Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt

Front matter

■I SB

mm IH ȣ&

^H

Preface

THE purpose of this course of lectures is to ascertain, if possible, the position of Abraham, Joseph and Moses in Egypt's history.

It would be premature to attempt to fix the date of the era in the world's chronology, although many such attempts have been made. The first date in Egypt's history that can be dated with precision is as late on as Dynasty XXVI. The chronology of what goes before is purely conjectural, and depends on the estimates made of the gaps and uncertain time-elements, that persistently remain such.

All that is possible at present is to reconstruct such periods (longer oa shorter) as can be fairly well recovered from the monuments, and to wait patiently for further "finds," that may serve to connect these together.

Accordingly, no attempt has been made to fix the chronology of our period absolutely, but relatively to its own contents. There are serious gaps even in the period discussed in the lectures ; and the utmost that can be claimed is that parts of it have vi Preface.

been made out with some degree of certainty and that the gaps have become more clearly defined. Where so much is necessarily hypothetical, it seems reasonable to enter a caveat against the tendency of the times unduly to prolong Egypt's chronology. There certainly is no need of writing about " centuries" for intervals, when decades would answer as well.

The lectures are humbly submitted simply as a study in the comparative chronology of Egypt's monuments and the Bible tradition, — not in any dogmatic spirit, but as a tentative effort, looking to the harmony of the two sources of history. Whatever may be thought of the positions assumed in any one lecture, the author would venture to ask that judgment may be suspended until the six lectures are read through. The argument of the one part will be found to be supported by the argument of another part and the connection of the whole. The lectures are published with the hope that they will be accepted in the spirit in which they are conceived, and in the sure confidence that ultimately perfect harmony will be discovered between the chronological indications of the monuments and the data of Holy Scripture.

SUMMARY OF THE LECTURES.

LECTURE I.

The Monumental Chronology of the Period covered by Dynasties XII.-XX.

Sources for reconstructing the Egyptian chronology; their relative value.

A. Dynasty XII. : its eight Pharaohs ; its collapse ; its period.

B. Dynasty XYTII. : the Manetho lists ; the monumental history, with regnal periods.

C. Dynasty XIX. : confusion of Manetho lists ; monumental reconstruction.

D. Dynasties XIII.-XYII. : an obscure section ; monumental light only at its beginning and end ; Manetho lists contradictory, — necessity of reconstructing these, particularly those of the Shepherd Dynasties (XV., XVI., and XVII.) ; a possible basis for the reconstruction to be found in two suppositions, — viz., (1) a continuous native line throughout the section ; (2) that the dynastic divisions simply mark crises in its history ; supposed outline of the original Manetho story ; contradictions of the abbreviators explained thereby ; in harmony with monumental and historic hints.

The Chronology: the length of the Shepherd Era; a clew derived from the position of the names of Shepherd kings in the Manetho lists; corroborated by the "Set Era " of the Tanis tablet ; place of the " Set Era " in Egypt's history ; bearing of Numbers xiii. 22.

Page viii Summary of the Lectures.

LECTURE II.

Page

The Chronology of the Corresponding Period in

the Hebrew Tradition 32

The Scripture-time indications of the period twofold, — viz., genealogical and a definite time-period; their relative value. The four forms of the Hebrew time-period. (1) What is the period ? The view of the " Seventy " ; Lepsius and the number 430 ; St. Paul's view ; limitations of the Hebrew registers ; solution to be found in the Genesis prediction, which regards Abraham in his representative character ; Abram and his " seed " one. (2) How is the time-period to be measured ? Its initial year ; the calling of Abram a strategic point in the Hebrew tradition.

LECTURE III.

Points op Contact op the Two Chronologies : Part

L, The Era op Joseph 52

The certain and uncertain time-elements in the two chronologies indicated in the chart of comparative chronology ; why five Egyptian registers are furnished for comparison ; Joseph's fourteen-year period in the five ; the last three Registers discarded ; Register I. presents a shorter chronology than Register II. ; either could be adjusted to the Hebrew story ; the date of Jacob's death in each ; the rise and progress of the religious revolution of Dynasty XVIII. ; Joseph's probable connection therewith ; Joseph and Heliopolis ; the influence of the Heliopolite dogma on the Hebrews ; Joseph's Pharaoh a native sovereign ; his elevation explicable ; is there any monumental reference to Joseph or his famine in either of the reigns indicated by the two Registers ?

