settlement in Egypt more implicit confidence, than for those that relate to the period of sojourn in that country. We must also take into account the general character of Abram's pedigree.

Abram, the Hebrew (Ebri), was great-grandson of Serug, in whom Buttmann has pointed out the name of the district of Edessa, Erech, and of the patriarchal chief of the race of Osroene. He was the son of Terah, who left Ur of the Chaldees and went into the land of Haran. He is called brother of Haran, father of Lot, and father of Ishmael, the ancestor of 13 Arabian tribes, and of Midian; further through Jokshan and Shebah (two well ascertained names of countries), as his son and grandson, he is great-grandfather of the Ashurim, Letushim and Leummim. Even those who fail to perceive that these are names of races and not of individuals, must yet necessarily allow, owing to their plural form, that we have here to deal with a stage of tradition as to the connection of races, where epochs are alluded to under the form of generations.

Lastly, as Abram, through Isaac and Jacob, was great-grandsire of the 12 tribes of Israel, so, through Esau, he is great-grandsire of Amalek, and five other Edomite tribes of Northern Arabia, dwelling near the sons of Seir, i. e. the mountain ridge of Edom, and near the grandsons of Seir, among whom occurs the Edomite land of Uz, mentioned in the book of Job. While therefore we may be perfectly convinced of the personality not only of Jacob and Isaac, but also of Abraham and it is obvious to every one, that with Abraham historical personalities take the place of eponyme patriarchs we may yet, even in the age of "Abram the Hebrew," the wanderer from Mesopotamia of Chaldee origin, recognise a period, neither to be calculated by generations of individuals, nor capable of being measured by any means now at our

disposal. This proves the more clearly, that the family tree of the chosen friend of God is an historical representation of the great and lengthened migrations of the primitive Asiatic race of man, from the mountains of Armenia and Chaldæa, through Mesopotamia to the north-east frontiers of Egypt as far as Amalek and Edom. It represents therefore the connection between nations and their tribes, not personal connection between father and son, and records consequently epochs, not real human pedigrees.

For this reason we abstain from all chronological definition of both the periods prior to Abram — the primeval history before and after the Flood. The genealogies in the former, according to the Hebrew text, as generally interpreted, give 292 years from the year after the Flood to the birth of Abram, so that Noah must have died when Abram was 58 years of age. The variations in the Samaritan text and the Septuagint betray systematic alterations, and do not agree with each other. The following is a synopsis of all the transmitted dates of primeval history:

Before After

Before

After

Before

After the the Sum the the Sum the the Sum Birth of Birth of Total. Birth of Birth of Total. Birth of Birth of Total a Son. a Son. a Son. a Son. a Son. a Son.

The foregoing sections were written prior to the publication of the first two volumes of Ewald's History of the People of Israel- the third and last may be looked for immediately a work which we regard as the commencement of a truly historical, systematic analysis of this ever memorable portion of human history, and its sources; and which therefore claims our warmest gratitude, as a noble monument of German scholarship and historic science. Although the learned author touches only cursorily on the length of the period between Solomon and Moses, we rejoice to find that we are agreed in thinking that it is to the whole number alone, to the exclusion of the separate dates 120, that any credit can be attached.

In regard to the duration of the sojourn in Egypt, he admits, as we do, the critical superiority of the Hebrew text-but judges more favourably than ourselves of the historical authenticity of the number 120 Pp. 172. 187. Comp. 456.

430.121 We shall give partial proof in the third book how little this number is supported by the Egyptian traditions and monuments, and supply the full details, to the satisfaction, we trust, of that critic, in the fourth. There also we shall endeavour to prove the impossibility of the Exodus having taken place under a King of the 19th Dynasty.

B.

THE RESEARCHES OF THE EASTERN SCHOOLS INTO EGYPTIAN HISTORY.

I. JEWISH RESEARCH. THE SEPTUAGINT.

JOSEPHUS.

THE vitality of Jewish research had, as we remarked at the beginning of this section, outlived the empire. The decline of the state had tended rather to direct the minds of the more patriotic citizens towards this subject. In their captivity they did not forget the trea sure of their tradition, and Ezra, during the Persian dominion, established a new school of criticism in Law and History. Even in the time of the Maccabees a spark of the same love of research was kept alive, chiefly by the influence of their great hero, Judas.

While the Jews of Palestine were engaged in a harassing warfare, a new Judaism bloomed in the capital of Alexandria. The great conqueror of Macedon had, like Cyrus, shown special favour to the Jews, built a handsome quarter for them in his new city, and bestowed on them various privileges. Many of them became rich, and exercised influence and power. Their proper language was the so-called Hellenistic Greek. But they did not on that account forget the pledge which had been intrusted to them. The translation

121 P. 454. seqq.

of the Bible by the seventy interpreters is, and will ever remain, a most creditable undertaking.

Our analysis of the traditional chronology of Scripture, especially in the primeval history of the children of Israel, has satisfactorily proved that many of the variations in the Hebrew and Greek texts must have originated in a discrepancy in the tradition itself, which it is no longer in our power to reconcile. In some cases indeed there are manifest indications of a systematic tampering with the traditional dates, a charge which must be made against the Septuagint themselves, or critics who lived very little before their time. But the most important fact, which this comparison of the texts forces upon our notice, is, that no systematic chronological tradition was in existence for the times prior to Solomon, and that the general sums total which we there meet with must be considered as matters of adjustment and not of tradition. It were as incorrect as unfair to assume the chronological certainty of any single one of those numbers, as to maintain that they are capable of being reconciled with each other. But we are nevertheless very far from joining with the Talmudists in their cry of condemnation, when they marked the day on which the Greek text of the law was introduced into the synagogue of Alexandria, as a black day in the Jewish calendar: "The law in Greek! Darkness! Three days' fast!" We are on the contrary grateful to those who have preserved for us such evidence of the state of the chronological numbers in the old MSS., that even the dull investigator may receive a palpable hint in what light they are to be viewed.

We consider the Septuagint, therefore, as the heirs of Jewish and Alexandrian research, and as the earliest known commentators on biblical chronology.

Josephus, the first and last follower in the path of the Seventy, the historian of his nation, and the witness of its fall, proves that Jewish research was so far from being limited to the investigation of a difference of