Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the peninsula of Sinai

Chapter XLV: Introduction: To the Chronology of the Egyptians (2)

Text size

Another of these rolls contains, on the other hand, a portion of a composition which belongs to the time of Tutmes III., the conqueror of the Hyksos in the 18th Dynasty; a roll in Turin treats of the same king. We have as little reason to doubt that the first paragraph in the Pap. Sallier, No. 1, pl. i.-iii., which treats of two kings at the end of the Hyksos period, was also composed in their time, or soon after their death.

Two remarkable papyrus rolls, which I obtained in London for the Berlin Museum, mention the first kings of the 12th Dynasty, AMENEMHA I. and SESURTESEN I. Their writing is very different from the rest of those that I am acquainted with, and they belong to the very rare exceptions which, in place of horizontal lines, are written in vertical columns, after the manner of hieroglyphical writing; so that it would not surprise me, if by penetrating more deeply into the contents, the result should be, that they were composed, even this very copy, during the Old Monarchy. But the most ancient of all the hieratic royal names are found in a papyrus in my own possession[184]. Here the name of CHUFU (Cheops) is frequently mentioned, also King SNEFRU in the 3rd Manethonic Dynasty, and three other kings, who probably belong to the same Dynasty. These kings are, indeed, all cited as dead, but since the whole of them belonged to that ancient period, its contents could hardly be placed much later. Among a people who were at all times surrounded by so many contemporaneous monuments and historical authorities, reaching as far back as their first royal Dynasties, it must have been generally much more difficult to supplant, or essentially to alter the existing genuine history of ancient times by fabulous tales and poetical inventions of later times.

In spite of the astonishing number of monuments, and in spite of the rich literature, whose original remains are confirmed by the accounts we find in different authors, it would, however, have been impossible to the Egyptians themselves, how much more so to us, to obtain a correct and clear insight into the course and connection of their history, if from its commencement a chronological sense had not been so early developed among them. Without chronology we should obtain no history, even from the most varied literature; the Indians, especially, give us a striking proof of this. History first obtains a perfect self-consciousness through chronology. With the growing civilisation of a people, the necessity increases for a sharper division of time both in small and large periods. From the earliest era of their history, the Egyptians have known how to satisfy this necessity, inherent in every higher state of civilisation.

But a chronology which is well arranged and established must always proceed from astronomy. We cannot conceive the existence of the former, in any nation, without the latter being to a certain degree developed. It will not, therefore, appear superfluous if we enter here more minutely into the astronomical knowledge of the Egyptians, before we turn our attention to their computation of time. We shall here, also, commence with the information we obtain from authors, and afterwards see how far it is confirmed and completed by the monuments.

[The author here proceeds to the astronomical basis of Egyptian chronology, and the chronological knowledge possessed by the Egyptians, and concludes his Introduction with the following words:]

Taking a retrospective survey of the path we have hitherto pursued in our discussions, I believe I have essentially fulfilled the task we undertook at the commencement, namely, to point out the _possibility_ of the existence of such an early history of Egypt.

We have seen how, contrasted with the most ancient Asiatic nations, the Egyptians (pre-eminently favoured by their climatal and geographical conditions) were destined, as it were by nature, to be a monumental nation. These external conditions correspond with the innate bias of their feelings, which is shown by the innumerable multitude of their monuments, and by the extreme care they bestowed upon their preservation. From their desire to retain the fleeting present, may be explained the early development of their system of writing (so rich and significant in its organism, owing to its important origin), as well as the excessive use which was made of this writing, especially for the monuments, beyond any other nations of antiquity, so that it soon attained its highest destination by its application to a many-sided book literature. We have been able to refer to a Theban library as early as the fourteenth century before Christ, and have found reason for considering it neither the most ancient, nor the only one in Egypt. It was this very ancient literature and hereditary learning, which a later antiquity, and more particularly the Greeks, abundantly acknowledged, praised, sought out, and studied. Among the various branches of knowledge we have surveyed, especially the sacred codes of the priests—the forty-two Hermetic books described by Clemens, we have however particularly attempted, to indicate more closely from the monuments, the early study of astronomy, because the arrival at a more fixed chronology depends especially upon its development. We have likewise endeavoured to point out that, under the favourable circumstances of an Egyptian sky, and especially since the introduction of the variable sun-calendar (calculating as it were, and forming periods for itself), astronomy was cultivated in the most elaborate and most complete manner, and this we have been able partly to confirm by the monuments of the 4th and 12th Dynasties of the Old Monarchy. We have discovered a division of time, less than an hour, to the sixty times sixtieth part of a minute, and above an hour to the period of 36,525 years. Between these there were the greatest variety of cycles, such as no other ancient nation, except the Egyptian, has been able to produce in equal perfection. They were acquainted with the _civil hours_ of day and night, also with the twenty-four equal or _equinoctial hours_ of the complete day, νυχθήμερον.

