Chapter XLVII: Introduction: To the Chronology of the Egyptians (4)

It appears to me, therefore, that the following acceptation is alone possible, which I would at least recommend to the closer examination of well-versed labourers in Jewish antiquities. The Talmud contains very few chronological dates, and nothing justifies us in the belief that the learned HILLEL had already given a chronological view of the events, as we afterwards find them. But he must have necessarily had some resting points for his technical chronological works, if he desired to connect his present with the past, and even with the Creation. It could not have been difficult to find these resting points at that time, so soon after Africanus; the best authorities were still open to him. But the Exodus from Egypt must have been his most important point, for previous to that event the numbers in the Pentateuch were clear, and without mistakes. It was only necessary for him to decide between the two different views concerning the period between Jacob and Moses. The numbers after the Exodus were much more uncertain, as the calculations of Josephus have already proved. On the other hand, the well-known era of the Seleucidæ, which was at that time still in use, naturally formed another fixed point which he could not avoid. Under these circumstances, every clever and mathematically educated chronologist, would be compelled to connect the date of the Exodus with the only certain and astronomically verified Egyptian chronology. If the ERA of KING MENEPHTHES, and the exact year of its commencement was familiar to the mathematician, Theon of Alexandria, who lived at a later period, must it not have been equally well known to the astronomer Hillel? But nothing more was necessary to determine the date of the _Exodus_, which took place _under the same King Menephthes_[318].

We should not therefore be surprised to see, even at that time, the perfectly correct acceptation of the year 2448 for the Exodus. It was, at all events, impossible to determine the year of the Creation without having obtained the two periods of the Seleucidic Era, and of the Exodus.

On the other hand, it is very improbable that Hillel set to work as Ideler[319] imagines he did. He says “that Hillel evidently started from the beginning of the Seleucidic Era, which was at that time still universally employed by the Jews, the autumn of the year B.C. 312. Reckoning from this point backwards, he made the next epoch the _destruction_ of the first Temple, and placed it only 112 years earlier than the Seleucidic Era, counting about 150 years too little, so that he advanced Nebuchadnezzar to the times of Artaxerxes I. Whilst he thus went back still farther to the building of the first Temple, to the Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, to the Flood, and to the Creation, following partly the express statements of time in the Bible, partly his own explanation of it, he found the beginning of the year, 3450 of the world, to be the epoch of the _Minjan schtaroth_.” As we said before, it was perfectly _impossible_ for a scholar of the fourth century to make such a gross mistake of nearly 160 years at that late period. But it is easily explained, if we believe that after the great gap in Jewish literature, which commenced at the conclusion of the Talmud, about the year 500, and which lasted to the eighth century, the Rabbis had adopted those few correct chronological periods fixed by Hillel, and now first undertook to fill up their history of the world, which comprised 5000 years, according to the statements of the Old Testament. In fact, we find neither in the Talmud, nor even in the first writings of the rabbis, which succeed the Talmud, _e. g._ in the _Seder Olam Rabah_, one of the oldest of those writings, the full chronological details, some extracts of which we have seen above. It appears to have been first completed in the twelfth century, therefore in the period of a scientific barbarism, which had been long introduced. It was only necessary to follow the numbers of the Pentateuch from the Creation to the Flood, and to the Exodus, in order to obtain the given year 2448 = 1314. The convenient number 480 years, down to the building of the Temple, in the first Book of Kings, was afterwards immediately adopted, and the chronology of the times of the Judges adapted to it. But hereby the historical event next following was at the same time displaced to about the 160-170 years we have mentioned, and drew with it the displacement of all the succeeding events. It first became apparent at the next fixed point, about the year 3450 = 312, that the chain of events was far too long for the stated interval, from the building of the first to the second Temple. Therefore, the period from the erection of the second Temple, built under Darius Hystaspes, to the time of Alexander, to which was given the name of the Grecian Era[320], was cut down without ceremony from 184 years into 34 years. This raised no obstacle at first, but afterwards occasioned many difficulties, until these also were got rid of by the simple expedient of taking Darius II. and III for one and the same person. Only thus can we explain the peculiar phenomena of an entirely displaced and afterwards mutilated chronology, in which, however, there appears two fixed points alone correct, and which afford us at the same time the important, and probably the most exact, determination of the Exodus by a truly learned chronologist of the fourth century[321].

Viewing it, therefore, from this side, we return to the opinion, that the great stumbling-block to the whole of the chronology hitherto adopted for the Old Testament was the number 480 years, which was calculated as the period between the Exodus and the building of the Temple mentioned in the first Book of Kings[322]. As soon as we set this aside, regarding it only as a supplementary multiple of twelve generations, or segments of 40 years each, the Hebrew and Egyptian chronologies are no longer opposed to each other with reference to the time of the Exodus. All the other intimations we meet with in the Hebrew accounts, and their whole connection, demand, on the contrary, precisely the same time, which we find unequivocally stated in the Egyptian annals of Manetho.

The question now is, whether along with this number 480, to which we can attribute no greater importance than to the simple number _forty_, so often repeated in the history of Israel at that period, we must also give up as valueless every other chronological measure of the events immediately succeeding the Exodus. But this is so little the case, that, on the contrary, in the true chronological scale which the Mosaic writings furnish, we find a fresh refutation of the opinions hitherto adopted, and a confirmation of the Egyptian statements. We look upon the REGISTER OF GENERATIONS as this scale.

I am not aware whether these numerous family records have ever been fully placed under _one_ point of view, and estimated as a whole in their great chronological significance, in the same way as they have certainly frequently been used for separate purposes and divisions of time. Such a survey would very much increase the importance of the separate lists, and facilitate their application to chronological determinations.