Summary of the Lectures. ix

LECTURE IV.

Page

Part II., The Eras of Abraham and Moses . . 82

A. Abram's Pharaoh a Shepherd king; favored by the Hebrew story ; who may he have been ? why was Isaac forbidden to go to Egypt? (Gen. xxvi. 1. 2) ; corroborative evidence that Abram's Pharaoh was a Shepherd furnished by the presence of Hittites in Southern Palestine as early as his day ; also supported by the " Set Era " of the Tanis tablet.

B. Hints of the Hebrew story as to the status of the Hebrews as long as " Joseph's generation " survived and of a change soon thereafter ; the "new king" ; his " knowing not Joseph " ; Rameses II. and the Hebrews (the store-city Pi thorn).

C. The Pharaoh of Moses' birth (" Pharaoh's daughter ") ; the Pharaoh of Moses' flight, — of his eightieth year ; the Pharaoh who " died in the process of time " not Rameses II., and consequently his successor not Mineptah ; the general harmony of the two stories.

LECTURE V.

Part III., The Anarchy at the Close of Dynasty XIX., and the Exodus 103

Dynasty XIX. ended in disaster, and anarchy ensued ; testimony of the " Great Harris Papyrus of Rameses III." ; translations by Eisenlohr, Brugsch, and Chabas of a passage in the historical part of the papyrus ; a veritable reference to the Hebrew Exodus. This view supported (1) on philological grounds ; (2) by historical reasons, — viz., in accord with the Hebrew chronology and history ; no known Egyptian " emigration " of that or any other era ; the history of the reign of Rameses III. (his eighth year an important factor) .

Maspero's view of the papyrus story criticised.

Summary of the Lectures.

LECTURE VI.

Page

Part IV., The Pharaoh of the Exodus . . .124

The Dynasty of the Exodus Pharaoh settled by M. Naville's discoveries ; the inquiry is, virtually, Who was the last Pharaoh of Dynasty XIX. ? Egyptologists divided as to the order of the last three reigns, and why ; Champollion and the perplexing fragments in Siptah's tomb ; Chabas' view, Dr. Eisenlohr's, Lefebure's ; all monumental indications other than the tomb fragments are in opposition to Champollion's interpretation of them, and support the order of the Manetho lists ; a solution of the perplexing problem suggested by the relations of the parties concerned ; who Queen Tauser probably was, and who Siptah, Amenmes, and the " Seti, Prince of Cush " ; whichever of the two Pharaohs concerned may have been the last Pharaoh of the Dynasty, he would answer to the indications of the Hebrew story ; Setnekht's curious usurpation of the tomb suggestive.

DYNASTIC LIST XH.-XX.

DYNASTIC LIST XII.-XX.

Dynasty XII.

Dynasty XVII.

Amenemhat I.

(Native Line.)

USERTESEN I.

Rasekenen (Ta-aa) I. . . .

Apepi. (61)

Amenemhat II.

Rasekenen (Ta-aa-aa) II.

USERTESEN II.

Rasekenen (Ta-aa-ken) III.

Usertesen III.

Kames.

Amenemhat III.

Amenemhat IV.

Dynasty XVIII.

Sebekneferuka.

Aahmes.

Amenhotep I.

Dynasty XII Let cet.

Thothmes I.

Sebekhotep I.

Thothmes II.

& Hatasu.

Thothmes III.

Amenhotep II

Thothmes IV.

Amenhotep III.

Amenhotep IV. (Khuenaten).

Sa'anekht.

Tu.Paps.

No. 6.

S'ankhabra.

Sebekhotep III.

Sebekhotep IV.

o

Neferhotep.

Tut'ankhamen.

Ai.

Sebekhotep V.

Sebekhotep VI.

Sebekhotep VII.

Horus.

Dynasty XIX.

Rameses I.

Seti I. (Mineptah I.).

Rameses II. (Miamen).

Mineptah (II. Hotephima).

Seti II. (Mineptah III.).

Amenmes.

Siptah (Mineptah IV.) & Tauser.

Merkaura.

Dynasty XX.

Setnekht.