From days they formed the decades, or Egyptian weeks, and from these the thirty-day month; they also knew the lunar months, and solemnised the new and full moon. Their season consisted of four months. They recognised as forms of years, and carried out in the calendar, both the oldest lunar year, as well as the solar year of 365 days, and the Sirius year, which is a quarter of a day longer. The civil solar year, after twenty-five years, namely at the Apis period, agreed again with the lunar year; in the same way, calculating by the day, it agreed with the Sirius year, at the lustrum of four years; and in the space of 1461 years, it agreed completely with the _Sothis period_. The Phœnix period, of 1500 years, was employed to make the civil year agree with the tropical year, which was afterwards divided according to the three seasons into three parts—500 years each. Finally, the Sidereal year, or the slow receding of the ecliptic to the west, became known, and it was expressed, although with an imperfect comprehension of the direction and velocity of the movement, by its greatest astronomical period of 36,525 years.

We have gained the principal purpose we had in view if we have succeeded in pointing out that, in Egypt, from the time of Menes, to whose reign the historical accounts go back, there existed to an extraordinary degree all the conditions necessary for the growth and the perfect development of the self-conscious and historical life of a nation, and for a chronologically-arranged historical literature, formed by the monuments and contemporaneous records. These circumstances have placed it in our power to investigate and restore, from such early times, the experienced and recorded history of the Egyptians. As far as our present knowledge extends, the conditions that we have named only appear complete among the most ancient Asiatic and European nations at a much later period, namely, during the last millennium before Christ, therefore an historical investigation, which refers back as far as that of Egypt, has hitherto been impossible with respect to those nations, except so far as in the Egyptian history itself new points of information may be found respecting the oldest history of nations, not Egyptian.

But it may very possibly be imagined that we have been compelled to stop at the indication of this _possibility_, being deficient in the means to raise this historical treasure from the depths in which we behold it. We can only restore true history with the assistance of an historical literature, and this must either be contemporaneous, and so far possess in itself a monumental value, or if it is a later literature, referring to what has long gone by, it must be accompanied by contemporaneous and intelligible monuments to enable us to prove and correct it by them. Hitherto we have certainly possessed one of the necessary means for the restoration of the Pharaonic history, namely, the Greek accounts, and extracts from an ancient Egyptian historical literature. But they remained useless and confused, because the monuments and the literary remains of the country were still mute and unintelligible. However, since Champollion’s praiseworthy deciphering of the hieroglyphical writing has rendered it possible to make an historical use of the monuments of the country, the second means for historical investigation has been placed in our hands. It was now for the first time possible to gain some advantage from the literary authorities, and to make a critical examination of them, which would necessarily demonstrate the general connection that subsists between the monuments. Only a correct all-sided combination of the means offered on both sides can here lead to the aim we have in view.

THE HEBREW TRADITION.

We can best exhibit the relation that subsists between the Hebrew and Egyptian records, by endeavouring to determine chronologically, and by such means as are extant, the most important point of contact in the two histories—namely, the Mosaic period—and thus to prove the value of the several numbers stated. We shall thereby perceive that the Hebrew accounts, in so far as they are connected with Egypt, may be held to be of more historical value than several modern inquirers are inclined to accord to them, and that they are by no means wanting in a fixed chronological principle, without which history cannot subsist; but that a more exact chronology, which might serve as a point of support to the Egyptian, is not to be sought in them, and it is rather this last which supplies the most certain chronological explanation of those times to the history of the Israelites. The genuine chronological character of the Jewish history is pretty well acknowledged by every one as far back as the division of the kingdom, or the building of the temple, whereby, indeed, the individual chronological difficulties, which frequently occur during this epoch, are not considered, but only the chronological value of those numbers generally which form the basis of these separate investigations; but the strictly chronological character of the Hebrew determinations of time before this epoch is disputed, and, indeed, in those very numbers which contain in themselves alone the threads of an exact chronology. A critical examination of the value of these numbers generally is thus necessary, and therefore this discussion becomes appropriate here. It is, in fact, of the greatest importance to us, because it determines whether it be possible to solve some marked contradictions which have at all times keenly engaged the attention of historians and theologians, and still continue to do so; it will, besides, enable many people to decide upon the value of the Manethonic, consequently of the Egyptian chronology generally, so far as it is made to depend on its agreement with the accounts obtained from the oldest source, the only one indeed not Egyptian, which here, at all events, admits of a comparison.

There are, especially, _two numbers_ which have hitherto formed the turning points of the chronology of the Old Testament for the Mosaic period, because, passing over the uncertain individual statements, they fixed the limits to great spaces in time, and appeared to lay down a rule for more special investigations. I mean the 480 years[185] which are calculated to be the period between the Exodus and the building of the temple, and the 430 years[186] for the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. Both numbers very early created difficulty, and are partly modified, and partly refuted by other statements of time in the Old Testament. The 480 years ought to correspond with the sum of the individual numbers in the Book of Judges, which last is, however, considerably greater. The genealogies of that same period would, on the other hand, lead to the conclusion that the number of years was much fewer. The Seventy themselves differ in their statement of the number, since they write 440 in place of 480 years; and in the Acts of the Apostles (xiii. 20), 450 years are calculated for the Judges only to the time of Samuel; and this again differs from all other statements. Lastly, we find that Josephus also, even if he knew the number 480, still did not consider it as binding, since he never mentions it, but accepts different numbers, and far higher ones[187], which, nevertheless, do not agree with the Book of Judges. It thereby at least follows, that the number 480 by itself cannot claim any decided authority. But there is a still greater difference in the acceptation of the 430 years which the Israelites are said to have passed in Egypt. For, setting aside that in an earlier prophecy[188] the round number 400 alone is given, the Seventy understand the whole statement to mean, not from the entrance of JACOB INTO EGYPT, but from the entrance of ABRAHAM INTO CANAAN, and they therefore translate the words in Exodus xii. 40, “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years;” by ἡ δὲ κατοίκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, ἣν κατῴκησαν ἐν τῇ γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναὰν, ἔτη τετρακόσια τριάκοντα (Now the dwelling of the children of Israel, which they dwelt in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years). The Apostle Paul[189] also reckons the 430 years from the promise of Abraham, and Josephus[190] does the same, so that for the sojourn in Egypt, which is understood in the Hebrew text, only 215 years are reckoned, the remaining 215 being assigned to the time from Abraham to Jacob. Lastly, if we compare the number of generations in this period, we shall only find four generations for the four centuries, so that for this, even half of the time stated would still be far too great.

