.
answered
at present possible to gather
from
the monumental history of that Dynasty any hint as
Exodus Pharaoh must have been.

the attempt was made to identify the Exodus as the disaster which brought Dynasty XIX. to a close, and which, according to the
who
to
the
In the
last lecture
" Great Harris Papyrus," inaugurated that period of
anarchy which Setnekht, founder of Dynasty XX.,
brought
-to
an end.
It is evident, therefore, that the question of this
we can ascertain who

Pharaoh of Dynasty XIX. really was.
lecture will be answered if

last
1
See Naville's " Pithom," pp. 11-13.
the
t
Lepsius, in the " Zeitschrif " for
to admit M. Naville's
and restated his old view of the positions of Pithom and Eameses.
The article was really a too early reply to a simple letter of Naville's, in
which he scarcely did more than annonnce his discovery. Nobody doubts
that had Lepsius lived to see the multiplied proofs for the identification gathered in the Committee's first Memoir, he would have been convinced as others
liave been.
No other Egyptologist of eminence has combated the identificaBrugsch early gave his adhesion to it, though it obliged him to give up
tion.
a pet theory (see two articles of his, one in the " Deutsches Revue," BerEbers
lin, for October, 1883, and the other in the number for March, 1884).
1883, Part II., published an article in
which he declined
identification,
also cordially accepts
Ebers' article
may
it
(see " Zeitschrift," 1885, Part II.).
be found in the " Academy,"
also accepts the discovery (see "
Academy," June
May
6,
Revillout (see his letter to the "
Academy," April
translation of
W.
Pleyte
The French Egypby the eminent Eugene
1885).
tologists have also given in their adhesion, voiced
23, 1885.
4, 1885).
126
It has
in Egypt.
been already stated that an element of un-
certainty remains as to the order of succession of the
to close
whom
Pharaohs with
last three
Dynasty XIX.,
monuments seem
Seti II., Amenmes,
the
viz.,
and Siptah.
Egyptologists agree that
tah,
but they
to Seti
II.,
Amenmes
preceded Sip-
differ as to the position to
whether he
the other two
is
to
be assigned
be placed before or after
in other words,
whether he should
be regarded as immediate successor to Mineptah or

should close the Dynasty,
At
ent,
best, therefore, it can only
by those who
reject
be affirmed at pres-
Mineptah
as the
Exodus
Pharaoh,^ that he must have been either Seti
II.
or
Siptah.
1
The reign
of
Mineptah
is
Chabas, in his "Recherches"
sufficiently well indicated
(p.
on the monuments.
79 et seq.), has industriously gathered every
known
fact and hint respecting him.

There are monuments of the time when he was yet crown prince, and others
of his associated reign with his father, and others still of his reign when his
son Seti II. was but crown prince so that the general character of the reign
can be regarded as settled. The monuments, indeed, amply illustrate his reign
from its first to its eighth year, with which it probably closed. He was no
longer young when he began his sole reign. Maspero (" Histoire," p. 255)
says he must have been sixty. Nothing seems to have occurred within or
without its borders in his day that affected the realm. The peace with the
He had a critical war in his fifth year with the
Hittites was maintained.
Libyans in the West but he was victor, and the eastern Delta remained quiet.
His subsequent reign was peaceful. In the Northeast he maintained the
garrison posts, even in the land of Amori, and was constantly engaged in
peaceful labors. Two papyri of his eighth year show that the relations
between the Delta and Syria were still undisturbed. The same can be said of
the condition of Egypt under the administration of his son, who succeeded
him. Seti was indeed associated on the throne before Mineptah 's death, and
there is not a hint of trouble or disaster.
The transition from father to son
reveals no change. The first-born of Pharaoh that was destroyed on the night
;
The Exodus Pharaoh.

If
it
be asked
why
it is thcat
Egyptologists are thus
divided on the question at issue,

that
it is
127
may
it
be replied
occasioned by the difficulty of interpreting-
some stucco fragments found

which seem
in Siptah's tomb,
and
to contradict facts respecting the order
of the succession gathered from other
monumental
sources.
Both Champollion and Lepsius visited this tomb

and both have published detailed accounts of the
inscriptions found therein, at least of such of
them
as were legible.
The
interior of the
condition.
tomb was
in a
most deplorable
Many of the chambers were
in utter ruin.
Everything about the tomb betokened the purpose

of complete demolition.
Fortunately, some royal
cartouches and portraits
caped
and
all
and inscriptions had
es-
of these are described, with plates, in
the two great works of Lepsius and Champollion,
which give as
fair
an account of the tomb and
its
contents as could be expected.

It
would appear, judging from the phenomena of

it had been originally constructed for
the tomb, that
of the Passover could not have been Mineptah's son
for the son wlio was

and who in fact succeeded him, had reigned already as a colleague
Pharaoh. It is on such grounds as these that it would seem impossible that
Mineptah could be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Maspero explicitly rejects
him (.see " Ili.stoire," p. 262 et seq.).
1 Champollion's account is to be found in two magnificent works published
by the French Government (1) " La Description de I'Egypte " (2) "Monuments de I'Egypte," etc., with "Notices Descriptives."
;
his lioir,
Lepsius' great work, a thesaurus for Egyptologists, the " Denkmaeler," waa
published at the expense of the Prussian Government.
one
Egypt
Ahraliam, Joseph, and Moses in
128
a queen, who was either
Taiiser,
at the time,
subsequently became, Siptah's wife
or
thereafter
for
them
it
was adopted
and that
as the intended sepulchre
The cartouches of both Tauser and
both.
Siptah are clearly legible, with portraits of them

both, singly and together.
But there are unmistakable traces of usurpation of

the tomb by one Pharaoh, and, as the descriptions
and plates of Champollion and Lepsius would show,
by more than one Pharaoh.