Rameses III.

Rameses IV. et cet.

ABRAHAM, JOSEPH, AND MOSES IN EGYPT.

LECTUEE I.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES, XII.-XX.

THEEE are but two sources for the reconstruction of Egyptian chronology, — (1) the monuments, and (2) the traditions of Manetho and other ancient authors. To be sure, an appeal may subsequently be made to certain Scripture time-indications, which as far as they go furnish corroborative proof of results reached ; but the sacred writer does not complete the story of Egypt, as that was not Moses' object.

The statements of the monuments are of course final as far as they go, though unfortunately these up to now cover but parts of our period.

As to the traditions of Manetho and other ancient authors, criticism - has to deal with these very carefully, — one might say, sometimes severely. The statements of Greek and Latin authors, which up to quite recently formed the basis of our Egyptian histories, are proven by the monuments to be of little

l value. Professor Sayce is particularly severe on Herodotus, 1 affirming " that modern research obliges us to indorse the judgment passed upon Herodotus almost as soon as his History was published, and that it is not only untrustworthy, but unveracious.' ,

Did we but possess the original work of Manetho the Egyptian priest, who at the instance of Ptolemy Philadelphus wrote in Greek a history of his people professedly drawn from the monuments, it would doubtless prove invaluable for our purpose. Unfortunately, it has survived only in some extracts and summaries incorporated in the works of Josephus and of some Christian writers, particularly Africanus and Eusebius, and later on of Syncellus. 2

With great industry and zeal Lepsius collected together, in his "Tables of Manetho Sources," 3 the historical data of these extracts, adding thereto every tradition alleged to have been Manetho's ; so that a very fair idea of their value may be obtained by comparing the lists. The comparison will be sure to convince any one that Chabas' estimate was just, though severe, when, referring to the extreme confusion of the lists, he affirmed that without the assistance of the monuments it would be an impossible task to gather from them what Manetho really did

1 Ancient Empires of the East, — Preface, p. xxii.

2 Julius Africanus died a. d. 232 ; Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea, a. d. 270-340. George Syncellus lived in the eighth century. His work was a compilation from other abbreviators.

3 They form the middle section of the " Konigsbuch," Berlin, 1858.

The Egyptian Chronology.

say. He adds : " All the versions bear traces of interpolations or of falsifications." 1

It is certainly, therefore, not without reason that greatest reserve should be exercised in quoting from them, and especially in basing an argument upon them. The one fact, however, that can be attributed to Manetho beyond any doubt is his division of Egypt's history into Dynasties, or Houses, — a division which, however it be interpreted in its details, is of greatest convenience in handling the narrative.

It must not be inferred from what has been said that the Manetho lists are valueless, or even of little worth. The lists, and particularly his dynastic divisions, have proven an invaluable help in locating, with more or less of certainty, the scattered names gathered from the monuments. Still, in any controversy between the two sources of reconstruction, a monumental fact or date must be accepted as final. Certainty therefore, in the present inquiry, will mean certainty as assured by monumental indications. It is only when these fail that the Manetho indications may be accepted, though even then simply as a temporary bridge over a chasm.

Advancing to our task, — the reconstruction of the chronology of the period covered by Dynasties XII.-XX., — that of Dynasty XII. need not chronology

J J of Dynasty

detain us long. Its founder was one Ame- xh. nemhat I., who mounted the throne after a war of

1 Les Pasteurs (Amsterdam, 1868), p. 14.

succession, and became the ancestor of a notable series of kings, some of whom were venerated in the latest era. The order of succession and the regnal periods of its eight sovereigns have been fairly well recovered from the monuments, though there remains an element of uncertainty as to the exact time-period of the Dynasty arising from lack of monumental information as to the time that should be allowed for the associated reigns of one or two of the Pharaohs. The reigns of these Amenemhats and Usertesens furnished Egypt with a strong and beneficent government. During the first six reigns Egypt greatly prospered. Nubia was conquered, and the name "Cush" first appears on the monuments. The mines of the Sinaitic Peninsula were occupied and worked. Great public works were executed, looking to the regulation of the Nile inundations and the artificial irrigation of the country. Architecture, painting, sculpture, and literature divided the attention of these Pharaohs, equally skilled in the arts of peace and of war. But the Dynasty seems to have suddenly collapsed ; for the last two reigns — a brother and a sister — were brief (but nine and four years respectively), betokening trouble of some kind. At any rate, the brilliant Dynasty, after ruling Egypt for about 170 years, came to an end. 1

1 Both Maspero (in his " Histoire Ancienne," p. 98, note 5) and Brugsch (in his " History of Egypt," vol. i. p. 120) have discussed the chronology of this Dynasty, and both make the total somewhat larger, not allowing suf-

The Egyptian Chronology.