Finally, if we consider along with these contradictory statements the intrinsic character of the numbers given in the original text, namely, the arithmetical relation of the 215 years from Abraham to Jacob, to the 430 or 215 years from Jacob to Moses, the frequent return also of the indeterminate number 40, both in the first[191] and still more in the second period, and lastly the nature of the numbers 480 or 440 as a multiple of 12 or 11 generations of 40 years each, it appears to me very natural that either a higher providential meaning, and in spite of all other opposing considerations, the only correct chronological expression would be seen in this play of numbers, or that this external garb of numbers would be regarded as unessential for the religious—indeed, in part, also, for the historical import of those narrations, but that in the latter case all more exact chronological investigation of this period must be relinquished.

The latter view must gradually prevail in stricter science. A criterion was wanting in the investigation of the Old Testament, which might decide upon a definite choice among its self-contradictory statements. Each claimed for itself a like authority. If we believe that we may now attempt a new solution of the difficulty, we rely upon the fresh point of view which we can occupy for that purpose, since we now possess a positive scale that may be relied on (independent of the investigations of the Old Testament), by which we can estimate the Hebrew statements, namely, the authentic history and chronology of the Egyptians, which more than equals the Hebrew in point of age.

Now if it should appear that they can in no way be harmonised, science would then, indeed, remain in its former uncertainty concerning the times before Solomon, and we should lose one of the most important and most acceptable corroborations of Egyptian chronology. But the result of our investigations is more favourable, since the Egyptian order of time, resting upon perfectly independent foundations, most decidedly determines that there is a chronological principle throughout the historical relation of the Old Testament, and not an arbitrary selection of Hebrew numbers. By this means a firm foundation is given to the critical examination of the latter, and both histories reciprocally afford each other a support that cannot be shaken.

We must first of all show that the Egyptian account of the expulsion of the LEPERS, given by Manetho, refers really to the same event as that narrated in the Old Testament, as the Exodus of the ISRAELITES. We shall afterwards determine the epoch which is recognised in the Egyptian tradition, and, lastly, attempt to show how every other time is in like manner excluded by the historical purport of the Hebrew narrative; that there exists, also, a chronological thread which leads us to the same result, and, indeed, that the authentic tradition concerning the year of the Exodus has never been entirely lost among the Jews. From this fixed point we shall then look back still farther into the times of JOSEPH, and the accounts of the Greeks appertaining to that period, to which will be added our views regarding the visit of Abraham to Egypt.