Now, no difficulty is occasioned by one of these
usurpations.
pation
of
All Egyptologists agree as to the usur-
tomb years
Siptah's
XX.
founder of Dynasty
It
that occasions perplexity.
plexing to find, as
II., if it
be
his, in
is
after
by Setnekht,
the other usurpation
is
For
it
is
assuredly per-
alleged, the cartouche of Seti
Siptah's tomb.
It
would be per-
plexing, even on the hypothesis that he really suc-
ceeded Siptah
for
he had
his
own tomb
in
the
neighborhood where he was buried, and there would

consequently seem to have been no motive for usurping a predecessor's.
because
all
But
it is
other indications, both of the
and of the Manetho
lists,
make
and unchallenged successor of

Still,
He
tells
most perplexing of
Champollion's statement
how he
monuments
Seti II. the
his father
is
all,
immediate
Mineptah.
very
explicit.
found, in certain specified parts of
the tomb, fragments of stucco compositions covering the original rock decorations and inscriptions of
The JExodus Pharaoh.
129
Siptah and Tauser, which compositions were in honor

of a Pharaoh who,
Champollion correctly reports
if
the fragments, would seem to have been Seti
He
adds,
what
is
II.
certainly confirmatory of his state-
ment, that these stucco compositions (or at least the

cartouches) had been recovered a second time, and
by the Pharaoh who

Champollion's
own
without doubt, Setnekht.
is,
conclusion
is
" This marks three
epochs or successive conditions of this corridor."^

If it is
deemed
necessary, therefore, to accept this
statement without debate,
one to regard Seti

sor, of Siptah,
11. as
it
would of course oblige
a successor, not a predeces-
and consequently the Pharaoh of the
Exodus.
And
we
yet, if
accept this conclusion merely from
by Champollion, we are obliged
the data mentioned
go counter
to
monumental
to the
data,
clear indications of all other
which would reverse the order.
way
Clearly, then, the only
out of the perplexity
tomb is, if posharmonize them with
arising from the fragments of Siptah's
them so as
monumental data.
sible, to interpret
the other
to
Both Chabas and Dr. Eisenlohr believed a mistake

had been made.^ Chabas, e. g., believed that it was
who made
a mistake of the scribe,
scribing the name, and wrote Seti
Notices Descriptivcs, vol.
Chabas' " Kechcrches,"
of Soc. Bib. Arch.," vol.
i.
p.
i.
a blunder in inII.
for Setnekht,
p. 451.
115
Dr. Eisenlohr's article in " Transactions
130
the two names being very similar; but this would
not explain the fact of what would then be two su-
by the same Pharaoh on the
perimpositions
original
inscription.
Dr. Eisenlohr believed that Champollion was mis-
taken in his
As recently
facts.
as the
winter of
1884-1885, Dr. Eisenlohr examined the tomb, and

writes
"
My
question whether right-
visit settled the
ly or wrongly I had asserted that Champollion erred
when he
said that
he had found the name of Seti
11.
tomb of Siptah. I examined all the cartouches

of the tomb, and nowhere found Seti XL, but contin-
in the
ually Setnekht."
It
must be added, however, that Lefebure takes
up the gauntlet
criticises
Dr.
Champollion, and
for
Eisenlohr's
seem
Lepsius' plates
to
article,
but
not only
shows how
Champollion's
corroborate
statements.^
admits that the cartouche name of Seti II., referred to by Dr. Eisenlohr,^ " is not found, or at least
He
is
no longer found, in Siptah's tomb " but he
from Dr. Eisenlohr
in that, as
the second cartouche

therein."
He
refers
name
he
says,
of Seti
''
some
II.*
differs
traces of
are yet seen
to a sculptured scene,
where
Part II. for 1885.

Idem, Part IV. for 1885. In Part I. (1886), p. 40, Dr. Eisenlohr replies
to Lefebure's strictures, maintaining his original position.
3 Viz., " Ra user cheperu meramen " (Fig. 8),
i. e., "the sun, lord of crea1
Zeitschrift,
tion,
*
beloved of
Viz., " Seti
Amen."
merenptah " (Fig.
3)
i.
e.,
" Seti, beloved of Ptah."
Siptah
is
goddess
The Exodus Pharaoh.
131
offering the
symbol of the
represented
Ma^
.is
and
to Isis,
to the
fact that in
one of
/C^
(SI)
a
v^^
ig.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 4.
3.
Siptah's cartouches^ in the scene two other stucco

letters, viz.,
and
iwyv^ (i. e.,
''a" and
"n") can be
distinguished, disposed as in Fig. 4, in the shield at

just the places
the
name
He
where the corresponding
of Seti
would be found.
(Fig. 3)
II.
letters in
also draws attention to the fact that Lepsius^
saw some superimposed stucco fragments (see Fig. 5)

on a Siptah cartouche. There was in this instance
a reduplication of the letter
almost confounded
fl,
with the sj^mbol for Ptah* of Siptah's

pare Figs. 6 and
^
I. e.,
7).
This would naturally suggest
the goddess of Justice and Truth.

rtah meren Siptah " (Fig. 6) ;
2 Viz., "
3
*
left,
Denkmaeler,
i.
e.,
symmetry
" Siptah, hcloved of Ptah."
III., PI. 201, b.
In cutting cartouches the characters were

as
name (com-
rc(juircd.
The two
made
cartouches,
e. g.,
to look to tiie right or
Figs. 5 and 6 (as cut
on the rock), were the very same, except that the position of the letters is reversed, because Fig. 5 was on the left side and Fig. 6 on the ri;;ht side of a
Siptah portrait, and all looked toward him. Thus understood, tlie arirument
based on the stucco fragments of the
clearer.
first
usurpation
may
be somewhat
Ahraliam, Joseph, and Moses in
132
the reduplicated
*\
name
in the
Egypt
of Seti
II.
(Fig. 3).
Further, Lepsius noted,^ in another instance, a letter a
(i. e.,
"p"), strangely enough mixed up
same
Fig. 7) with the
pare Figs. 5 and 6)
letter of Siptah's
name (com-
and he adds that of
known Pharaohs concerned,
it is
(see
only in the
all
the
name
of
Seti II. (Fig. 3) that these several letters appear in
a cartouche in that position. And so Lefebure concludes that " one must see in the fragments the
name
of Seti II."
further argues that " this statement and that
He
of Champollion confirm and mutually support each

other
found
for
if
one of the names of Seti
in the first corridor,
it
II.
is
still
not surprising that
is
Champollion should have found and copied the other

in the second corridor, as he alleges."
He
adds
'*'
:
It is useless to
suppose, as Chabas does,
a scribe's error, that substituted the beetle
name
of Seti
11.
same position
w
)
(Fig. 8) for the
(Fig. 9)
crown
S,
where written
the
Fig. 9.
pollion (Fig. 8)
1
name
name of
in Setnekht's
for the proper
out the tomb frequently,
in the
Setnekht, which occurs through-
Fig. 8.
in the
is
much
name
every-
as in Fig. 9,
referred to
and
by Cham-
shorter."^
Denkmaeler, III. PI. 201, a.

While the two names are very
(1) In the first clause
is
similar, they differ in two particulars

one has a beetle and the other a crown (or, as some
The Exodus Pharaoh.
He
concludes
reigned
*'
one wishes
If
133
to
know who
Seti 11. or Siptah, he has but to
first,
ine on the spot which cartouche
examwas written over
the other."
Now,
it
may
if this
seems decisive of the question at
issue,
be added that there are some things to be said
on the other
For there are other monumental
side.
and equally
indications that are indisputable
decisive,
that would forbid the acceptance of Lefebure's conclusion.
And
may
it
be further stated that there
is
which may serve to harmonize
a possible explanation,
the facts and thus help to determine the problem.

