first 18 dyn. there were assigned 440 kings, and 216 × 20 years; to the last 18 dyn. 300 kings, and 216 × 13 years; to the middle 18 dyn. 430 kings, and 216 × 16 years. The sum of the first 5 dyn. (Afr.) is 1260 and 1290 years; of the first 6 is 1484 (=371 × 4); of the first 9 is 2040 (=408 × 5); of Dyn. XIII-XVII, 1590 (53 × 30); of I-II, 555; of VIII-IX, 555; of VI-X, 943; of XXI-XXV, 365; of I-XXV, 4981 (=293 x 17); of XXXXIV, 460 [480]; of XX-XXV, 500, [520]; of XX-XXVI, 650; of XX-XXVIII, 780, [800]; of XXVI–XXIX, 300; of XVIII-XXII, 828 (414 × 2); XVI-XXII, 1500; of XV-XVI 440 (Eus.); of XVII-XVIII, 420; of XX-XXIII, 390; of XX-XXIV, 434; of XXII-XXVI, 343; of XXII-XXIX, 490; of XII-XVII, 1662 (ante-diluv. dur.); of XIII—XVII, 1480; of XXVI-XXVIII, 300; of XXII-XXVIII, 480; of I-IX, 1648; of XXV-XXVI, 217. XII-XVIII=2010, Afr. & Eus., 6 items differing. Dyn. IV. is divisible into 92 +192. Comparing this with the last collection from Afric., we observe 934. Dividing the dyn. into those which have, and those which 935. On the hypothesis of the intercalary capacity of the excluded king, we have shewn the result of including, and not including, his name and years in each division. 2241y., it will be remembered, is the LXX. ante-dil. dur. (See ¶ 897). The years of Dyn. I-X amount to 2224. If the results of this diva rication are not deemed to furnish sufficient evidence to shew that the numbers have been assigned with a view to the formation of cyclical numbers, when thus divided, they will at least serve to prove the unhistorical character of the whole:—in 20 dyn. 134 kings reign 3120 y.; in 10 dyn. 474 kings 2224y.; differences, +240 (40×6) kings, — 896 (56 × 16) years. 936. Again, the numbers may be so collected as to give the following results on another distribution:— 987. Such pre-eminent importance attaches to the last 5 dyn. (XV—XIX) of Manetho's 2nd Bk., and the variations in the accounts are so numerous, that we deem it advisable to place the whole before the reader in a synoptical form, preparatory to entering on a more particular consideration of these dynasties. [See Table on next page.] 938. In addition to the numerical variations, omissions or insertions, and transpositions of names, shewn in this Table, other discrepancies occur in the accounts which relate to these dynasties. According to that of Africanus, the Exode took place in the reign of Amos (XVIII. 1); but, according to the Armenian Eusebius, under No. 10, who is there called Achencheres, and in the Greek of Syncellus, Achencherses; whilst by Lysimachus (c. Ap. II. 2) it is placed under Bocchoris (XXIV,-say B.C. 850), who, Jos. says, "lived 1700 years ago." (It might be thought that the author of Con. Ap., whoever he was, had the Christian date in his mind, and doubled it). Again, the Exode was referred by Manetho to the reign of Amenophis (XVIII. 19), as appears from Con. Ap. I. 26. And here we may notice as very remarkable that Josephus should assert that this Amenophis was a fictitious king, to whom on that account Manetho dared not assign any years (see ¶ 926): and yet Josephus himself, and every other authority, report the number of years that Manetho did assign; and the only king to whom no years are assigned (Afr.) is the very Tethmosis, who, Josephus says, was king when the Jews went out. Is not this a strong indication that the two names really belong to the same individual? Once more, another extract from Manetho (I. 14) appears to shew that the Exode was also placed in the reign of "Alisphragmuthosis" (XVIII. 6), (in which Afric. places Deucalion's flood), or rather, perhaps, of "Thummosis," or Tuthmosis, "his son." (Qu. again, the same as Tethmosis?) 939. We may notice, by the way, that few of the names are precisely the same in all the authorities; though, generally speak ing, sufficiently so for identification. Yet, in some instances, from the great similarity of the names and the discrepancies in the years, it is impossible to determine with certainty, which are intended to stand for the same king. In Eusebius it is stated that Armais (XVIII. 14) was also called Danaus, and Ramesses (15) Ægyptus. But, in one copy of Josephus, that "Sethosis (XIX. 1), and Ramesses," or "Sethosis, who was also called Ramesses, appointed his brother Armais to be his deputy over Egypt.” Another copy, however, states that Sethosis and Ramesses were "brethren," the former of whom slew his brother Ramesses, and appointed another to be his deputy. The section ends with these words: "Manetho says, that Sethosis was called Ægyptus, and Armais Danaus." In a section following (26) the names are given differently: "Sethos was called Ægyptus, and Hermæus Danaus." Again, "Amenophis sent his son Sethos, who was also named Ramesses from his father Rhampses, being only 5 years old, to a friend of his." "After this," i.e. at the end of the predicted fatal period of 13 years (making apparently, 5+13+1=19, the time of Amenophis's reign), "Amenophis returned from Ethiopia, as did his son Rhampses, and drove the polluted people out." This is one proof out of many that names have been repeated: yet not, as we think, accidentally; but with variations to disguise them, and for the purpose of framing preconceived numerical systems. An examination of the different schemes will go far towards making this evident. 