The following is the account of the Mosaic events which Josephus gives us from Manetho, and partly in the words of Manetho himself[192]. After describing the expulsion of the Hyksos, whom Josephus considered to be the ancestors of the Jews, and giving an account of the kings who succeeded that event, as far as Rampses, the son of Sethôs, he continues: “After he (Manetho) had therefore related, in conformity with his earlier narrative, that our ancestors[193] (the Hyksos) had departed from Egypt so many years earlier, he then says that King Amenophis, whom he here inserts, desired to become a beholder of the gods, like Horus, one of his predecessors. He communicated this desire to one Amenophis, son of Paapis, who, on account of his wisdom and penetration into futurity, was believed to partake of the divine nature. Now this namesake of Amenophis told him that if he cleansed the whole country of the LEPERS and other unclean people, he would then be able to behold the gods. The king thereby rejoiced, collected together all who were smitten with this bodily disease, throughout the whole of Egypt 80,000 in number, and cast them into the stone-quarries, which are situated east of the Nile, in order that they should there work, apart from the other Egyptians. Among them were some learned priests, who had been attacked by the leprosy. But that wise and prophesying Amenophis began to fear the anger of the gods, for himself as well as for the king, if they, the priests, were seen at such compulsory labour; and he foretold, moreover, that others would hasten to the assistance of the unclean, and would govern Egypt for thirteen years. He did not, however, venture to express this to the king, but, leaving behind him a written record, he killed himself. Upon that the king became very much dejected. Then he (Manetho) continues verbatim, thus: ‘Now, when these people had suffered sufficiently by the hard work in the stone-quarries, the king yielded to their entreaty, and gave up to them, for their deliverance and protection, the town of Abaris, which had at that time been forsaken by the shepherds (Hyksos). But this town, according to traditions of the gods, had always been a Typhonic town. Now, when these people had entered into this town, and found the place favourable for revolt, they appointed as their leader a priest of Heliopolis, by name Osarsiph, and swore to obey him in all things. He established as their first law that they should worship no gods, and that they should not abstain from those animals which, according to the law, are considered most holy in Egypt, but that they might sacrifice and consume them all; also, that they should associate only with their fellow-conspirators. After he had established these and many other laws, which were entirely opposed to the Egyptian customs, he commanded them all to set to work to build up the town walls, and to prepare themselves for war against King Menophis. But, whilst he consulted some of the other priests and infected persons, he sent messengers to the shepherds who had been expelled by Tethmosis to the town of Jerusalem, and, after he had let them know what had happened to himself and to the others who had been injured along with him, he invited them to make war against Egypt in unison with his followers. He would first of all conduct them to Abaris, the town of their forefathers, and amply provide the troops with what they required; but, if it were necessary, he would protect them, and easily subject the country to them. Greatly rejoiced, they readily brought together as many as 200,000 men, and soon arrived at Abaris. But when Amenophis, the Egyptian king, heard of the invasion of these people, he was not a little disturbed, for he remembered what Amenophis, the son of Paapis, had prophesied. He first collected the Egyptian troops, conferred with his commanders, desired those sacred animals which are the most honoured in the sanctuaries to be brought to him, and commanded the individual priests, more especially to conceal the images of the gods most securely. But he sent his son, Sethôs, who was five years old, and was also called Ramesses, from Rampses, the father of Amenophis, to his friend (the King of Ethiopia). He himself, indeed, went forward with the remaining Egyptians, who amounted to 300,000 fighting men; however, when the enemy advanced to meet him he did not engage in battle, but returned hastily to Memphis, because he believed he was fighting against the gods. There he carried off the Apis and the other sacred animals which had been brought thither, and repaired immediately with the whole army and the remaining baggage of the Egyptians to Ethiopia. The King of Ethiopia was, in fact, beholden to him; he, therefore, received him, supplied his troops with all the necessaries of life which the country afforded, assigned to them as many towns and villages as would suffice for the predetermined thirteen years, in which they would be compelled to be deprived of his government, and even placed an Ethiopian army on the borders of Egypt as a protection to the people of King Amenophis. Thus it stood in Ethiopia. But the Solymites who had come into the country, and the unclean among the Egyptians, treated the people so shamefully, that the period of their government appeared to all who then beheld these impieties the worst of times; for they not only burnt towns and villages, and were not satisfied with plundering the sanctuaries, and abusing the images of the gods, but they continually made use of those venerated and sacred animals which were fit to be eaten, compelled the priests and prophets to become their butchers and destroyers, and then sent them away destitute. It is said, however, that the priest who gave them a constitution and laws, who was a native of Heliopolis, and called Osarsiph (from the god Osiris in Heliopolis), went over to these people, changed his name, and was called Moses.’ This and much more, which for the sake of brevity I must omit, is what the Egyptians relate concerning the Jews. But Manetho says further, that Amenophis afterwards returned out of Ethiopia with a great force, that he and his son Rampses, who had also an army, gave battle to the shepherds and the unclean, conquered them, killed many, and pursued the remainder to the borders of Syria. Manetho wrote this and similar things.”

Next to this Manethonic account, we shall place the Greek conception of the matter as we find it in DIODORUS, xl. 3, taken from Hecataeus of Abdera (and also in an earlier passage, xxxiv. 1, without his authority being given).

“When,” says Hecataeus, “a plague once broke out in Egypt, most people believed that it was a punishment sent by the gods. For since many strangers of divers races dwelt among them, who practised very anomalous customs, with respect to the sacred things and to the sacrifice, it came to pass that hence their own ancient worship of the gods declined. Therefore the natives feared there would be no end to the evil, if they did not remove those who were of foreign extraction. The foreigners were therefore quickly expelled. The best and the most powerful of them united together, and, as some people say, were driven away to Greece and other places, under distinguished leaders, of whom Danaus and Cadmus were the most famous. But the great mass withdrew to the country which is now called Judea, situated not far from Egypt, which was at that time barren and uninhabited. The leader of this colony was MOSES, who was distinguished by the power of his mind, and by his courage. He captured the country, and besides other towns, built HIERSOLYMA, which has now become so famous. He also founded the temple, which was so peculiarly holy in their eyes, taught them the worship and the service of the Deity, gave them laws, and regulated their constitution. He divided the people into twelve tribes, because this is the most complete number, and agrees with the number of months in the year. But he set up no image of the gods, for he did not believe God had a human form, but that he is one God, who embraces heaven and earth, and is Lord of all things. He regulated the sacrifices and the usages of life very differently from those of other nations; since, in consequence of the banishment which they had themselves experienced, he introduced a misanthropical mode of life, hostile to strangers.”

The statement in the earlier passage of DIODORUS, xxxiv. 1, sounds far more bitter, where he says “that they (the Jews) alone among all nations scorn any intercourse with others[194], and look upon every one as their enemy. Their forefathers, also, were driven out of Egypt as disgraced and hated by the gods; and in order to cleanse the country, those attacked with the _white_ sickness and leprosy had been collected together and cast beyond the frontiers as an accursed race. But the expelled people had conquered the country round Jerusalem, had formed the nation of the Jews, and transmitted to their descendants their hatred of mankind. On that account also they had adopted perfectly anomalous laws, neither to eat with any other people, nor to show them any kindness.” “Antiochus Epiphanes, after he had conquered the Jews, entered into their holy of holies, into which only the priests were admitted; he there found a stone image of a bearded man, who sat upon an ass, and held a book in his hand. He took this for Moses, who had founded Jerusalem, organised the people, given them laws, and introduced the disgraceful and misanthropical customs.”