First of
all,
both Manetho and the monuments,
with the single exception that

Seti II. the
tah.
immediate successor of
All the
Manetho
succession, and they
lists, e. g.,
all
enough with" Thuoris "
To be
tifies
so perplexing,
is
his father,'
make
Minep-
indicate this as the
end the Dynasty strangely

(i. e.,
Tauser), Siptah's queen.
Eusebius makes Tauser a king, and idenher (or him) with " Homer's Polybus, husband
sure,
so that the one reads " Ra user cheperu " (" Ra, lord
it, a rising snn)
lit., "of
of creation"), instead of " Ra user Khau" ("Ra, lord of lords,"
explain
rising suns or crowns ").
(2)
quently used in cartouches,
maining clause
is
the
The one
in
and the other omits a clause
fre-
Ra "(" chosen of Ra "). The reeach, "miamen" ("beloved of Amen").
viz.,
same
inserts
" Sotep en
second clause of Fig. 9 would occasion no diffiwere there no other difference between the two. It would be simply a
shorter form of the name. But the substitution of a beetle in the one for the
rising sun of the other creates a far more serious difficulty, which requires
Chabas' surmise that the substitution was a
special pleading to surmount.
The omission
in Fig. 8 of the
culty,
scribe's mistake
is
wliat Lefebure rightly refuses to allow.
not remove the difficulty

iiekht covered over his
for were
Besides,
it
does
would then follow that Setown cartouche, which would need explanation.
;
it
allowed,
it
134
of Alcandra " but this was a blunder.
an instance of misplacement
"Thuoris"in Dynasty XXI.,^
for there
who
is
It is really
was another
connected there
with the identical tradition as Homer's Polybus,
etc.
At any rate, the monuments settle it that the Tauser

of Dynasty XIX. was a queen. Why Queen Tauser's
name should have been inserted in all the Manetho
ending the Dynasty, instead of her hus-
as
lists
band's,
it
is
jecture.
impossible to say.
Still, it
is
One may only
evident that the Manetho
conlists,
make the order of succesII., Amenmes, and Siptah (as Tauser's
without exception, would

sion to be Seti
husband).
Then, secondly, the monumental indications are

A number of monuments, to begin
equally clear.
with, represent this Seti II. as crown prince
there
e. g.,
a sitting statue of Mineptah at Boulak, on
is
the left side of which Seti
the
titles
II. is
of royal son and heir.
represented with
Some
literary
works
were dedicated to him while yet crown prince, showing that he had literary tastes and was considered
a patron of learning.
It is
his father
was advanced
a Pharaoh
so that
it
is
not to be forgotten that
in years
when he became
probable that Seti himself
while crown prince was no longer young.
It
is
moreover, that he was associated with his
certain,
father on the throne, for the associated cartouches
of the two are found in a rock temple excavated

1
See p. 18 of the " Tables," in Lepsius' " Konigsbuch."
by
The Exodus Pharaoh.
135
Further, the few remains
Mineptali at Sourarieh.^
of his short sole reign that have survived indicate
no pohtical compHcations
cession,
as
accompanying
his ac-
and no disturbance of the ordinary routine
The
of a time of peace.
by Mineptah, was
city of
Rameses, added to
occupied under Seti
still
II.
an important point and a royal residence.
It
as
was
there, indeed, that he celebrated a special feast in
honor
He
of his grandfather,
still
who had founded
the cult.
kept up the usual communications with the
frontier garrisons,
and maintained the desert
The beginning of
his reign, therefore,
whatever
its
known
end was.
Its close is
wells.^
was peaceful,
unknown.
It
is
was a short reign for he died

not only before his tomb was finished, but when
most of its galleries and halls had been simply hewn
only
that
it
out of the rock and
left in
the rough.
sarcophagus was found inside with
an unusual place,
itself
in the
very
its
first
Plis
granite
cover, but in
corridor,
was not yet completed, even the
floor
which
being
rough, as though he had been buried therein
still
commencement. Only
his second year has been yielded by the monuments
though some would assign him four years,
mean(and hastily) soon after
its
ing of course for his sole reign.
No
information has
reached modern times respecting his family, unless

1
Chabas' Reclierches, p. 116.

Idem, p. 123, where there is a translation of a curious document
ring to
this.
refer-
136
a Manetho tradition, soon to be mentioned, can be

referred to him.
monumental
At any
rate, according
Mineptah's " first-born
affirmed or denied.
But
"
to the
Whether he was
father and without a challenge.

literally
to these
indications, the son succeeded
cannot of course be
the " first-born
that sitteth upon his throne " (Gen.
xi.
of Pharaoh
5),
who was
destroyed on the eve of the Exodus, could not have
been Seti
II.,
for this latter prince survived to succeed
The
Ms father.
Mineptah
fact of itself
would seem
Exodus
as a possible
These monumental arguments,

called, are
to exclude
Pharaoh.-"-
as
indeed so strong that were
they
it
may
be
not for the
perplexing fragments in Siptah's tomb, there could
be no doubt whatever as to the order of the suc-
The question may
cession.
itself.
Is there
any
therefore well suggest
possible hypothesis that can jus-
one in accepting the clear indications of the
tify
monuments referred to and at the same time explain

the tomb fragments ? The period is one concerning
which so little is actually known that conjecture is
as yet the only resource in trying to solve the prob-
lem.
There are two items
in
the count, however,
that seem to be matters of fact, and which, taken

together, suggest a possible explanation of the phe-
nomena, both of the tomb and of the other monu1
This
is
the only hint in the
Hebrew
story, if
there was an associated Pharaoh on the throne

orable interviews.
the sequel.
The bearing
of this hint
it
be so interpreted, that
when Moses had
on Siptah's case
will
his
mem-
be seen in
The Exodus Pharaoh.

merits,
Seti,
viz., (1)
that there was at the time another
who cannot be
a prince
or Setnekht
Seti II.
137
identified with either
and (2) that
in
some way
owed a good deal to Queen Tauser.