It is well known how in the East at all times, and even to this day, the register of generations and genealogies is orally transmitted, with a wonderful fidelity and completeness, through the memories of perfectly illiterate and frequently even now nomadic races. The Arabian races are especially noted for this, and their historical recollections are often almost entirely limited to this dry register. I have met with many such pedigrees in the upper districts of the Nile, south of the province of Dongola, among the Arabs who immigrated there from the west, these being the only written remains of their past, which inform us of their immigration and distribution in those districts. But these lists of names are still more to be depended upon among those nations of antiquity, who, like the Egyptians and the Hebrews, were a literary people, and were accustomed to preserve in writing these sacred bequests of individual families. On the rock of the Kosser-road, in the eastern desert of Egypt, I found a hieroglyphical inscription belonging to the time shortly before the first Persian dominion, in which a chief architect of the country, named Ranumhet, carries back his direct ancestors as far as the twenty-fourth generation, to an ancestral mother Nofratmu, who, according to a rough calculation, must have lived about the end of the 19th Dynasty, therefore about the time of Moses.

But the Israelites particularly, above all the nations of antiquity, appear to have laid the greatest stress upon the register of generations, lists of names, and general enumerations of tribes and generations. The writings of the Old Testament are full of them, especially all the historical books; and the care and exactitude which was expended upon the general preparation of these lists, is evident to the reader. The peculiar destiny of the Israelitish people, firmly bound together, always separating themselves most rigorously from strangers, yet frequently transplanted in masses from one country to another, and settled amidst other nations, enables us perfectly to comprehend this universal attention to an authentic register of generations. We find it stated that they were already twice numbered[323] in the desert; for which purpose the whole people were collected together, and were entered in the registers of the births “by their generations, after their families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years and upwards, and by their polls.” On their return from exile it is particularly observed that some of the wanderers could not trace their genealogy[324]. Among these were several priests’ families, of whom it is said, “These sought the register of their generations, but it was not found, and, therefore, they were _rejected_ from the priesthood[325].” It follows from this that the priests of the tribe of Levi were obliged by law to preserve and continue the register of their generations. This law must naturally only have existed since the Exodus, and, therefore, when Josephus[326] asserts that the High priests possessed written registers of their generations, as far back as 2000 years, this is, indeed, connected with his opinion about the early epoch of the Exodus; it shows, however, that they were brought down to his time, which is, indeed, also confirmed by the register of the generations of Jesus Christ[327].

We need no further justification, therefore, for placing great value upon the successive generations, and for discovering in them the _true chronological thread_ for those times during which more exact reliable statements are wanting. We fortunately possess a whole array of genealogies for the period between the Exodus and the building of the Temple; and, indeed, principally generations of priests, which go back as far as Levi, and are, therefore, from the reasons we have stated above, the most to be depended upon. Altogether, _five_ different generations of the Levites may be distinguished; some obscurities have crept into our text, which probably happened at the time it assumed its present form, since they are found also in the Septuagint; it seems, however, that they may easily be removed[328].

The following is a survey of the principal genealogies, in which the _Levitical generations_ preserve the order in which they are cited, 1 Chron. vii.[329] This is preceded by the genealogical succession, according to Josephus, from _Levi_ to _Zadok_, and by his series of _High priests_ from _Aaron_ to _Zadok_. Lastly, there follows a table of the generations of _Judah_. On the other hand, we have excluded other genealogies; _e. g._ the three of _Ephraim_; Num. xxvi. 35; 1 Chron. vii. 20, 21, 24-27[330]; because they are evidently confused, and lead to no result[331].

THE GENERATIONS OF THE JEWS FROM ABRAHAM TO DAVID.

+-------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| The Heads of the People | The Succession of the | The Ancestors of|
| from Abraham to David. | High Priests to Zadok, | Zadok, according|
| | according to Josephus, | to Josephus, |
| | A. J. 5, 11, 5. | A. J. 8, 1, 3. |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| 1. Abraham 100 or 30| | |
| 2. Isaac 100 30| | |
| --- | | |
| 200 | | |
| 3. Jacob 100 30| | |
| --| | |
| 90| | |
| | | |
| 1. Levi 100 30| | 1. Λευί. |
| 2. Kohath 100 30| | 2. Κάαθος. |
| 3. Amram 100 30| | 3. Ἀμαράμης. |
| --- --| | |
| 400 90| | |
| | | |
| 1. Moses 40 | 1. Ἀαρών 30| 1. Ἀαρών 30|
| 2. Joshua 40 | 2. Ἐλεαζάρης 30| 2. Ἐλεαζάρης 30|
| 3. Othniel 40 | 3. Φινεέσης 30| 3. Φινεέσης 30|
| 4. Ehud 40 | 4. Ἀβιεζέρης 30| 4. Ἰώσηπος 30|
| 5. Shamgar 40 | 5. Βουκί 30| 5. Βοκκίας 30|
| 6. Barak 40 | 6. Ὅζις 30| 6. Ἰώθαμος 30|
| 7. Gideon 40 | 7. Ἠλεί 30| 7. Μαραίωθος 30|
| 8. Jephthah 40 | 8. (Φινεέσης) 30| 8. Ἀροφαῖος 30|
| 9. Samson 40 | 9. Ἰοχάβης 30| 9. Ἀχίτωβος 30|
|10. Eli 40 |10. Ἀχιμέλεχος = Ἀχίας 30|10. Σάδωκος 30|
|11. Samuel Saul 40 |11. Ἁβιάθαρος with 30| |
|12. David 40 | Σάδωκος | |
| --- | ---| ---|
| 480 | 330| 300|
+-------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| I. | II. | III. |
| | | |
| The Generation |The Generation of|The Generation of|
| of Aaron. | Gershom-Libni. |Kohath-Amminadab.|
| 1 Chron. vii. |1 Chron. vii. 20,| 1 Chron. vii. |
| 1-9, 50-53. | 21. ( = VIII.) | 22-24. ( = VI.) |
| Ezra vii. 2-5. | | |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1. Levi | 1. Levi | 1. [Levi] |
| 2. Kohath | 2. Gershom | 2. Kohath |
| 3. Amram | 3. Libni | 3. Amminadab |
| | | |
| 1. _Aaron_ 30| 1. (Jahath) | 1. Korah 30|
| 2. _Eleazar_ 30| 2. Zimmah | 2. Assir 30|
| 3. _Phinehas_ 30| 3. Joah | 3. Elkanah 30|
| 4. _Abishua_ 30| 4. Iddo | 4. Ebiasaph 30|
| 5. _Bukki_ 30| 5. Zerah | 5. Assir 30|
| 6. _Uzzi_ 30| 6. Jeaterai | 6. Tahath 30|
| 7. Zerahiah 30| | 7. Uriel 30|
| 8. Meraioth 30| | 8. Uzziah 30|
| 9. Amariah 30| | 9. Saul 30|
|10. Ahitub 30| |10. (Jonathan) 30|
|11. _Zadok_ 30| | |
| ---| | ---|
| 330| | 300|
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