Now if we compare these relations, which evidently refer to Egyptian and not to Jewish statements, with the representation we meet with in the Hebrew conception of the matter, we cannot mistake the general agreement of the most essential features.

Differing entirely from the former Exodus of the Hyksos, the description of which is likewise preserved to us by Manetho, here, it is not an open enemy who is to be subdued, but people of foreign descent, peaceably dwelling in the land, increasing, however, to a dangerous extent, and who inspired the Egyptians with fear and hatred. It is true that neither Manetho, nor any one of the authors we have named, expressly say that the expelled people were of a different race from the Egyptians; but the cause of this may have been that the entrance of the family of Jacob into the country which was so important to the Jews, probably passed unnoticed by them. The influx of emigrants from the eastern and north-eastern Semitic countries was apparently much greater in those flourishing times of the Egyptian kingdom than it was thought necessary to recount in the detached history of the house of Israel. The influence of those people from Palestine who had been driven back under Tuthmosis, must only have increased the former importunity of that people to enter the blessed land of Egypt. But so long as they came singly and peacefully, and did not shrink from entering into all kinds of intercourse and alliance with the Egyptians, they must have been considered by the natives as belonging to the country—as Egyptians. It is certainly a mistake to suppose the Israelites were the only strangers in Egypt. They dwelt in the land of Goshen, situated on the eastern border of the Delta, but of course only a very small body in the midst of Egyptians, and many Philistines and Arabians, from whom the Egyptian could not distinguish them. The immense increase in their numbers, of which we read, is only to be understood in this manner. How could there have been so distinct a division of the one race from their Semitic companions, as is usually understood, when their chief men themselves frequently did not shrink from mingling with the Egyptians?

Even Ishmael had an Egyptian mother and an Egyptian wife[195]. Joseph becomes so completely Egyptian that he is able to occupy the highest position under the king, does not eat at the same table with his brethren, and speaks to them through an interpreter. He also takes an Egyptian woman as his wife[196], even the daughter of a Priest of Heliopolis; and Moses himself marries an Ethiopian[197]. The same intermingling between the races is afterwards still more frequently mentioned, without being considered as anything remarkable or forbidden, _e. g._ Leviticus xxiv. 10; 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35; and the same with respect to other foreigners, the Tyrians, _e. g._ 1 Kings vii. 14. The immigrants also did not limit themselves to the land of Goshen, which had been first assigned to them, but “_filled the land_,” and appeared “_to grow greater and mightier than the Egyptians_.” That the single race of Jacob is not here meant, but all who had allied themselves to it, as to a powerful centre, is again made evident in the Exodus, where it is said[198], “_And a mixed multitude went up also with them._” There may even have been many Egyptians among the mixed multitude; indeed the whole population continued to cling, even long after the Exodus, so firmly to Egyptian customs, and even to the religious practices of the Egyptians, that they were constantly inclined to fall back again to the old form of worship. Is it surprising that the Egyptians should have considered those people as Egyptians—and called them so in their traditions—who, even at the foot of Sinai, made an image of the holy bull, Mneuis, and solemnised it with festivities, thus proving that the greater proportion of them had adopted the Egyptian religion?

This was naturally the reason why the Jews were so frequently viewed as an EGYPTIAN COLONY, _e. g._ by Strabo[199], Apion[200], and others; and in this at least there is no contradiction between the Egyptian and Hebrew accounts; they rather both assist in completing a more perfect picture.

The emigrating people were described especially by Manetho, and by all the other Egyptian traditions, as a race of “_unclean, leprous Egyptians, godless, and hated by God_.” It is evident that the people designated here were of foreign extraction, DIFFERING IN FAITH, consequently GODLESS settlers in Egypt, the shepherd families, who, on account of their occupation, in remembrance of the old hereditary enemy, were hated by the genuine Egyptians, especially by the priests, “_for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians_[201].”

The Mosaic account also corroborates the opinion that the _leprosy_ and the _white_ sickness (λεύκη, ἀλφός), which resembles it, were very prevalent in those times, and particularly among the Jews, and that they were most dangerously infectious. This is intimated by the strict laws of separation issued by Moses against those attacked by the leprosy, among whom, however, his own sister Miriam[202] is found; also by the miracle of Moses, who draws his own hand out of his bosom white as snow with leprosy[203], and afterwards afflicts the land with the plague and with noxious boils[204], and finally with the sudden death of all the first-born. This perfectly explains the Egyptian account of the universal _plague of the leprosy_, which had more particularly broken out among the poorer and more uncleanly settlers, and which threatened the whole Egyptian nation[205]. To this is to be added the belief of the strict Egyptians that inward uncleanness and godlessness of the heart must necessarily be inseparably connected with outward uncleanness and with the leprosy, the most abhorred of the diseases sent by God.