There is monmnental evidence, e. g..} that there
was a Seti who was a " Prince of Ciish " and who
bore numerous other titles, proving that he was at
Siptah
He
least a scion of the royal house.
was, moreover,
not only contemporary with Siptah, but acted as

a courtier under him.
It
is
No
that he was Siptah's son.
mentioned.
him.
He
In
fact,
never said nor intimated

son of Siptah
nothing further
is
ever
known
is
simply appears on two monuments,
of
one
found at the island of Sehel and the other at Assouan,
and
in the pictures
dering
homage
the
titles
is
to Siptah,
who
is
of a prince of the blood,
it
may be
to the succession.
curiously enough, there
tion that one
on occasion
of the
is
Mineptahs
inferred that he
Who
thither
of
arising, sent his son Sethos,
subsequently.^
in peace
II.,
for, as
but a child
and himself
This Mineptah could
who was
fa-
Chabas has shown, he died
and was peacefully succeeded by
Dynasty,
this
not very well have been the Mineptah

ther to Seti
was he
a Manetho tradi-
of five years, into Ethiopia for safety,

fled
As he bore
crowned.
referred to and occupied the usual position
had some claim
Now,
represented as a youth ren-
Chabas' Rcclierclies,
p. 115.
Josephus' Coutra Apionem,
lib.
i.
his son
138
in Egypt.
nay, the son had been ah-eady associated with the
Also the very young age
father before he died.
of the child Sethos of the tradition could scarcely
be harmonized with the relative ages of Mineptah
and Seti
as they are ordinarily conceived.
But
himself was also a " Mineptah," and could
Seti II.
easily
II.,
enough have had a son named
who, as
Seti,
hereditary prince, would be "Prince of Cush," etc.

Further, while there
the reign of Seti
II.
monumental evidence
began peacefully, there is
is
dence that would point to

cut short
so that it
is
that
evi-
having been suddenly
its
altogether probable that his
There
reign ended disastrously.
dence, indeed, of some trouble,
is
monumental
evi-
in truth, evidence
that points to even the kind of trouble that brought

his rule to
an end.
of Seti II.,
now
There
Museum, bearing
places chiselled out.

jealousies of the
This of
Theban
call
himself a Seti.
In
is
in all three
itself points
to
the
who were
irritated,
to the first
Rameses
priests,
known, that the successor
should
his
but the syllable "Set"
the figure of the god Set
(it is
is
a large sitting statue
in the British
cartouches in three places;
as
is
fact,
they refused to
recognize the name, and called him after Osiris instead.
the
They were
first
doubtless
still
more
irritated that
Mineptah's son should repeat the hated
name, and yet more
so that
now,
if
the hypothesis
be accepted, the second Seti should give the same
The Exodus Pharaoh,
name
to his heir.
This jealousy, coupled with the
made up
inevitable intrigues of a court
of descendants
titude
139
the
of
of
a mul-
Rameses,
great
all
claiming some status in the royal house, would be
make
more ready
to lend their countenance and support to any royal
prince, with a shadow of a claim to the throne, who
sure to
the Theban priests
would identify himself with

lections.
then,
From
ments
of
of Seti
the
their theological predi-
this point of
view
more than a coincidence
sible contestant
all
it
certainly,
is
that the only pos-
revealed by the monu-
II.,
the period, should be the man,
whoever
he was, who, both by the name he assumed and the

legend he put in his cartouche, would suggest a
ligious
*'
plea for his recognition.
Amenvc\.Gii,
He
styled himself
Prince of Thebes."
It follows that the Seti
blood and afterwards
who was
Siptah's
enough have been a son of
a prince of the
courtier
may
well
Seti II. Mineptah, the
child Sethos of the tradition, sent to
safety
re-
Ethiopia for
amid the troubles that harassed the
close of
his father's reio:n.
He
could not have been the future Setnekht of

"
Dynasty XX. for in the '' Great Harris Papyrus

Rameses HI. puts forth on behalf of his father no
;
claim to royal heirship.
was established on
It is
gods established him on their

1
not said that Setnekht
his father's throne,
Records of the Past,
own
but that " the
seat."^
vol. viii. p. 46.
Surely,
AbraJiam, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt.
140
had such been the
fact,
Rameses
III.
would not have
failed to claim for his father sonship to
Dynasty XIX. Pharaohs.
That he does
one of the
not,
shows
that Setnekht was simply a leader, possibly allied to
the royal house,
who
seized his chance
quelled anarchy took a royal

least to
took
keep up the
is itself
name
very suggestive.
that seemed at
And
traditions.
and having
name he
the
It is certainly
Dynasty XX.,
of notice that the founder of
worthy
in choos-
ing his throne name, should have selected that of

*'
Seti."
Is it to
chosen
this
whom
the
the
be believed that he would have
name had
Seti II.
Dynasty closed
put an end
man who
been the Pharaoh with
in such disaster
to the period of
Would
anarchy
occasioned by the disaster to which the Harris Papyrus
have taken the name of the Pharaoh
refers
who inaugurated
And
it ?
proof, therefore, in the
that Seti
will
II.
is
the founder of Dynasty XX.,
made
The sequel
choosing Seti as a name
did not end the
show, moreover, that in
sirous of
there not an incidental
very name Setnekht assumed,
Dynasty
who
wâs doubtless de-
keeping up a connection with the
past,
a wise clioice of a name.
Who Amenmes
was, no one can say with cerThe monuments simply point to him as the
man who contested wath Seti II. the sovereignty of
tainty.
Egypt.
He
of Thebes,"
called himself in his cartouche " Prince
and
it
is
evident that his reign was
recognized by the Theban priests.
He may have
The Exodus Pharaoh.

been one of the
many
141
grandsons of Rameses
II.,
probably a son of an older brother of Mineptah's.

ambition would doubtless characterize such
Political
a man, living as he would amid the conspiracies of a

court.
He would
be sure to see his chance, amid
the religious animosities of the day, to play a role

as the champion of "
Amen "
and the old-time dog-
mas, in opposition to the " Set " worshippers.

also possible, if the
Manetho
It is
tradition can be trusted,
that he saw a further opportunity in the extreme
youth of the heir of Seti

possible
to
monumental
Prince
fit
in
11.
It
is
undoubtedly
these suppositions with the sure
indications of the period.
The "
Seti,
monuments could easily

young son of Seti IL, who at the out-
of Cush," of the
enough be the
break of
hostilities
between
his father
and
Amenmes
was sent for safety to Ethiopian friends, and was

thus far away when his father's reign came suddenly
to an end.
father's
It is but needful to suppose that at his

death the " Prince of Cush " was for the
make clear what was

story.
Amenmes for the
time being thrust aside, to
probably the rest of the
time reigned as a veritable Pharaoh, recognized as
such by the
priests,
and long enough
to build a
tomb
in the king's valley.