+---------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| IV. | V. | VI. VII. |
| | | |
| The | The | The Ancestors of Heman |
| Generation of | Generation of | | |
| Elkanah-Amasai. | Merari-Mahli. | from Izhar. | from Amasai. |
| 1 Chron. vii. | 1 Chron. | 1 Chron. vii. | 1 Chron. vii. |
| 25-28.( = VII.) | vii. 29-30. | 36-38. (= III.)| 33-36. (= IV.)|
+---------------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+
| 1. [Levi] | 1. Levi | 1. Levi | 1. [Levi] |
| 2. Elkanah | 2. Merari | 2. Kohath | 2. Elkanah |
| 3. Amasai (and) | 3. Mahli | 3. Izhar | 3. Amasai |
| | | | |
| 1. Ahimoth 30| 1. Libni | 1. Korah 30| 1. Mahath 30|
| 2. Elkanah 30| 2. Shimei | 2. [Assir] 30| 2. Elkanah 30|
| 3. Elkanah Zophai 30| 3. Uzza | 3. [Elkanah] 30| 3. Zuph 30|
| 4. Nahath 30| 4. Shimea | 4. Ebiasaph 30| 4. Toah 30|
| | | | (Thohu) |
| 5. Eliab 30| 5. Haggiah | 5. Assir 30| 5. Eliel 30|
| | | | (Elihu) |
| 6. Jeroham 30| 6. Asaiah | 6. Tahath 30| 6. Jeroham 30|
| 7. Elkanah 30| | 7. Zephaniah 30| 7. Elkanah 30|
| 8. Samuel 30| | 8. Azariah 30| 8. Shemuel 30|
| 9. Vashni 30| | 9. Joel 30| 9. Joel 30|
|10. --- 30| |10. [Heman] 30|10. Heman 30|
| ---| | ---| ---|
| 300| | 300| 300|
+---------------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+

+--------------------+--------------------+------------------------+
| VIII. | IX. | |
| | | |
| The Ancestors of | The Ancestors of | The Ancestors of |
| Asaph from Jahath, | Ethan from Mushi. | David from Judah. |
|1 Chron. vii. 39-43.|1 Chron. vii. 44-17.| Ruth iv. 18. 1 Chron. |
| (= II.) | |ii. 4-13. Gos. Matth. i.|
| | | 3-6. Luke iii. 32, 33. |
+--------------------+--------------------+------------------------+
| 1. Levi | 1. Levi | 1. Judah |
| 2. Gershom | 2. Merari | |
| 3. (Jahath) | 3. Mushi | 2. Pharez |
| | | |
| 1. Shimei 30| 1. Mahli 30| 1. Hezron 30|
| 2. Zimmah 30| 2. Shamer 30| 2. Ram 30|
| 3. Ethan 30| 3. Bani 30| 3. Amminadab 30|
| 4. Adaiah 30| 4. Amzi 30| 4. Nahshon 30|
| 5. Zerah 30| 5. Hilkiah 30| 5. Salmon 30|
| 6. Ethni 30| 6. Amaziah 30| 6. Boaz 30|
| 7. Malchiah 30| 7. Hashabiah 30| 7. Obed 30|
| 8. Baaseiah 30| 8. Malluch 30| 8. Jesse 30|
| 9. Michael 30| 9. Abdi 30| 9. David 30|
|10. Shimea 30|10. Kishi 30| |
|11. Berachiah 30|11. Ethan 30| |
|12. Asaph 30| | |
| ---| ---| ---|
| 360| 330| 270|
+--------------------+--------------------+------------------------+

The first column contains after the patriarchs from Abraham to Amram, the 12 heads of the people, commencing with Moses, who appear to have been regarded as the representations of 12 generations of 40 years each, and thence to have occasioned the calculation of 480 years. Ewald[332], as well as Bertheau[333], gives another list, because, on the whole, the subject admits of no exactitude; the common acknowledgment of the division of the period into twelve parts is alone of importance to us. But one (VIII.) of the genealogies we have quoted (1 Chron. vii. 39-43[334]) contains twelve generations of _one and the same family_[335]. It is possible, therefore, that this succession, rather than that uncertain division, gave occasion to the 480 years. It was, besides, distinguished from the others by being continued through _Gershom_, the _First-born of Levi_. But the _principal lineage_ of the Levites was that of the high priests, who were descended from Aaron and Kohath (I.); this contains, as well as that of Mushi (IX.), only 11 generations. This might therefore be the reason why the Seventy only reckoned 440 years[336].