It is said, by Manetho, that among these infected people there were some learned priests. Possibly these were of the Egyptian race, and yet were cast together with the unclean strangers. But there is nothing to prevent our assuming that these priests were also of foreign descent, and perhaps themselves Israelites. It is not, indeed, an improbable assertion, that Moses himself was brought up as a priest of Heliopolis. It is evident that Joseph could not, as a Hebrew, have been first minister of Pharaoh, but that he must, at the same time, have possessed both the rank, learning, and outward consecration of the Egyptian priests, with whom he had also united himself by marriage; and that Moses likewise, brought up in the house of the king, could only be instructed, in all the wisdom of the Egyptian priests, through the same medium of outward fellowship. Contrasted with the Egyptian prophets and hierogrammatists, who equally convert their staffs into serpents, change water into blood, and fill the land with frogs, he appears before Pharaoh only as a wiser, and more highly endowed man, than those sages. The name _Osarsiph_, is of little importance here, for even the name of _Moses_ is expressly declared to be Egyptian, as it could not have been otherwise. But yet on this very account it is worthy of notice, because it is interpreted as being expressly derived from Osiris at Heliopolis. As the principal god in that place was Ra, _i. e._ Ἥλιος, the service of Osiris was undoubtedly most closely united with the holy sun-bull of Osiris[206], the white bull represented in the paintings gold[207] 𓈖𓐰𓏠𓇋𓃒 Menes, or Mneuis, the same whom the people adored in the desert, and whose worship was even introduced into Palestine by King Jeroboam I., when he was recalled from Egypt[208]. A particular local worship in HELIOPOLIS had been dedicated to this bull since the time of Menes; and this very town, in which, according to the Egyptian tradition, Moses is said to have been the priest of Osiris (therefore of the golden calf), is, besides, always considered specially connected with the Jews. From that town Joseph took his wife, and _On_—so Heliopolis was called by the people—according to the Septuagint, was even built by the Israelites[209]. This cannot mean that they first founded the town, for it had been already mentioned as the native town of Joseph’s wife, and is also named upon the monuments even in the Old Monarchy, and in the annals as early as the time of Menes; but it cannot also be explained alone by saying that Heliopolis was probably the principal town of the eastern province of Goshen, it certainly can only be understood to mean that the Israelites completed the elevation and damming off of the town against the inundations, of which we shall say more hereafter. The Manethonic account is therefore important for this reason also, that it makes Moses come from Heliopolis, and thence indicates his connection with the golden bull.

It further follows, from the Egyptian recital, that the _sudden_ persecution of the unclean people had a special cause, and this appears always to proceed from the advice which the priests give the superstitious kings, as to how the distress of the leprosy, and the degeneration and desecration of their religious services were to be remedied. But in the desire not to expel this whole race, but to destroy them by hard labour in the country itself, or to let them perish in the desert, or even to drown them[210], we at the same time perceive another reason for the persecution, namely, the fear lest they should rise up as open enemies of the country, and unite themselves with the banished shepherds for a new subjugation of the land, a fear so well founded, that what was expected, was soon most completely fulfilled. Here again there is the silent acknowledgment that those unclean Egyptians were principally of foreign extraction, and had a natural bias to their Palestinian hereditary enemies, whom they afterwards called to their assistance. And the Mosaic account also exactly agrees with this[211]: “Let us deal wisely with them,” says Pharaoh, “lest they multiply, and it come to pass that when there falleth out any war _they join also with our enemies, and fight against us_.” Therefore, taskmasters were placed over the land, and the people tormented with building and all kinds of hard service, to which undoubtedly the working in the stone-quarries had reference, which is made particularly prominent in the Egyptian relation. The chief feature in both recitals is the design of oppression and destruction, by means of exorbitant taskwork.

All accounts are also agreed upon the great number of the enemy, which had grown up in the country, and even if only 280,000[212] had departed, as the Egyptians related, while in the Hebrew accounts 600,000 are mentioned, it was at any rate a great event, on which the Egyptian annals could not possibly preserve silence.