Leaving now Dynasty XII., and passing over for the present the obscurer part of our period, — Dynasties XIII.-XVIL, — we would next con- chronology

of Dynasty

sider Dynasty XVIII. xvm. '

The Manetho lists covering Dynasty XVIII. are in a state of great confusion. Even from a monumental point of view, the Dynasty is full of problems. Still, it is possible to recover from the monuments the order of succession with but few elements of uncertainty, and to gather a fair idea of the dynastic period.

Its founder was one Aahmes, Egypt's liberator from the Shepherds, who was succeeded by his son Amenophis I., and he by his son Thothmes I. Thothmes I. was succeeded by three of his children, — a daughter and two sons, as they are generally regarded. The first of them, Thothmes II., married his sister, and was completely dominated by her, she being the virtual ruler, — the masculine Queen Hatasu. The rule of her husband-brother did not last long, and it ended obscurely. Hatasu succeeded, nominally as Regent to her younger brother, but for a time at least she assumed the style and even the dress of a king, ruling as such some fifteen years, and only allowing the young Thothmes to be associated with her when

ficient for the associated parts of the later reigns. The amount of overlapping in the earlier four reigns can he gathered from the monuments ; but this is not true of the later reigns, and forms an element of uncertainty. The Turin Papyrus makes the sum 213 years by counting, though with a slight error, the regnal periods and without allowance for any overlapping. The Manetho lists make the period 168, — a number probably much nearer the truth. The dynastic period adopted in the text is probably quite correct.

it could no longer be avoided. Her reign, though brilliant, was resented by Thothmes III. He dishonored her monuments and ignored her rule, dating his own reign from the date of his brother's death.

Egyptologists are now pretty well agreed that eighty-one years would be ample to cover the period from the accession of Aahmes to the first year of Thothmes III.

The monuments yield the period of the latter's reign to a day. It was fifty-four years, less about a month. 1 The monuments yield but seven years each to his two successors, Amenophis II. and Thothmes IV., but assign to the next Pharaoh, Amenophis III., a reign of some thirty-six years. They also yield the twelfth year for his son Amenophis IV., or Khuenaten, though it is probable that he survived for another year.

The rest of the Dynasty is differently treated by different scholars. It may suffice to say that monumental data would indicate that only what may be called a long generation really intervened between Amenophis III. and Seti I. of the succeeding Dynasty, — the intervening six Pharaohs (Amenophis IV., the three Heretical Kings so-called, Horus the Reactionary, and Eameses I.) being contemporaries. The limits of uncertainty of this part of the Dynasty will be more apparent in a later lecture, and need not detain us now.

1 Brugsch's History, vol. i. p. 314.

The Egyptian Chronology.

We may then at once consider Dynasty XIX. In the case of this Dynasty, what has been said respecting the confusion attaching to the chronology

-ir» -i ^ Dynasty

Manetho lists and the need of monumental xix. information to set matters right, will be well illustrated. The annexed diagram comprises six of the Manetho lists of the Dynasty given by Lepsius in his " Tables," the first of which we may for the moment regard as the standard Manetho, and compare therewith the other five. The comparison will show how impossible it would be, with Manetho alone, to reconstruct either the order of succession or the regnal periods of this Dynasty. It will be observed how confusion attaches to even the dynastic division in Lists IV. and V., these beginning Dynasty XIX. with an interpolated " Sethos " instead of with the u Arma'is " of the other lists, Armais being relegated by them to the previous Dynasty.

In this particular instance it is fortunately possible from monumental indications, tabulated in the last column, to reconstruct with a good degree of certainty the earlier two-thirds of the Dynasty and the latter third with a good degree of probability. In this case, therefore, the monuments show how the Manetho lists need to be corrected. We have indicated it in the diagram by putting in italics the parts that must be omitted altogether, and by enclosing the parts that must be transposed and placed after Sethos I. But even when this has been done, criticism would next have to deal severely with the regnal periods of the lists.