In the Chronicles the _second_ succession of Levites is closely connected with the third[337]. But in the Hebrew as well as in the Greek text a distinct pause is made at verse 22, after _Jeaterai_. The author begins again: “_The son of Kohath; Amminadab, his son; Korah, his son_[338];” and so on. The Seventy even write the plural υἱοὶ Καάθ. A new succession therefore undoubtedly begins here, and we must consider the portion from Gershom to Jeaterai as an incomplete genealogy inserted here, which evidently runs parallel to the first part of our _eighth_ Levitical series[339]. _Kohath_, who succeeds Jeaterai, was also a son of _Levi_, and the names which follow, clearly show that it ought to be the same series as our _sixth_. That the third and sixth series are really identical follows from the name of the grandson of Kohath being _Korah_, which recurs in both, and also from the three successive names, _Ebiasaph_, _Assir_, _Tahath_, also recurring. The eighth name, Uzziah, is also undoubtedly the same name as Azariah in the other text; for the very same change of both names is again found afterwards in the King of Judah, the son of Amaziah, who is called Azariah eight times in the same chapter (2 Kings xv.) and is afterwards three times called by his usual name, Uzziah[340]. I have not, therefore, hesitated to fill up the two names of Assir and Elkanah which were wanting after Korah[341] in the _sixth_ series, as the _third_ series is, on the whole, most to be depended on. It has undoubtedly been retained on account of the last name of _Saul_, whom we must consider to be no other than _King_ Saul, whose generation indeed is usually (1 Sam. ix. 1) carried back through Kish and Aphiah, with an interruption, to Benjamin, but here again also presents difficulties and appears in general to have been disputed.

But the _sixth_ series does not conclude in the Chronicles with _Joel_, but is continued into our _seventh_, and no text appears to indicate that there is a pause. Yet the correctness of our division here also, will hardly be found doubtful. It would be quite impossible to believe that among six genealogies one alone could have been _as long again_ as all the others; for if we omitted the two restored members of the sixth series, we should still retain nineteen members in place of ten or eleven, as in the other genealogies. We should therefore still feel obliged to believe there was a mistake, even though unable to point it out. But, upon a further investigation, it explains itself.

It is very apparent that we have the same genealogies in the _fourth_ series as in the _seventh_, although there appears to be several deviations in the manner the names are written, and in some passages completely different names. Let us now see how the _fourth_ series is introduced in the Chronicles. The first part of the seventh chapter (in the Hebrew text made the sixth) brings prominently forward, apart from the other genealogies, that of the generations of the high priests, which goes back through Aaron, Amram, and Kohath, to Levi. The generations of the other Levites are afterwards designated, and indeed in _two_ divisions. The _first_ proceeds from the _first-born_ of the sons of Levi, in which, nevertheless, in the race of Kohath, _Amram_ has already been removed from the series, and _Amminadab_, _i. e._ _Izhar_, takes his place; the _second_ goes upwards from the three songsters of David, Heman, Assaph, and Ethan, as far back as the grandchildren of Levi. The ancestors of _Heman_ come first, because a _first-born grandson_ of Levi stands at the head, _Izhar_, _i. e._ _Amminadab_, whose generation was therefore already mentioned among those of the first-born grandsons (III.). The ancestors of _Assaph_ and of _Ethan_ succeed, because later-born grandsons of Levi stand at the head, who are again arranged in the succession of the sons of Levi.

There is here a strict and duly considered rule, which is made evident by the following survey:

LEVI.
|
+-----------------+-+-----------------+--------------+
| | | |
1. _Gershom._ 2. _Kohath._ 3. _Elkanah._ 4. _Merari._
| | | |
| I. 1. Amram. | |
| | | |
| 1. Aaron. 2. Moses. | |
| | |
| III. } | |
II. 1. Libni. VI. } 2. Amminadab-Izhar. | |
| |
IV. } | |
VIII. 2. Jahath-Shimei. 3. Hebron. VII. } 1. Amasai. V. 1. Mahli.
4. Uzziah.
2. Ahimoth. IX. 2. Mushi.

This certainty presupposes what has been already assumed here, that _Elkanah_ was a _son of Levi_, and, indeed, the THIRD son, although in former passages he is not cited as among the sons of Levi. Little is proved by this omission, for there are many such cases, and in this very chapter, v. 43, _Jahath_ is called a son of _Gershom_, although in v. 17 he is not cited among the sons of Gershom[342]. In such cases, certainly, the conjecture still remains which we admitted above, p. 464, in the case of Jahath, that one name has been _substituted_ for another, as, without doubt, occurs in many cases; and therefore some might prefer here to suppose _Elkanah_ the same person as _Kohath_, Zuph (VII.) as a later Elkanah (IV.), Toah (VII.) as Nahath (IV.), Azariah (VI.) as Uzziah (III.), Joel (VII.) as Vashni (IV.), Laadan as Libni, &c. However, this seems very improbable here. In the chapter we allude to the children of Gershom-Libni are first stated in the series of the first-born, then the children of Kohath-Amminadab, then the children of Elkanah-Amasai, lastly the children of Merari-Mahli. Elkanah is, therefore, evidently also placed between _Kohath_ and _Merari_, as one of the _first-born_. If _Elkanah_, the head of this family, were no other than the _Elkanah_ previously mentioned in v. 23, the son of _Assir_, this whole genealogy would not belong here, which is evident from the arrangement we have given above.

But the same arrangement proves that the first part of the genealogy of _Heman_, our _sixth_ series[343], concludes with the same _Joel_ who in the second part in our _seventh_ series appears as the father of _Heman_; that, consequently, we have to complete the end of the _sixth_ series with the name of Heman again; in short, that we have before us, in place of one of double length, _two_ single genealogies of _Heman_, which spring from his father by different grandfathers[344].