It is evident,
however, that
with an undisputed sway

contested,
Amenmes
for it
notably by Siptah.
did not rule
was undoubtedly
Siptah at least reached the throne only after a
Egypt
AhraJiam, Joseph, and Moses in
142
struggle with some pretender or usurper;
for the
who
monuments mention
that with the help of
became
he was at length, as he
affirms,
" established on his father's throne, and after
silencing
his Premier,
Ba'i,
a lieT^
Who
his royal father could
There
be conjectured.
cially consecrated to
is
have been, can only
a chapel at
spe-
Silsilis,
Mineptah, whose legends deco-
rate the door and are also found inside,
where they
are associated with the cartouches of his son Seti
Curiously, Siptah
is
also
found there, represented as
in his tomb, in the act of offering the
"
Ma "
(or " justice ") to
11.^
The
Amen-Ra.
symbol of
association
of the cartouches of the three in this little chapel
would certainly show a family connection

existed between Mineptah, Mineptah
Mineptah Siptah,
to
have
and
Seti II.,
connection which would be
suggested further by the fact that they were
The temple scene
three Mineptahs.
some connection between the
certainly claims
three.
It
is,
perfectly possible that he, as well as Seti
have been a son of Mineptah.
all
in fact,
II.,
may
He may have been
a younger brother, therefore, of Seti
II.,
who amid
the conspiracies that ended his brother's reign and
young prince Seti,

minority, deemed himself pos-
the enforced absence of the

his
nephew, or
his
still
sessed of a valid claim to his father's throne, but

1
Chabas' Recherches,
Idem,
p. 81.
p. 128.
The Exodus Pharaoh.

for a
found himself
who had
mes,
Moreover,
time imable to di>:possess
Amen-
obtained Theban recognition.

Egyptologists agree in looking on
all
Siptah, whatever his personal claim

as not so
143
may have
been,
unquestionably a Pharaoh as to need no
support for his claim
and
of
all
them agree
in re-
garding his marriage with Queen Tauser as a

ical
move.
was
so.
And
Siptah's tomb,
have been at
there
e. g.,
first
are
that
indications
been
as has
stated,
made, not by him nor
polit-
this
seems to
him, but
for
There are indisputable evidences of
for the queen.
enlargement and alterations, which belong to their
own
is
There
era and not to the period of usurpation.
good reason, therefore,
for
believing that
Siptah married Tauser, rather than build a
new
after
one,
the old tomb designed for her was simply altered so
make
as to
it
them both.
unknown. She may have been
serve for
Who Tauser
was,
is
a queen-dowager, and with special rights
also as the
daughter of a Pharaoh.
for
It
have been the Queen of Seti

the
young " Prince
her to
is
possible
11.
and the mother
of Gush,"
of
who, after her hus-
band's death, kept up in the North a sort of re-
gency, notwithstanding the success of

the South
latter's
As
for
Amenmes
in
no indication has been met of the
presence in the North.
such, she
may have
found in Siptah, her hus-
band's brother and her child's uncle, according to
AhraJiam, Josephj and Moses in Egypt.
144
the hypothesis, one to espouse her cause as against
Amenmes.
either, in
There would be nothing improbable,
her marrying the
man who was
at length
successful in overthrowing the rival of her house,
and even
in agreeing, as a choice
compromise
the
to
as
throne,
between
evils, to
that
viz.,
Siptah
during the minority of her son should reign jointly

with herself, with the understanding that the young
" Prince of Cush, Seti," was to be his successor.
In this
way
Siptah would add to his
own
claim to
the throne (as the surviving son of his father)

claim which could be contested
make
as the
the claim he could

He would
husband of Queen Tauser.
therefore simply hold in abeyance during a minority
the succession of Prince Seti, the rightful heir.
ever hypothesis, however, be adopted,
by
all
that in some
way
Siptah owed
it is
What-
admitted
much
to his
The tomb was beyond a doubt originally

At the entrance, Avhere one
always looks for the name of the tomb's builder,
there are some fragments of stucco with which the
rock was invested. On the fillet of the doorway
queen.
excavated for her.
are to be found the traces of

tures, the
two successive
pic-
more ancient sculptured on the stone
it-
self
and containing only Tauser's legend
On
the jambs of the doorway, also sculptured on
the rock,
is
as a queen.
seen the beginning of an inscription to
same queen, beginning with the words "hereditary daughter

exalted ..."
She was therethe
The Exodus PJiaraoh.

fore
It
145
own
unquestionably a queen in her
was not
until Siptah
right.*
was associated with her that
the alterations and enlargements were made, and a
few portraits of the two sculptured together.

Tauser
met
is
While
and portraits every-
in inscriptions
where through the tomb, except
the
in
made by Setnekht, Siptah himself
is
additions
rarely
met
therein.
It is certainly true, therefore,
putting
queen than was Siptah a king.

explain
why
it is
all
the facts
some way was more a
together, that the queen in
may
This
Manetho
that in the
serve to
lists
Queen
Tauser ends Dynasty XIX., rather than Siptah, her

According to Egyptian usage, a man's
husband.
marriage with a queen,

right, did not
who was such
make him a
in her
own
legitimate Pharaoh, had
he no other claim to the throne.
Their
common
children derived from the marriage the right of succession,
mother.
Seti "
though not from the
father, but
from the
In this particular case the young " Prince
would be regarded as hereditary prince, both
by right and by agreement, and consequently Siptah's " first-born " would only rightfully come next
To be
in the succession.
arrangements
sure, all such
would be certain to produce jealousies and family

dissensions
and
it
can be understood
how on
the
death of the queen the agreement might be ignored,
and Siptah claim the throne

1
for himself not only,
Notices Descriptives, vol.
10
i.
p. 448.
Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in Bgypt
146
but set aside the son of his wife, the rightful heir,
own son. Some

would explain how peculiarly
and claim the succession

such state of things
striking a
judgment
it
for his
would appear
to
Pharaoh that
slew his " first-born " and yet allowed a foster-child

to survive.
What the throne names of the j-oung Prince Seti

may have been, when he attempted to succeed Siptah, is of course pure conjecture.
On the monuments that
associate him with Siptah he is simply

" Seti, Prince of Gush," with other titles, such as
were borne by a hereditary prince

therefore,
can
known, would
tell
whether
satisfy the
his
throne
And
had been
Amenmes and
many
would take the
away
intrigues,
how
so long held in abeyance, first
first
to resent his
by
whose
then by Siptah himself, albeit the
ter at first pretended to recognize
if
usurper
first
yet one can understand
such a prince, the victim of so

rights
names,
conditions mentioned
Champollion and Lepsius respecting the

of Siptah's tomb.
and no one,
by
lat-
and befriend him,
chance after Siptah was swept
own wrongs by
covering Siptah's
cartouches with his own.