These are all features of the Egyptian narrative, which place beyond doubt the identity of that insurrection of the Lepers under Osarsiph, with the Exodus of the Israelites under Moses, even if we set aside the far more direct, but in the view of some perhaps, on that very account, less trustworthy evidence, which consists in what is added concerning the laws of Osarsiph, that the Egyptian gods should no longer be worshipped, and that they should never again hold intercourse with any other race, also concerning the name of Moses itself, which Osarsiph is said to have adopted. For I certainly consider it as more than probable that the name of Moses was not originally found in the Egyptian narrative; that the latter was only connected with a rebellious priest Osarsiph, and that Manetho first changed the name in consequence of the comparison with the Hebrew accounts, which had been made long before his day. But this assumption only upholds still more the age and the independence of the Manethonic narrative, whose genuine and ancient Egyptian character is besides apparent to the attentive reader through all its other parts. With reference to this, I shall only mention the peculiar feature of beholding the gods, and its connection with an earlier king, further the name of the town _Abaris_, which was entirely lost in later times, and could not therefore have been orally preserved by the people, but must have been taken from old writings. Also the unfortunate and ignominious turn of the event for the Egyptians, the cowardly flight of the king to Ethiopia, and the revolting usage to which the whole lower country, and especially the priesthood, were exposed for thirteen years, but, above all, the complete absence of all allusions and attacks upon the Jews as such, sufficiently proves that the whole was a simple, faithful account from the old writings. Therefore, when Josephus, in order to maintain his wholly untenable opinion that the Hyksos were the Jews, asserts that Manetho did not derive this narrative from genuine ancient sources, but that he only relates incredible fables, and declares besides that Manetho himself granted the uncertainty of his account, when he says, he will now write what is mentioned in the _tradition_ of the Jews—γράφειν τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα περὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων—(to write the mythical and legendary accounts concerning the Jews), this is only one more of the forced and ingenious accusations of which his controversial work is composed. The words of Manetho, as they are extant, nowhere support this assertion of Josephus, except the last, which are to this purport:—λέγεται δ’ ὅτι τὴν πολιτείαν καὶ τοὺς νόμους αὐτοῖς καταβαλόμενος ἱερεύς, τὸ γένος Ἡλιουπολίτης, ὄνομα Ὀσαρσίφ, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν Ἡλίου πόλει θεοῦ Ὀσίρεως, ὡς μετέβη εἰς τοῦτο τὸ γένος, μετετέθη τοὔνομα καὶ προσηγορεύθη Μωυσῆς—(_It is said_ that a priest who founded their polity and laws, a Heliopolitan by race, named Osarsiph, when he went over to this nation from the service of the god Osiris in Heliopolis, received a change of name, and was called Moses). This contains the honest acknowledgment of Manetho that the ancient sources whence he derived his information neither mention the _Jews_ nor _Moses_, which is confirmed by his own narrative. Therefore it was only a λεγόμενον (tradition), if it were not indeed a μυθευόμενον (mere fable), as Josephus adds, which applied that account to the Jews. Manetho evidently did not intend to say more. The account of the banishment of the Lepers bears exactly the same stamp as the earlier account of the banishment of the Hyksos, and even an entirely superficial critical examination would only lead us to conclude, from the mention in both accounts of the city of Abaris (which at Manetho’s time had long since passed out of remembrance), that he made use of the same ancient authorities for the one as for the other. Therefore, instead of the reproaches of Josephus, Manetho rather deserves all our gratitude for so strictly abstaining from introducing his own views, however correct they may have been, into the long-approved historical relations. He leaves the decision in the hands of his readers. And it seems to me that we can now make ours upon good grounds, not depending upon his opinions, but upon the documentary evidence he lays before us, to the effect, namely, that the identity of the two occurrences, recognised even before the time of Manetho, must actually be accepted.

Josephus, however, is equally groundless and frivolous in his reproach to the Egyptian historian, when he asserts that he has only of his own accord inserted the king here, under whom he places the event—Ἀμένωφιν εἰσποιήσας ἐμβόλιμον βασιλέα—(Having inserted Amenophis as king), and that he has not therefore ventured to assign a fixed number of years to his reign. As Josephus before made a great confusion between the kings Ἄμωσις and Τέθμωσις, and since here also, he has not remarked, that he has named the same king once before in a former extract (c. 15) in his right place, and ascribed to him the correct nineteen years and six months as the period of his reign, the reproach is at once removed from the Egyptian historian, and falls back upon himself.

Let us now see what place in the Egyptian annals is assigned to the King of the Exodus. Here again we are first referred to Josephus. We shall investigate in its proper place more minutely, how far he had the true account of Manetho before him, or only extracts from it. But it is easy to perceive from a cursory comparison of his extracts, which are partly given verbatim, and partly summarily, that in the two principal passages upon this portion of Egyptian history, he had two different authorities before him, who, in the writing of the names, and in certain details, somewhat differ from one another, and thence caused no little confusion to the inconsiderate critic.

If we now place these two authorities of Josephus beside one another, and compare with them the corresponding portion of the lists of Africanus and of the monuments, we obtain the following general view. (See next page.)

LISTS OF JOSEPHUS AND AFRICANUS.

The first thing to be remarked is that the last column, that of the monuments, is _authentically_ determined, because it is entirely borrowed from several monumental catalogues, and taking it in details, the testimony of numerous contemporaneous monuments puts it beyond a shadow of doubt. The lists of the authors may therefore be judged with the greatest safety, according as they agree with it, but not the reverse. Hence it follows, that in the first authority of Josephus, either one has been lost between the first and second names, or the second and third names are incorrectly anticipated, since they should have come after the fourth. The numbers placed beside the reigns leave no doubt of this. The last of the two mistakes has evidently been committed by Africanus with regard to the Ἀμενωφάθ; therefore, in the comparative columns, the same has also been assumed to belong to Josephus. Furthermore, we read in the text of Josephus, chap. 15, Σέθωσις καὶ Ῥαμἑσσης (Sethôsis and Rameses), but we learn from the context, and chap. 26, that we ought to read ὁ καὶ (who is also). In the second authority of Josephus, the addition ὁ καὶ Ῥαμέσσης (who is also Rameses), is entirely wanting, which is undoubtedly correct, since neither the names of these two, or any other kings, are seen in connection on the monuments. The mistaken connection appears to have been occasioned by the confusion that existed at a much earlier period, in the ideas of the people, about these two kings; whereas, the surname of the second Ramses, Μιαμμοῦ, is evidently founded on the constant addition of 𓌹𓇋𓏠𓐰𓈖 _Miamun_, on the monuments of this king.