So much for the generations of Levi from the Hebrew text. With respect to the genealogical succession from Levi to Zadok, according to Josephus, it corresponds with our first Levitical series, but does not entirely agree with it. According to Josephus, the generations belonging here would be as follows:

Ἀαρών.
+-----------------------------+
| |
1. Ἐλεαζάρης. Ἰθάμαρος.
2. Φινεέσης. |
|
+------------ |
| |
Ἰώσηπος. 3. Ἀβιεζέρης. |
Βοκκίας. 4. Βουκί. |
Ἰώθαμος. 5. Ὄζις. |
|
(Meraioth =) Μαραίωθος. 6. Ἠλεί.
Ἀροφαῖος. Φινεέσης.
(Ahitub =) Ἀχίτωβος. 7. Ἰοχάβης.
10. Σάδωκος. 8. Ἀχιμέλεχος.
9. Ἀβιάθαρος.

But the Hebrew series is not only supported by three passages, but it has also more internal probability than that of Josephus. For Βοκκίας and Βουκί seem to differ but little, and since Zadok and Abiathar are cotemporary, a name appears to be wanting in the series of Σάδωκος, which is given in the Hebrew series[345].

In our series of the successions of the _High priests_ φινεέσης is an interposition, because the pontificate passed immediately from Eli to his grandson.

The genealogy of _Judah_, which we have added, is at the same time the table of the generation of _David_. It is the shortest of all, but ought not therefore to be regarded with suspicion. We must place _Hezron_ equal with _Moses_, although only _one generation_ is given between him and Judah, for it is said of him (1 Chron. ii. 24) that he died at Caleb-Ephratah, therefore after the entrance into Palestine, and that his wife, Abiah, had a son after his death. Therefore there only remains _Judah_ and _Pharez_ for the Egyptian time. This need not surprise us, since _Pharez_ was only born to _Judah_ by _Thamar_ after she had been already the wife of his sons; _Pharez_ is, therefore, both the son and the _grandson_ of _Judah_. There remain nine generations for the period from the Exodus to the building of the Temple; but here, also, we know at least concerning the last name, _David_, that he was the _seventh_ son of his father.

If we now review the collected series of our table, we find among them _eight_ different and complete series, namely, besides six tribes of Levi, the tribe of _Judah_, and the series of the High priests. Of these, _one_ contains 12 names, _three_ of them 11, _three_ 10, and _one_ 9. This gives as a mean number exactly ten and a half generations.

If we inquire the mean number for the years of a generation, we must not think of the Hebrew number 40. It is evidently too high a number, and was only sometimes conferred by the Hebrews on the generations, because it had been long used by them for undetermined quantities as a round and sacred number.

The 33⅓rd years also of the Egyptian generations, according to Herodotus (ii. 142), was rather a subdivision of the _century_ than a calculation of the real succession of generations. The longest series, from which we could obtain a mean number, are the _series of kings_. But we can obtain no scale even from them. The kings of Judah only reigned on an average nineteen years, those of Israel only twelve years. Successions of reigns are, however, always shorter than generations, and in Judah seven out of twenty kings were killed, or expelled; in Israel, fully half out of twenty. We shall therefore approach much nearer the truth if we adopt the _Greek_ acceptation[346] of thirty years for a generation, in which we only follow most of the modern scholars.

Admitting this, ten or eleven generations would amount to 300 or 330 years, and if we place _Solomon_ about the year 1000, the genealogies would lead us to 1300 or 1330 years before Christ, which most perfectly agrees with our earlier results, since, according to Manetho, we believe we ought to place _Menephthes_ 1328-1309. The _Rabbinical_ date of the Exodus is B.C. 1314, exactly between 1300 and 1330, upon which of course no more importance is to be laid than is allowable by the indeterminate factors of the calculation. At any rate the whole discussion leads to this, that the _genealogies_, the only trustworthy although less exact chronological thread of those Hebrew times, speak as decidedly against the calculation hitherto adopted of 480 years, as in favour of our calculation of, about, 300 years. This agreement appears to me of the greatest importance in judging both the Egyptian as well as the Jewish history.

But if, finally, we look at the numbers in the Book of Judges, we have already seen that, according to the usual mode of reckoning, they are by no means found to agree immediately with any other chronological acceptation; still the chronological character of many separate numbers cannot be mistaken, and we may at least expect that, from our point of view also, a simple solution must present itself, which would release the statements of numbers in the Book of Judges from the contradictions in which, as hitherto interpreted, they have stood with the Manethonic chronology.

Bunsen[347] gives us a survey of this period. He compares the “Time of Foreign Rule and Anarchy” with the “Time of the Judges and of Peace.” For the former he puts 3 _x_ + 111 years, for the latter, including the monarchical time to the building of the Temple, 4 _x_ + 442 years. He considers the first, less historical than the last (p. 212), and supposes that the number 480 is perhaps formed out of the latter 442. At all events, he believes we must start from this number. But I should prefer an entirely different combination, which promises to lead sooner to a result. If we place the uncertain and round numbers upon one side, and the remaining on the other side, we shall obtain the following survey[348]:

INDETERMINATE NUMBERS. | HISTORICAL NUMBERS.
-------------------------------------+---------------------------------
40. Years in the Desert. |
|
_x_ _Joshua_ (25, according to |
Josephus, A. J. V. 1, 29). |
|
_x_ Successors to Joshua (Joshua |
xxiv. 31). |
|
40. _Othniel_ (Judg. iii. 11). | 8. under Mesopotamia (Judg.
| iii. 8.)
|
| 18. under the Moabites (Judg.
80. _Ehud_ (Judg. iii. 30; according | iii. 14).
to the Seventy 40). |
|
_x_ _Shamgar._ |
|
| 20. under the Canaanites (Judg.
| iv. 3. This Period happens,
40. _Deborah_ (Judg. iv. 4) and | according to Judg. iv. 4,
_Barak_ (Judg. v. 1, 31). | perhaps under Deborah).
|
40. _Gideon_ (Judg. viii. 28). | 7. under the Midianites (Judg.
| vi. 1).
|
| 3. _Abimelech_ (Judg. ix. 22).
| 23. _Tola_ (Judg. x. 2).
| 22. _Jair_ (Judg. x. 3).
| 18. Philistines (Judg. x. 8).
| 6. _Jephthah_ (Judg. xii. 7).
| 7. _Ibzan_ (Judg. xii. 9).
| 10. _Elon_ (Judg. xii. 11).
| 8. _Abdon_ (Judg. xii. 14).
| ---
40. Philistines (Judg. xiii. 1). | 150
|
20. _Samson_ (in the time of the |
Philistines, Judg. xv. 20, |
xvi. 31). |
|
_x_ Anarchy (Judg. xvii. 6, xviii. |
1, xix. 1, xxi. 25). |
|
40. _Eli_ (1 Sam. iv. 18). |
|
20. _Saul_ (1 Sam. vii. 1, 2; |
compare iv. 18, vi. 1; 2 Sam. |
vi. 3; 1 Chron. xiv. 3. |
According to Acts xiii. 21, |
Jos. A. J. VI. 14, 9, Saul |
reigned 40 years). |
|
40. _David_ (2 Sam. v. 4, 5; 1 |
Kings, ii. 11). |
-------------------------------------+---------------------------------
14 times _x_ × 12 years = 168. 150 + 168 = 318 years.

From this juxtaposition alone we obtain a threefold division of the whole period. In the first division we see from the time of Joshua the determinate and indeterminate numbers alternating almost regularly (for _Shamgar_ appears to be included in _Ehud’s_ higher number, and therefore to have no number himself), and the historical numbers are certainly not ascribed here to the separate personages, but to the period of the oppression, therefore the whole time appears to have been one of contest and startling revolts, which, by means of a succession of powerful men, ends at length in a victorious assertion of their own dominion.

This second period commences with Abimelech, and is only once interrupted by the government of the Philistines. Here there is a real succession of events and separate governments, and therefore no round numbers.

The third division begins with a new, and, as it appears, a far longer oppression by the Philistines, in which the narrative of _Sampson_ only forms a passing episode. It seems to me that the anarchical times, which are entirely omitted by others, are connected with this oppression, and, although there is no date, that they were of considerable duration. They form, in a certain degree, the real conclusion of the time of the Judges. The new, the regal time, begins with Eli, which is always alluded to in the time of the anarchy. Before the time of Eli the historical thread was broken; from his time it continues uninterrupted. Eli prepares the way for the kings. Samuel grows up under him, and his first action after the death of Eli seems to have been to anoint _Saul_ as king. He appears to have continued his _office of judge_ under Saul, whom he has rather chosen as a _general_, as he also afterwards anoints _David_ as king. This may be the reason why no time is ascribed to him; the Ark of the Covenant, which was taken as booty in the conquest of Mizpah by the Philistines, and was retained for seven months (1 Sam. vi. 1), was thus brought to Kirjath-Jearim, shortly before Saul’s elevation; remained there twenty years (1 Sam. vii. 2), and was first brought away from that place at the elevation of David (2 Sam. vi. 3), “_for we inquired not at it in the days of Saul_” (1 Chron. xiii. 3).

If we now add up the historical numbers, we shall obtain 150 years, so that there is on an average 12 years for each of the twelve governments. Now if we apply this mean number (which is best adapted to the purpose, and which was also that of the kings of Israel) to the fourteen governments, whose numbers are uncertain, we shall obtain 168 years, which, together with the 150, gives 318 years. Now if we count these backward, beginning at Solomon, about 1000 years before Christ, we come to the year 1318 before Christ, therefore again under the government of Pharaoh MENEPHTHES.

We thus obtain, also, from this side a simple confirmation of our former results. It is at least evident, that the numbers in the Book of Judges can no longer be employed as a refutation of the Manethonic calculation. But this agreement between the chronology of the time of the Judges, and the genealogies of the Chronicles, is of manifest importance to Jewish history.

As soon as we may consider the chronological importance of the genealogies established, we are enabled to rise still higher on the same path in the history of Israel, and to obtain a chronological view concerning the period of the sojourn of the Israelites _in Egypt_.

If in the 40 years of the later generations we can only perceive a chronological _garb_, without on that account supposing that the substance of the narratives are unhistorical, still less should we see in the hundred and more years of the generations from Abraham to Moses, the true chronological relation upon which these perfectly credible narratives are founded. The whole array of numbers is rather, as we have indicated above, to be judged from a perfectly different point of view, the closer investigation of which does not belong here.

When, for the sake of judging the chronology of the times from Moses to Jacob, and from Jacob to Abraham, we start from the historical importance of the genealogies, this period becomes extremely contracted, and we are led to new historical comparisons, which appear to throw a clear light upon those times.

In all registers of generations we only find _three_ generations from _Joseph_ or _Levi_ to _Moses_. In the pedigree of _Judah_, indeed, we only saw _two_, which was however explained by the unnatural alliance of Thamar. But _Aaron_ himself, and _Moses_, on the father’s side, stood in the third degree from _Levi_, but from the maternal side in the second; for their father, _Amram_, the grandson of Levi, took to wife in Egypt his aunt _Jochabed_, the daughter of Levi (Exod. vi. 20; Num. xxvi. 59), who bore him Moses and Aaron. Thus one event explains and confirms another, and allows us still less to doubt the historical reality and the natural relations which the successive generations bear to each other.