It
would be perfectly natural, moreover,
for such
a prince to adopt for his cartouches names as like

his father's as possible.
It
is
but needful to suppose
that for the one he took the family
name (which he
bore indeed as Prince), so that his
would be
first
identical with that of his father
cartouche
and with
The Exodus Pharaoh.
147
that of the first Seti,^ in order adequately to explain
the perplexing fragments of Fig.
supposed that for his other
Then,
4.
name he took
be
if it
the
first
part of his father's second cartouche, and for distinc-
sake simply changed the latter
tion's
"Ra
second cartouche would read
his
mer en
instead of his father's "
jitah,"
peru mer amen,"
this
would
also
that
half, so
user cheperu
Ra
user che-
adequately explain
the perplexing fragments of Figs. 5 and
7, particu-
larly that
n ("p"), mixed up with another "p" of
Fig.
would
It
7.
observable in
Fis;.
way
In this
also explain the second aww> ("
mentary cartouches of the
tomb
acrainst the
first
usurper of Siptah's
immediate succession
other monuments, entirely loses

It
who may
much
so
reasonably enough be
monumental
His
first
all
its force.
refer to another Pharaoli than Seti
of Seti II. to
altogether likely, therefore, that the frag-
is
ments that have occasioned
The
frag-
Mineptah, so explicitly certified to by
his father
")
5.^
argument derived from the
the
first
II.,
cartouche would be the same as Fig.

e.
of all four
a Pharaoh
identified
"Seti, Prince of Cusli,"
cartouches,
perplexit}^
3.
Ameuemhats
who
as
the
(1) was
This was not unusual.

of Dynasty XII. were
identical.
2
This supposition also would involve no unusual procedure. lu the sece. g., of all four Thothmes of Dynasty XVIII., there is a very
ond cartouches,
slight alteration
made, for distinction's sake, in the form of the legend, the
Thus in that of Thothmes III. we

Thothmes IV. is found simjily the plu-
sentiment remaining virtually the same.

read "
Ka men
ral of the
cheper," and in
same, " Tla
supposition of the text
men
is
tliat of
cheper^/."
It
cannot be said, therefore, that either
impossible, or even improbable.
AhraJiam, Joseph, and Jloses in Egypt.
148
certainly a courtier under Siptah, (2)
who
could easily
have been a young son and rightful heir of Seti
and (3) who may
enough have attempted
easily
For
least to succeed Siptah.
raoh after
whom came
II.,
at
Siptah was the Pha-
if
anarchy,
or, as
the event
has been understood in these lectures, the Exodus
Pharaoh,
it
can easily have been after the death of
Siptah's " first-born,"
and after the disaster which,
as the Bible suggests, overtook
him and
his,
that a
surviving rightful heir should have attempted for a

while, at least in the South, whither he
fled,
had doubtless
to stem the tide of confusion that ensued, and
even have time
empty tomb, and yet

sight amid the anarchy
to dishonor the
himself be soon swept out of
that overwhelmed the country.
To be
sure, all this
is
purely hypothetical
but
it
way harmonize the

monuments with the order of
certainly does in a reasonable
known
facts
succession
plains,
of the
that
may
be called traditional.
however inadequately
It ex-
in the opinion of
some,
the only doubt as to the order of succession, occasioned
by
Rather than agree with
Siptah's tomb.
Chabas or Eisenlohr, that Lepsius and Champollion

blundered in their transcriptions and statements, or
even that a scribe blundered in copying a very similar
name, one might be willing
pothesis that
may remove
to adopt
any hy-
the perplexity occasioned
by the tomb's phenomena. When every other monumental indication
justifies
a certain order of the
The Exodus
some explanation of the
succession,
may
be sought.
Besides,
149
Pliaraoli.
single exception
the traditional order
if
must be upset by the single exception, the necessity would remain to explain in some satisfactory
way
monumental
the
indications that
unchallenged succession by Seti
II.
intimate
an
to his father's
throne.
Such
is
the state of the evidence, on account of
which some Egyptologists end Dynasty XIX. with

Seti
II.,
others with Siptah.
consequently,
It will
is
may
issue at present,
uncertain, and the problem unsolved.
be seen, however, that the problem has been
brought in these
It
The
last
days within narrower
limits.
be claimed with some degree of confidence
respecting
the Exodus Pharaoh, that
on the one
hand he was not Mineptah, the son of Rameses II.,

and that, on the other hand, he was either Mineptah
Seti II. or Mineptah Siptah.
Both of these Pharaohs ruled
all
Egypt, and either of them would
abundantly
satisfy the Bible portraiture of the
who dared
to withstand
God
man
though, apart from
the traditional order which would point to Siptah

as the
man,
his history of conflict issuing in victory
could readily have so
fiir
elated
him
to believe that he could succeed
as to lead
him
against the
God
of the Hebrews.
Summing up the case as respects Siptah, (1) he

was probably the last Pharaoh of Dj-nasty XIX.
(2) he was a " Mineptah," thus satisfying the tradi-
Ahraliam, Joseph, and Moses in Egtjpt.
150
tion that affirms the
Exodus Pharaoh
to
have been
tomb that could

in the first instance by
be usurped, twice usurped,
"
one Seti," whoever he was; and subsequently by
There is no
Setnekht, founder of Dynasty XX.
such; (3) his
tomb proved
to be a
evidence that the former occupied

did.
It is interesting,
it
but the latter
however, to know that while
Setnekht was buried therein, he was not buried
No
Siptah's sepulchral hall.
in
trace of Siptah's burial
tomb has ever been found. The lid of Setnekht's sarcophagus was found in the second sepulin the
chral hall, but nothing that wôuld indicate Siptah's

burial in
indeed
while
device
seem
to
settle
usurping the
that
The two usurpations would
tomb.
his
is
that
Nevertheless,
point.
tomb, Setnekht resorted to a
unique in tomb architecture,
an
added second sepulchral chamber, separated from

the original funeral hall by two long corridors, as
though, as Champollion says,^ for some reason he

did not wish to
that the
lie
chamber.
in Siptah's
tomb was not large enough
third in size of all the
of rare magnificence.
It
for
was not
it
is
the
known kings' tombs, and one