910. In directing our attention to the numbers, it will be convenient to advert, first, to Josephus's report of them. But previously we would just notice that he has preserved a tradition (Con. Ap. I. 14) from which it would appear that the Jews were said to have entered Egypt, when a king named Timæus was on the throne. Now there is no king mentioned in the lists whose name approaches nearer to this than the Armais or Hermæus (XVIII. 14), to whose epoch, or thereabouts, the Exode is, in a subsequent extract, by implication, referred. In the Laterculus of Syncellus, again, the Eisode is placed in the reign of Aphophis (XV. 6.) But (not to dwell on this point) the historian goes on to relate that the Shepherds, having conquered the country, made one Salatis (that is, Joseph) their king. He then specifies the years of the 6 shepherd-kings, which amount, according to different readings, to 253y. 10m., 255y. 10m., and 259y. 10m. (Comp. ¶225.) "And these people and their descendants," says Manetho, "kept possession of Egypt 511 years." This "511 years," then, extends from either Joseph's accession to power or the Descent to the Exode. That the period is meant to end at the Exode is confirmed by the fact, that Josephus (Con. Ap. I. 15) places that event at the beginning of the reign of Tethmosis (XVIII. 1). Now this duration, we observe, like that between the Call and the Exode, is equally bisected; for 511y.-255y. 10m.=255y. 2m. Further, it is remarkable that the time that Joseph governed Egypt, viz. 80 years, plus one duration of the Jews' sojourning there, viz. 430 years, may be reckoned = this period; that is, suppose a servitude of 430 years to have been reckoned from Joseph's death, and you have this period from his accession. Or, Joseph's age at the Descent 40, +430, +40 for Moses's gov.=510. Again, 253y. 10m. ×2=507y. 8m, which is one amount obtained, ¶ 223, for the sojourning in Egypt. The particulars which compose the first and alone-particularised division of the 511y. may be thus divided: If the 2nd item (44y.) were omitted, the remainder would be the duration (or half thereof) of the sojourning in Egypt. If the 2nd and 3rd items (=81) be subtracted from the sum-total 511, there remains 430. 511 73 x7 = 1460 x 7÷20. 99 61 99 }} 160 160 941. The next period that Josephus derives from Manetho is a corresponding one of 518 years (see ¶926), extending from the Exode to Amenophis, the last king of the 18th dyn. So at least Josephus says. But in point of fact there is an artifice here. Either he wanted to make his period end with the 18th dyn., and in the reign of a king, to whom, it seems, a tradition assigned the Exode; or else he wished to expand it, for cyclical purposes, from 333 to 518 (14x37)y. Hence, in spite of a glaring anachronism, he joins with Amenophis Rhampses (whom he calls his son, but makes out to be his grandson), adding 125 years for Sethos and Rhampses. His sum of the years belonging to the 18th dyn. is 333. Now 333 +125=458, wanting 60 of 518. But Josephus thrice asserts the sum to be 393 (see ¶245), doubtless intercalating 60y. to make out his period. (Comp. 365). Then 393+125=518 (432+43 × 2). And this 518 years is (fictitiously) made out between Tethmosis and Rhampses inclusive. Still, nothing can be more clear than that, in the passage quoted, ¶ 926, Josephus asserts that Manetho says, that between Tethmosis and Amenophis (in both of whose reigns Manetho, according to Josephus, placed the Exode) there were 518 years, and also that there were 393 years between these kings. Now, seeing that his Sethos and Rhampses (=the Sethos and Ramesses of Afr. XIX. 1 and 4, and the Sethos and Rampses of Eus. XIX. 1 and 2) are evidently the same with, and mere duplicates of, his Ramesses and Armais in Dyn. XVIII, it can scarcely be doubted that they have been inserted a second time in order to effect the expansion of the 393 years into 518. There are, also, indications that the other Kings of Dyn. XIX have been, in like manner, inserted to fill up. The sum of the years of the 4 last in Dyn. XVIII. (Jos.) may be reckoned that of the 4 last in XIX. (Afr.) The 125 years, intercalated by Josephus for Sethos and Rhampses, exceeds the sum of the years assigned in Eus. to Armais, Ramesses, and Amenophis (113) by 12; and reasons will be assigned for thinking that the 12 years (5 and 7) at the end of Dyn. XIX in Afric. are intercalary. These 5 and 7 appear to correspond to the 5 (Armais) and 7 of XVIII. 14, and XIX. 6. in Eus. Again, the sum of the years of Dyn. XIX in Eus. exceeds that of the years assigned by |