Therefore, unless we wish to regard all the narratives of those times, and all the accounts, which afterwards refer to them, as mythical and unhistorical, for which there is not the slightest ground, we must also here separate the chronological garb from the subject itself, and recognise, as a necessary conclusion, that _only about ninety years intervened from the entrance of Jacob to the Exodus of Moses_, and _about as much_ from the _entrance of Abraham into Canaan_, to _Jacob’s Exodus_[349], so that from Abraham to Moses only about 180, or if we wish to make the most of it, 215 years passed, which alone, according to the present calculation, are reckoned from Abraham to Jacob.

But even this result is by no means only founded upon the internal impossibility of the numbers hitherto adopted, nor upon the genealogies alone, but upon a much more general historical connection of the events, as we find them both in the Egyptian and Israelitish history of those times.

All the views hitherto adopted from Josephus, and from those who before his day held the same opinions, down to the most modern scholars, must, on the supposition that the Jews were the Hyksos—which we have rejected above (p. 422), as not worth refutation—or at least that they departed _with_ them, and further that they lived in Egypt from the time of Jacob, 215 or 430 years, necessarily have led them to the conclusion that Joseph and Jacob came to Egypt during the _dominion of the Hyksos_. But an attentive and impartial consideration of the passages bearing upon this point, show beyond doubt that this could not be the case according to the _Biblical_ accounts, and therefore that either this representation, or the accepted chronology, must contain errors.

“And Joseph,” it says, Gen. xxxix. 1, “was brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmaelites, which had brought him down thither.”

Here, as in all the other passages where the _Egyptian_ king is mentioned, he is called _Pharaoh_. This is an Egyptian designation and not a _Semitic_ one, as we should have expected if the Semitic Hyksos[350] had still ruled in Egypt. In that case we should have been everywhere compelled to admit in this designation, throughout the history of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, an anachronism which cannot easily find a parallel. The captain of the king’s body-guard was also an _Egyptian_, as is proved by his name Potiphar, פוטיפר[351], which is written by the Seventy Πετεφρής, _i. e._ _Petphra_. Still an _Egyptian_ in so important a situation at a _Semitic_ court might as well form an exceptional case, as the _Hebrew_ Joseph, according to our opinion, at an _Egyptian_ court. “And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen[352], and put a gold chain[353] about his neck. And he made him to ride in the second chariot[354] which he had, and they cried before him, Bow the knee; and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name צפנת פענח (Ψονθομφανήχ), and he gave him to wife _Asenath_, the daughter of _Potipherah_, PRIEST OF ON.” (Gen. xli. 42, &c.) The fact that the distinctions here conferred upon Joseph are in perfect accordance with Egyptian manners[355], would still not be sufficient to prove that he lived at an Egyptian court, for the Semitic rulers might possibly have brought with them the same customs, or might have adopted them. But if such were our belief, it would be impossible to combine with it the circumstance that Joseph received from Pharaoh expressly an _Egyptian_ name. For even if the older Hebrew commentators have attempted to derive the name from the Hebrew, these attempts have long been rejected by modern scholars[356]. We should be able to decide with more complete certainty about the Egyptian signification of the name if we found it written in hieroglyphics. It sounds in Hebrew _Zepnet-ponch_ (_Zaphnath-phaneach_). It appears to me that the last portion can hardly be referred to any other word than the hieroglyphical 𓋹𓈖𓐰𓐍 anch, Coptic ⲱⲛϩ, ⲁⲛϩ, with the article ⲡ ⲱⲛϩ, the life; the first part is obscure. Since the Seventy write Ψονθομφανήχ, it is generally supposed that the two first letters in the Hebrew text have been misplaced, and that the uniting genitive —_n_ (before the labial —_m_) has been omitted. Both are possible, but not probable. It seems to me that the Seventy cannot claim any more authority on this point than any other interpreter. It is not surprising that, without understanding the hieroglyphical writing, they were as little capable as we are of explaining the old name from the popular language. But that they wrote Ψονθ in place of _Zepnet_, or _Zpent_, seems to prove that they explained the name something like ⲡ ⲥⲱⲛⲧ ⲙ ⲫⲁⲛϩ _creatio_ (_creator_) vitæ.

But how is it possible that a _Semitic_ king, who, like the six in the lists of the so-called shepherd kings, must undoubtedly have himself borne a Semitic name, would have given Joseph an _Egyptian_ name, in order to do him honour.

_Asenath_ is of course an _Egyptian_ name like that of her father, _Potiphra_, _i. e._ _Petphra_, and his being called a _High priest of On_ (Heliopolis) is an additional and more certain proof that the Semitic nation of the Hyksos were not reigning here, for they would have destroyed all the Egyptian temples; and they would hardly have permitted the worship of _Ra_ (Helios) to continue in the neighbourhood of Memphis, whose High priest must give his daughter to Joseph for a wife, in order to show him particular honour, and to naturalise him completely.

It is equally evident, from the meeting of Joseph with his brethren, that he lived at a really Egyptian court. Distrust towards their Phœnician neighbours was continually kept alive among the Egyptians, therefore it was easy to form a pretext to attack the Hebrews. “Ye are spies, to see the nakedness of the land ye are come.” (Gen. xlii. 9, 12, 14.) When the brethren talk among themselves of the act which they perpetrated against Joseph, they speak out loud in the presence of Joseph: “They knew not that Joseph understood them, for he spake unto them by an _interpreter_.” (Gen. xlii. 23.) Joseph had become so completely an Egyptian, and the Egyptian language was so exclusively spoken at the court of Pharaoh, that the brethren could not conjecture any one was near them who understood their language.