The monuments now make it certain that Dynasty XIX. should be headed by Rameses L, and that he should be followed by Seti I., Rameses II., and Mineptah. The further order of succession is not quite so sure, there being some uncertainty as to whether the order should be that adopted in the diagram, or whether Seti II. should be made to follow Siptah and thus end the Dynasty. There is also some uncertainty as to the regnal periods of the seven Pharaohs. This is indicated, in the monumental column of the diagram, by putting in parentheses the periods claimed by some for what they consider good reasons, the other numbers being the years yielded by the monuments.

We are thus brought to the middle section of our period, — that beginning with Dynasty XIII. and chronology ending with Dynasty XVII. It is a sec-

of Dynasties . . .

xni.-xvn. tion that remains in some portions 01 it as obscure as it is mysterious. It is indeed only respecting its beginning and close that the monuments have anything to say. The so-called " Turin Papyrus," e. g., shows that the Sebekhotep who founded Dynasty XIII. was the immediate successor of the last sovereign of Dynasty XII. ; and there are a few other monumental remains which show that he and his successors, for a while at least, ruled over all Egypt. At the other end of the section there are a number of documents 1 that connect Dynasty XVII. with Dynasty XVIIL, and which further show that one of the Manetho abbreviators, Africanus, correctly reported Dynasty XVII. as composed of synchronous reigns, — " Thebans and Shepherds/' — the Shepherds being the real rulers and the Thebans being vassal princes, one of whom it was, Aahmes, who succeeded in expelling the foreigners and so founded Dynasty XVIII.

The Manetho lists covering this section are in a state of almost irremediable confusion. They continue to accentuate the dynastic divisions, but they yield no names except six of Shepherd kings. They agree for the most part in making Dynasty XIII. " Theban," and Dynasty XIV. " Xoite ; " but they assign to each an apocryphal number of kings, with an equally apocryphal dynastic period. But they differ so, as respects the remaining Dynasties (XV., XVI., and XVIL), that the work of reconstruction is made a serious task, — some believe impossible. These last three Manetho Dynasties, however, are the " Shepherd " Dynasties. And as neither monuments nor papyri mention a word as to the rise of the Shep-

1 They are the " Sallier Papyrus, No. I.," which establishes the synchronism of the Shepherd King Apepi with a native prince called Rasekenen ; an inscription in the tomb of one Aahmes, who served under King Aahmes in the war of liberation, — an inscription covering four reigns ; the "Abbott Papyrus," showing a line of native princes of the name of Rasekenen, and another tomb-inscription of a courtier, also called Aahmes, but surnamed Penneb, who lived in the latter part of Aahmes' reign and survived into the reign of Thothmes III. For a full account, see Chabas' " Les Pasteurs," pp. 16-38, and Brugsch's " History," vol. i. p. 239 ; also, Dr. Birch in "Rev. Arch.," 1859.

herds and but little of their fall, it becomes very important to discover, if we can, what Manetho really did say of the Shepherd Era. To be sure, in view of the particularly glaring contradictions of the lists of these three Dynasties, the prospect of reaching any safe conclusions may appear very discouraging. Nevertheless, I believe it possible to gather the original Manetho story, in outline at least, from the very contradictions of the abbreviators, — an outline that can, moreover, be corroborated in several ways.

Dynasty.

? MANETHO.

EUSEBIUS.

AFRICANUS.

XII.

THEBAN.

(All Egypt.)

XIII.

THEBAN. (All Egypt.)

THEBAN.

THEBAN.

XIV.

THEBAN.

(Upper Egypt.)

XOITE.

(Lower Egypt.)

XOITE.

XOITE.

XV.

THEBAN.

(Upper Egypt.)

SHEPHERDS.

(Lower Egypt.)

THEBAN.

SHEPHERDS.

Six names.

XVI.

THEBAN.

(Ethiopia.)

SHEPHERDS.

(All Egypt.)

THEBAN.

" Other SHEPHERDS."

XVII.

THEBAN.

(Vassals.) (Upper Egypt.)