The facts are so novel that
one cannot help conjecturing some motive for the

additions.
Does not
it
seem
Setnekht reached the throne,
tomb
all
when
he found an empty
to intimate that
ready to hand, and so usurped
transforming
it
^
to suit his
it,
simply
own purposes? But
Notices Descriptives, vol.
i.
p. 459.
while
The Exodus Pharaoh.
151
he could cover over with stucco the old cartouches,

as
though their owner, because the author of na-
tional
disasters,
deserved to be so disgraced, he
could not bring himself to
have
laid,
chamber.
and so made
lie
where Siptah was
for himself his
own
to
death-
ESSAY
"APERIU" AND THE "HEBREWS."
"HERE
" I
are
two opinions about the propri-
still
ety of regarding the proper
name
" Aperiu " or '^ Aperii " of the monuments as the

proper name " Hebrews " of Holy Scripture. Those
who
two
disallow the identification allege that there are
the way, one philological and the
difficulties in
other historical.
The
philological difficulty
riu " of a
Brugsch
But
)"
says,^
") instead of the
(" b ") that, as
find.
The
precise phonetic value of the
may
two hiero-
letter
And this
^ of the Hebrew
To judge from some Greek
transcriptions of
to a degree true
name.^
one would expect to
glyphs in dispute
is
the presence in " Ape-
to this objection several considerations
be urged
(1)
is
still
remains uncertain.
even of the
Diet. Geog., p. 113.
2 It is
as the
generally stated as " bh," or as equivalent to the English " v," juat
modern Greeks sound
removed.
their
/3.
With a daghesh
3, the aspirate is
"
Essay on
and
'Âperiu^^
the
proper names containing the O,

tah
and
the
n was
'^
the
153
Hehreivs.''^
as,
Mineph-
e. g.,
instead of Mine/^tah and Si/^tah,
Siphtah.
sounded more hke the Greek " ph
than " p," and the former of these was most probably more Hke the
sound of the Hebrew 2 than
of the hieroglyph Jf
was that
commonly considered
as "b."
The " b
(2)
They
" and
"p "
are closely related sounds.
are both consonantal " mutes," and in
longed to the same general

three Greek letters
P mute, only
The
P sounds.
class of
77, /3, (^,
Greek be-
were simply the same
differentiated as smooth, middle,
aspirated, according to the
and
of exertion used
measure
in the pronunciation.
(3)
There was, as a matter
of fact,
no absolute
uniformity in the transcriptions of foreign names.

"
This may be illustrated by the case of another "p
hieroglyph
many
for
signs for
most probably
first
the
Egyptian
the same
script
was
rich
in
This originated
letter.
in the fact that the signs
were the
picture letters of words beginning with the same
sound.
They may be regarded
as alphabetic equiv-
In this
alents, and were used as variants.
were many
''
p"
signs.
which was just as much

" Aperiu."
Now,
ment
many
of so
Greek by
all
way
there
e. g., a sign cm,

"
"
a
p as was the sign a in
There was,
this sign
era, which forms an ele-
proper names,
three forms of the
is
transcribed into
P mute.
the initial letter in the original of
all
It
is, e.
g.,
three of the
Essay on
154
and
^Âperiu^^
the
the
^^
Hebrews.'^
words transcribed into Greek as Patoumos, Pousiris,

and P/âraoh. And if this is true of one so-called
" p," wliy should
And
if it
Hebrew
is
it
not be equally true of the others
true of Greek,
transcriptions
In
why
should
not be of
it
" A^j'eriu," for the
fact,
Pentateuchal " Hebrews," does not stand quite alone.

(in "
Chabas
Melanges Egyptol.
'
vol.
48) gives
p.
i.
Hebrew word
Egyptian by a Q
another instance where the ^ in a
(Khorei)
is
instead of a
least,
vol.
into
There are indications in the Egyptian
(4)
itself
transliterated
that the " p
"
and
interchangeable.
ii.
365) shows,
p.
" b " wêre, to a
script
degree at
Brugsch (in " Diet. Hierog.,"

e. g.,
that the sound of
"b"
was modified by what are known as phonetic equivalents, which served as determinatives of sound.
Now,
curiously enough, one of the phonetic determi-
natives that sometimes follows
of the signs for " p,"
viz.,
^K.
Jj
("b")
is
another
This would certainly
intimate, in view of the office of the phonetic deter-
minative,
sounded
as
that
the
o^,
("b") could be sometimes
and, of course, vice versa.
therefore very probable that in Egyptian, as

in other languages, the " p " and " b " signs were not
It
is
only closely related, but, as variant names would
show, not so precisely discriminated on
all
occasions
some have imagined. Instead therefore of concluding, as some have done, from finding a Q instead
as
Essay on
of a
the
in the
][
'Âperiu'^
and
the
^^
Hebreivsy
monumental " Aperiu," that
it
155
could
not have been intended as a transcription of the

Hebrew word for " Hebrews," it would probably
be
more correct
than a
conclude
to
that
the p,
better
would have done, represented the sound
Jj
which the Egyptian
scribes
heard when the Hebrews
pronounced their national name.
The
historical objection raised to the identification
monumental name can be

referred to another people than the Hebrews; (2)
that " Aperiu" are met in reigns subsequent to the
is
twofold,
(1) that the
Exodus.
Respecting the
e. g.,
identifies
first
them
form of the objection, Brugsch,
as descendants of
some prison-
ers brought back from Syria by Thothmes HI, and
described as coming from two towns, each called
" Aper."
The name of the two towns " Aper" is found on a

Karnak pylon, but without any further allusion to its
locale than that, like all the rest, they
towns.-^
The name " Aperu "
previous to the
itself is
time of Dynasty XIX.
were Syrian
met but once

It
was found
on the back of a papyrus belonging to Thothmes'

day, and in a single clause where it is said, " Let
one of the Aperu ride out," as though they were
1 Brugsch's " History," vol. i. p. 350
Mariettc's " Les listes geog. des
Pylones de Karnak;" Maspero in " Trans. Vict. Instit.," vol. xx., "on the
geographical names of the list of Thothmes III. which may be referred to
;
Galilee."
156
Essay on
" knights,
the ^Âperiu"
who mounted
command."
It
is
of
and
the
^^
Hebrews.
^^
their horses at the king's
that
course possible
these
"
knights were the war prisoners from the " Aper

towns, who, as the
Karnak
inscription says, like the
prisoners from the other towns, were assigned as ser-
vants to the Theban temples.
They
But
this
is
not certain.
nowhere again mentioned, and
are
it is
fore gratuitous to affirm that the " Aperiu
there-
met on
"
the Dynasty XIX. monuments (some two centuries
were
later)
their descendants.
The later "Aperiu" are found in Lower, not in

Upper Egypt and they are described not as tem;
ple servants or warrior knights, but as slaves con-
demned
to the
A yet
same
is
quarry and to bear burdens.