When, therefore, on their second visit to Joseph’s house, they were about to take their meal, it is said, “And they set for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: _because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians_.” (Gen. xliii. 32.) The native Egyptians could never have expressed this horror, and regulated their manners accordingly, under the dominion of a Semitic reigning family. Lastly, it is equally improbable that Joseph would have advised the immigrating family to call themselves shepherds in order to obtain from Pharaoh a country set apart for themselves. “And it shall come to pass when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation? That ye shall say, Thy servant’s trade hath been about cattle from our youth, even until now, both we, and also our fathers; that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.” (Gen. xlvi. 33.) If the shepherd people of the Hyksos reigned in Egypt, how could the shepherds be an abomination to them?

If it is therefore evident that Joseph lived at an _Egyptian_, and not at a _Semitic_ court, the old tradition of the Jewish interpreters that Joseph came to Egypt in the reign of a shepherd king, Apophis, is entirely destroyed, as well as the view taken by more modern scholars concerning the Hebrew chronology of that time.

But according to Manetho, the Exodus happened in the reign of Menephthes, and according to all the Hebrew genealogies, Jacob’s entrance could only have happened 90 or 100 years earlier. Therefore Sethôs, the father of the great Ramses, must certainly be the Pharaoh under whom Joseph came into Egypt. This is most indubitably confirmed by the unmistakeable agreement which exists between the Hebrew account of the Pharaoh of Joseph, and what is related by others of King Sethôs. It is said by the former, “And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: _so the land became Pharaoh’s_. And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands. Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own.... And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s.” (Gen. lxvii. 20, &c.)

We find the same great alteration in the agrarian conditions of the country, and connected with it the introduction of a general ground-tax, from which the priests alone were excepted, ascribed by Herodotus and Diodorus to the King _Sesostris-Sesoosis_.

We read in Herodotus, ii. 1081, that the king intersected the country with canals, because the places which were remote from the Nile suffered, when it retreated, from a scarcity of water. It appears from what has been observed above, that it was chiefly Ramses who completed the Egyptian system of canals, although it is very probable that the great transformation in the condition of the ground which it occasioned had been already commenced by his father, _Sethôsis_. It is well known that the fertility of Egypt alone depends upon the proper and well-maintained regulation of the overflowings. Since the time of _Möris-Amenemha_, who was the first to bestow any considerable attention upon it, the country had degenerated, owing to its long foreign rule, and had but just risen again to complete independence under the mighty Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty. It is quite conceivable that such comprehensive and tedious undertakings for increasing the general prosperity, as a universal construction of canals, especially in the Delta, could only have been first undertaken by the earlier kings of the 19th Dynasty, _Sethôsis_ and _Ramses_, who were both of them favoured by long reigns. Therefore until that time, a general failure of the crops and a famine might have very frequently occurred, at a low or even a moderate rise of the water, and perhaps happened for several successive years. Strabo[357] relates that, before the time of the Prefect Petronius, owing to the water-works being neglected, famine broke out in Egypt if the Nile only rose 8 ells, and 14 ells were necessary for a particularly good year; whereas, by his improvements, it was only necessary for the Nile to rise 10 ells to produce the best harvest, and if it rose but 8 ells no scarcity ensued. Famine broke out in Egypt in the Arabian times also from the same reason[358]. Thus the famine-years in the time of Joseph may be explained to have occurred in the reign of Sethôs; this event may even have called attention to the necessity of a better water regulation in the country.

In the following chapter Herodotus says, that the King Sesostris “divided the land between all the Egyptians by giving an equal-sized square portion to each, from which he afterwards derived his income by laying an annual tax upon it. But when the river carried away a part of any person’s portion, he showed it to the king, who sent people to inquire and measure how much smaller the piece of land had become, in order that he might pay the tax for the remainder according to the commands.” This is essentially the same arrangement which is ascribed to Joseph, the minister of Pharaoh. Herodotus had already[359] mentioned in an earlier passage that the priests paid no taxes, but even received their daily sustenance besides, exactly as it is related in the Mosaic accounts.

Diodorus[360] says of SESOOSIS, that he “divided the whole country into thirty-six parts,” which the Egyptians called Nomes; over these he placed Nomarchs, who had the charge of the ROYAL REVENUES, and “ruled everything besides in their provinces.” Therefore here again there was an entirely new division and government of the country, in which the taxes to the king are not forgotten. Afterwards (c. 57) he adds also, that he raised many great mounds, and upon them _transplanted the towns_ which were situated too low (μετῴκισεν). The fresh regulations in the country, and especially the new canals, necessarily created a great number of towns and villages for the management of the grounds which were portioned out, and were now partly cultivated for the first time. To this we may most naturally refer the remark in the Hebrew account that Pharaoh “removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.” (Gen. xlvii. 21.) Diodorus (c. 56) also mentions the hard taskwork which thence became necessary, and that in consequence of it the “Babylonian prisoners, who could no longer bear the toilsome labour, rebelled against the king.”

In the very valuable description of the manner in which the Egyptian administration had subsisted under the _old_[361] kings of the country, which is drawn from the most ancient sources, Diodorus again mentions (c. 73, 74) the arrangement of the Nomes, and a division of the property, by which one-third belonged to the priests, one to the king, the other to the warriors; and how all the cultivators of the soil, for a small reward, only performed task-service for the three orders who possessed land. It is here also expressly mentioned, that the priests were exempt (ἀτελεῖς) from taxation[362]. But it seems that it is only from the Mosaic narrative we learn that the universal statute of the taxes imposed on the remaining possessors of the land was fixed upon exactly the _fifth part_ of the produce; this narrative here, as well as in other points, confidently completes our knowledge of those circumstances.