Without entering into further details, it is now undeniably evident from the same comparative list, that Ἀμένωφις, or Μένωφις, the third king of the second authority of Josephus, to whom the banishment of the Lepers was ascribed, is no other than the corresponding Ἀμενέφθης, with 20 years, and the Μενέφθης (_Menephtha_) of the monuments; lastly, no other than the anticipated Ἀμένωφις, with 19 years and 6 months of the first authority of Josephus, the son of Ἀρμέσσης Μιαμμοῦ, with 66 years 2 months, _i. e._ of _Ramses-Miamun_, whose sixty-second year appears upon the monuments. The King of the Exodus therefore belongs, according to the Egyptian accounts, to the 19th Manethonic Dynasty, and it seems to me impossible any longer to admit the opinion of those who believed him to belong to the previous 18th Dynasty[213]. It is true that in this Dynasty we find three different kings named _Amenophis_, which caused the confusion with the similarly sounding name _Menephthes_, but none of them have a Ramses for a father, and a Sethôs for a son and grandfather; for the two last names never appear in the 18th Dynasty.

We find, indeed, a king of the 18th Dynasty mentioned in the Manethonic relation in Josephus, viz. King Horus. But this incidental quotation contains so much the more an impartial and convincing proof, that the king with whom we are concerned, belonged to the 19th Dynasty, and that the whole account was taken from an ancient authority, to whom the same chronological connection was perfectly well known. It is said, namely, that Amenophis desired to become a beholder of the gods, like _one of his ancestors, King Horus_. Now this notice is in itself remarkable, and testifies its genuine character, since King Horus is not otherwise known to us through the popular tradition, probably because he, like most of the others, had left no monuments behind him which had attracted any particular notice in Memphis. But with regard to the time of his reign, it is apparent that he was certainly a _predecessor_, namely, the fourth of Menephthes, but a _successor_ of all the three Amenophises of the 18th Dynasty, which he terminated.

It is of minor importance that, according to Diodorus (34, 1), the banishment of the Jews is connected with the emigration of Danaus to Greece, and that this also is placed, according to the Egyptian tradition at least, in the 19th Dynasty. But we thereby see that the Egyptian tradition with regard to dates did not deviate much, even when it was connected with foreign elements.

If we now compare the clear Egyptian statements that we have cited, concerning the period of the Exodus with what is said about it by the later, particularly the Jewish and Christian chronologists, it would be difficult to comprehend why they differed so exceedingly, if we did not find the fundamental error fully explained in the writings of Josephus against Apion, where he asserts that the Jews were no other than the Hyksos. The perfectly untenable grounds for this opinion, which, nevertheless, has been shared even by some modern scholars, although the Mosaic narrative is entirely contradictory to it, both as a whole and in its details, may be gathered from Josephus himself, since a refutation of them here would be superfluous. But Josephus was by no means the first who started this opinion. It was already held by PTOLEMY MENDESIUS[214] and APION[215], perhaps even by POLEMON[216]. From this, also, originates the other misunderstanding, that it was not _Tuthmosis_, but _Amosis_, the first king of the 17th Dynasty, who drove away the Hyksos; and therefore in Josephus[217] the name Τέθμωσις is inserted in place of Ἄμωσις, and in Syncellus[218] both names appear united as Ἄμωσις ὁ καὶ Τέθμωσις—(Amosis, who is also Tethmosis). The reason of this confusion lay simply in this, that Amosis is found placed by Manetho at the head of the Dynasty which immediately follows the Dynasties of the Hyksos; he must, therefore, have driven away the Hyksos, who by them are understood to be the Jews.

We find a different opinion in EUSEBIUS. In his Manethonic list[219], beside King _Chencheres_, therefore in the middle between the true Exodus of the Hyksos and that of the Israelites, he writes as follows:—κατὰ τοῦτον Μωυσῆς τῆς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου πορείας τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἡγήσατο—(During this reign Moses conducted the journey of the Jews out of Egypt). But the reason for this deviation from the usual statements concerning the Pharaoh of the Exodus does not here lie in the name, which perhaps Eusebius had found somewhere mis-stated, but in his assumption (to which we shall afterwards return) that the first year of Abraham was also the first year of the 16th Manethonic Dynasty. He only counted, as he himself states, 75 years[220] from this year to Abraham’s removal to Haran, and then the 430 years of bondage in Egypt. By that means he obtained the year of the Exodus of Moses from Egypt. This happened, according to his Egyptian list, in the sixteenth year of _Chencheres_; consequently, in his annals, he entered the Exodus under this king.

The most fabulous recital of the Exodus is in Lysimachus, who appears to have written about the time of Christ’s birth, shortly before Apion. It is not, therefore, worth while to investigate whether the name of the King Bocchoris, in whose reign he makes Moses depart, was arbitrarily imagined, or whether it originated in some great misunderstanding. His romance appears, however, to have found acceptance, since we again meet with the fable of Lysimachus in Tacitus[221], with some new and additional facts. Tacitus says, that according to some the Jews wandered to Palestine during the reign of Isis, led by Hierosolymus and Judah; according to others, they were descendants of the Ethiopians, and departed during the reign of King Cepheus; but most people said, that at the breaking out of a plague, King Bocchoris had cleared the land of them, according to the sentence of an oracle.

Previous Next

Comments

Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the peninsula of SinaiChapter XLV: Introduction: To the Chronology of the Egyptians (2)

0%37 min left in chapter