serious objection to their being the
more
found in the Egyptian script
itself,
which by
using a different determinative with the word as
found in the two
eras,
would suggest them
to
it is
have
been different peoples.
The
earlier "
Aperu"
native '^^j which
is
is
written with the determi-
not ethnic, but, as Brugsch says,
conveys the idea of smallness or youth.
The
later "
determinative
Aperiu "
j
which
of a foreign people.
is
is
always written with the

the conventional symbol
Chabas remarks that there
an Egyptian word " aper," which means "

to fortify
1
" but, as he says, "this
See Mr. Goodwin
to provide,
meaning
in " Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch.," vol.
is
iii.
is
p. 342.
not
Essay on
ethnic
where
a foreign
it is
the
157
^^Hehreivsr
found with the determinative of
we have to do." ^
Aperiu," first met in Dynasty XIX.,
peoj)le, there
later "
The
and
^Âperiu^^
the
do certainly, as described on the monuments,
most admirably with the story of the Hebrews,
fit
in
as to
and occupation.
era, locale,
Thus the Bible tells how the Hebrews built Pithom

and Ramses as fortified magazines for Pharaoh. Now,
the former has been discovered
and monuments
re-
covered thence prove that the town unearthed wâs

a fortified store-city, and owed
The
Rameses H.
foundation to
its
identification in this case of the
as the builders of Rameses' "
Hebrews
Pithom "
is
The other town " Ramses " has not yet
complete.
been found, possibly because
in this case explorers
have been looking
for
in all probability
this store-city
it
as a separate town,
whereas
was not really a
separate town, but an extension or addition to an

old town.
It
is
undoubtedly
true, according to a
papyrus,^ that the same Pharaoh
employed the "Aperiu"

addition
which
to
capital
Pithom
grand fortress-tower,
Ramses Mia-
In the case of the fortress " Ramses," there-
fore, built
by command of Rameses
" Aperiu " that built

^
Eecherches,
Pap. Leydeu,
langes, vol.
of
built
making an important
in
called therein " the tower of
is
men."
his
who
i.
II., it
was the
it.
p. 104.
p. 49.
I.
349, line 7
Chabas' Recherches, p. 102, and his Me-
Essay on
158
the
and
^Âperiu^^
the
'^
Hebrew s.^^
Is it possible, then, putting these indications to-
any longer to disallow the identification ?

would certainly be a remarkable circumstance,
gether,
For
it
one quite as
proposed,
in the
if
difficult to
we
accept as the identification
are to believe that there were living
very same era and in the very same
locale,
nay, side by side, two peoples called (writing their

two names as the supposition would require) " A/?e-
riu" and " Aêriu,"

to servitude,
both
foreign peoples reduced
and both doing the very same work
nay more, both contributing to the construction of

the store-fortress " Ramses " of Rameses II. Must
this
be
believed
"Khita" and
*'
identification
" Hittites,"
why
Hebrews
It has
"
should that
be disallowed
is
been urged further as a
They
is
difficulty, that
mentioned
in the
HI., and another band of 800 in
the time of Rameses IV.,
Exodus.^
the
"Thuku" and
of
band of " Aperiu," 2,083 strong,

time of Rameses
of
now generally al"Aperiu"

and the
of the
Succoth," so long debated,
lowed,
"
the
the
If
are
also
i.
e.,
subsequent to the
indicated
as
foreigners,
and they are located in the old quarries of the

Rameses II. "Aperiu," not far from the Gulf of
Suez.2
Chabas regarded them as mercenaries who elected

though it would be
to remain after the Exodus
;
Brugsch's History,
Brugsch's Diet. Geog.,
vol.
ii.
p.
129
p. 115.
Speaker's Commentary, vol.
i.
p. 467.
Essay on
to
difficult
the
explain, as
they should
why
^Âperiu" and the '^Hehrews.^^
Canon Cook
159
why
suggests,
have wished or dared to
and
stay,
presence would be tolerated after the
their
Exodus.
But, curiously enough, those of Rameses
indicated
by two determinatives,
determinative for foreigners

leg in a trap, the
one,
the other
They were probably

garrison commander
that of a
obvious.
is
by some
prisoners forwarded
of
Rameses
III.,
are
the usual
is
meaning of which
III.
who
assisted
the inhabitants of the land in some conflict with the
Hebrews during the
earlier period of their Palestine
conquest.
In the case of the 800 "Aperiu" of Rameses TV.

the group
is
written not only with the general deter-
minative for foreigners, but with a group representing bowmen, which would clearly indicate that those
"Aperiu" were foreign bowmen taken

most probably in a skirmish. The fact,
tion with the lapse of time in this case,
that the conquerors of Palestine,
prisoners,
in connec-
would show
whence doubtless
they came, had become a military people.
would be more natural than
brew
send
"He-
these
" prisoners to the very place associated with
same dreaded
their fathers, and to the
Summing up
even
to
Nothing
if
the argument,
the identification
sive as one could wish,
more, probable.
may
it is
it
may
toil.
be said that
not be yet as deci-
certainly possible
nay
160
Essay on
The
the
^Âperiu^^
sacred writer
"Hebrews."
tells
and
the ^^HebreivsP
ns that his people were
The monuments seem
show
that Pharaoh and the Egyptians wrote of them as
"Aperiu." One must here, as elsewhere, simply
called
to
wait for the complete justification of the identification that
is
sure to come.
University Press
John Wilson
&
Son, Cambridge.

Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ABRAHAM, JOSEPH, AND MOSES

REV. ALFRED H. KELLOGG,

" VICTOKIA INSTITUTE,'" ETC., ETC.

RANDOLPH AND COMPANY.

LONDON: TRUBNER &

C.G. Jung Center of Boulder

FROM SIPTAH'S TOMB.

ABRAHAM, JOSEPH, AND MOSES

John Wilson and Son, Cambridge.

revised edition, but

receive this paper will

Misled by statements of Dr. Birch

Scripture reference on p. 126 should be

in the text, I learned that Mariette, after discovering

away, and wishing to preserve

point raised in the Essay- appendix

in the next edition that

other injury at the hands of the natives, carefully copied

Past" and Dr.

"History," I state on p. 23 that the Tanis tablet

present in the Boulak

I have no changes to m.ike in Lectures

Egypt, I find additional reasons

contentions of the lecture.

Mr. Tomkins thinks

"chronology untenable," but

own contention, which

writing to support his

but neither of them has seriously attacked the question.

them would draw up

regards Joseph's Pharaoh as a

scheme that would include

as to the order of succession

and regnal periods

coincidences in thought and expression gathered from both the Scripture

and the Egyptian

back Joseph into the Shepherd

sure that then neither they, nor even Herr

his fertile imagination,

would again attempt the task of pushing

in the lecture are (i), that Joseph's

to a native dynasty; and

he was one of the Eighteenth dynasty

and thought myself

justified in picking out

two great Kings

dynasty (according as one adopted a longer or shorter Egyptian

reigns, as respects length

particulars, could satisfy the requirements

and perfect accuracy were then as now out of the ques-

but whatever one

has never yet been proven that either the

longer or the shorter chronology in dispute

There are a number of

affirm that Joseph's

requiring explanation on the part of those

Pharaoh was a Shepherd King.

Pharaoh of Joseph was one "Apepi,"who

the view, the

war of liberation that resulted

before the long

expulsion of the Shepherds,

Hebrew Shepherds were

struggle took place.