If these great outlines in history are so clear, as I presume them to be, it may be asked how it was possible for such mistakes in chronology to have arisen? What reason can be given for this wilful inconsistency? I answer with regret, that it was owing to an ill-grounded zeal in the Fathers. They laid too much stress upon the antiquity of Moses, and laboured much to make him prior to every thing in " Greece. It had been unluckily said by Apion, that the person who ruined Avaris was contemporary with 78 Inachus of Argos. If this person were before Moses, then Inachus must also have been before him, which was not to be allowed. Hence names have been changed, and history has been perverted, to prevent this alarming circumstance. Accordingly Tatianus, having gone through a long series of argument to this purpose, concludes with some triumph: 79Ovo πέφηνε Μωϋσης, από γε των προειρημένων, πρεσβύτερος Ηρωων παλαίων, πόλεων, δαιμόνων. Therefore it is manifest, from what has been said, that Moses was

77 See Clemens, Tatianus, and the authors above quoted. Africanus apud Euseb. Præp. 1, 10. p. 490. Justin Martyr. Cohort. p. 13. Theophilus. 1. 3. p. 393.

78 Syncellus. p. 62, p. 68,

79 Tatianus. p. 274. See Justin Martyr. Cohort. p. 13. Theophilus supposes the Exodus to have been a thousand years before the war of Troy. 1. 3. p. 393.

1

80

prior to the heroes, to the cities, and to the Deities (of Greece). But truth does not depend upon priority; and the Fathers lost sight of this blessing through a wrong zeal to obtain it. They, to be sure, might plead some authority for their notions; but it was not of such weight as to have influenced men of their learning. Manethon does most certainly say, at least as he is quoted, that the Shepherds, who were expelled, betook themselves to Jerusalem. Μετα το εξελθειν εξ Αιγύπτε τον λαον των Ποιμένων εις Ιεροσόλυμα, ὁ εκβαλων αυτους εξ Αιγυπτο βασιλευς Τεθμωσις εβασίλευσε μετα ταυτα ετη εικοσι πεντε, και μηνας τεσσαρας. After the Shepherds had departed from Egypt to Jerusalem, Tethmosis, who drove them away, lived twenty-five years and four months. This one circumstance about Jerusalem has contributed beyond measure to confirm the Fathers in their mistakes. Josephus, and those who have blindly followed this authority, did not consider that the Israelites were not driven out; that they did not go to Jerusalem; and that the king, in whose reign they departed, did not survive the event: for he perished, as has been said before. Add to this, that the same writer, Manethon, plainly shews that the Israelites

80

did not come into Egypt till the reign of " Amenophis, who was many years later; so that this history could not relate to them. He He gave them the very district which the former Shepherds had deserted. The whole account of the first Shepherds is inconsistent with the history of the latter. The fathers often quote Apion, Ptolemy Mendesius, and Manethon, to prove that the Israelites were expelled Egypt by Amosis, or Amasis, and speak of Moses as contemporary with that king whom they place at the head of the Theban dynasty. Thus Justin Martyr appeals to the first of those writers for the truth of this

81

assertion. Κατα Ιναχον Αργες βασιλεα, Αμασιδος Αιγυπτίων βασιλευοντος, αποςηναι Ιεδαίες, ὧν ἡγεῖσθαι Mwürsa. According to Apion, in the time of Inachus of Argos, and in the reign of Amasis of Egypt, the Israelites left that country under the conduct of Moses. He quotes for the same purpose Polemo, and Ptolemy Mendesius. But the history could never

80

Josephus contra Ap. 61. p. 460. The coming of the Israelites is plainly described under the return of the first Shepherds. Many have supposed the two bodies of people to have been one and the same. They have therefore mistaken the arrival of the latter for a return of the former; and have, in consequence of it, much confounded their history: but the truth may be plainly discerned.

" Cohort. p. 13.

be as we find it here represented. We have a long account of the Shepherds in Manethon, who says not a word of what is here mentioned of the Israelites, but contradicts it in every point. Apion likewise expressly tells us, that Amosis was the person who ruined Avaris, which, we know, was afterwards given to the later Shepherds. And so far is he from referring the departure of this people to the reign of the first Diospolite king in the eighteenth dynasty, that he supposes the Exodus to have been in the seventh Olympiad, which was many centuries later.

82

The Fathers do not always quote precisely, but often put their own inferences for the words of their author. Ptolemy, Apion, and others mention, that a people called Shepherds were driven out of Egypt in the reign of Amosis. These Shepherds, say Theophilus and Tatianus, were the Jews therefore the Jews left the country in the reign of that king; and as they were conducted by Moses, it is plain, say they, from Apion, that Moses was contemporary with 3 Amo

82

92 Josephus contra Ap. 1. 1. p. 469.

83

33 The same history is quoted from different writers with a similarity of language, which is very suspicious. Thus Ctesias is by Clemens made to give the same account as we have had from the writers of Egypt. Ἡ Μωσεως κατα Αμωσιν τον Αιγυπτιον, και κατά Αναχον τον Αργείον, εξ Αιγυπτε κινησις. Strom. 1. 1. p. 379. It is

sis. In like manner Josephus tells us, that, according to Manethon, the Jews were driven out of Egypt in the reign of king 4 Tethmosis. Now the passage to which he alludes is preserved in his own works at 85 large; and not a syllable doe's Manethon there say about either Jew or Israelite. He gives quite a different history. And though his account is very incorrect, yet so much we may plainly learn from him, that the Israelites came into Egypt in the time of Amenophis, the eighth king of the Diospolite dynasty; and they likewise left the country in the reign of Amenophis, sometimes rendered by mistake Amenophthes. This was not the same prince, but one long after, whose son was Sethon, called also Ramases Sethon, from Rampses (the same as Ramases), the father of " Amenophis.

86

If then we recapitulate the principal facts which

very extraordinary that so many foreign writers should uniformly refer Moses to Inachus, as it is a point of little consequence to any but those who wanted to enhance the antiquity of the former. To the same purpose Apion, Polemo, and Ptolemy Mendesius are quoted. Yet, I am persuaded that the antient Egyptians knew nothing of Argos, nor of Inachus, the supposed king of it. See Justin Martyr. Cohort. p. 13.

84 Contra Ap. 1. 1. p. 469.

#5 Ibid. p. 444.