SHEPHERDS. (Suzerains.) (All Egypt.)

SHEPHERDS.

" Phoenicians.''

Four names.

"Other SHEPHERDS

and THEBANS."

XVIII.

THEBAN.

(All Egypt.)

A glance at the above plan will make the proposed Manetho reconstruction somewhat clearer. The last two columns present the lists of Eusebius and Africanus (we start with but two of the abbreviators, so as to make the hypothesis less confusing) ; the double column preceding exhibits the proposed Manetho reconstruction.

Assured that neither Africanus nor Eusebius, whatever their bias, would intentionally misrepresent Manetho, it may be assumed that their contradictions simply reveal misapprehensions of Manetho's dynastic indications, and particularly of his explanatory remarks. It is not likely that the work of Manetho's they quoted from contained any plan or chart of the Dynasties, even if Manetho had one for his personal use ; and only those who attempt to describe such facts without such a chart know how difficult it is to present them in a perspicuous way.

We believe that the contradictions of the lists may be harmonized, if we may suppose that in his review of the period Manetho was endeavoring to make clear two features of the curious history, but that it proved difficult, so correlated were the two facts, to put them into language clear enough to prevent misapprehension. The two points it is supposed Manetho emphasized are: (1) that there was a continuous native line, Theban in its inspiration, all the way through the period from Dynasty XII.

to Dynasty XVIII. ; and (2) that though the native line thus survived, it had a history of varying fortunes, — a history marked by troubles from within and from without, — a history full of crises, which he sought to indicate by his dynastic divisions.

To make our meaning clearer, let us suppose that Manetho's story, in outline at least, was something like this : —

(1) That during the period of the so-called Dynasty XII. the native Theban line ruled all Egypt, and, as was really the case, without a challenge from any quarter.

(2) That during Dynasty XIII. this was also true, except that the sovereignty, for some reason or other, passed to another Theban family, the House of the Sebekhoteps.

(3) That the history of the native line thereafter was one of disaster.

(4) That, first of all, the sovereignty of Lower Egypt was wrested from it by the Xoites, who during the so-called Dynasty XIV. confined the Thebans to Upper Egypt.

(5) That it was while Egypt was thus divided that the Shepherds came and conquered.

(6) That the Shepherd Era lasted through the three Dynasties, XV., XVL, and XVII. ; but that these dynastic divisions were intended by him simply to mark the three stages of the Shepherd rule, — viz., the first stage, marked as Dynasty XV., during which the Shepherds occupied Lower Egypt, having swept the Xoites out of the way ; the second stage, marked as Dynasty XVI., during which the Shepherds possessed themselves of Upper Egypt also, the Thebans having in their turn been driven out, and surviving in their Ethiopian Province, which was added to the crown in the time of Dynasty XII. ; and the third stage, marked as Dynasty XVII., during which time the Thebans, allowed to return, were recognized by the Shepherds as vassal princes, themselves accepting the position, doubtless sullenly, but awaiting their opportunity to recover complete independence.

Now, supposing this outline to have been substantially the original Manetho story, it is easy, scanning carefully the lists of the two abbreviators, to understand how each made his mistakes ; for, contradictory as their lists appear, they are really complements to each other. Each reports, though inaccurately and obscurely, a genuine Manetho statement.

Thus, taking Eusebius first, it is evident that he grasped more accurately than Africanus Manetho's statement as to the continuity of the Theban line throughout the period ; for he set down in his list as " Theban " even the first two of the Shepherd Dynasties, XV. and XVI. But in the case of the other two dynasties, XIV. and XVIL, he was in all likelihood influenced by the explanations Manetho made as to the relations of parties in those Dynasties.

He was probably, for example, led to consider the " Xo'ites " as the true Dynasty XIV. because of the emphasis put by Manetho on the shrunken sovereignty of the Thebans, and possibly also on the personal prowess of the Xo'ite Pharaohs ; and so he failed to note that the Theban line still survived in the Upper country, though with a shorn dominion.

As respects Dynasty XVIL, he was probably led to report it a u Shepherd " Dynasty — in fact, his only Shepherd Dynasty — because, while undoubtedly Manetho mentioned the native line as surviving in that period (for African us quotes that), he probably laid stress yet more on the fact that in that Dynasty the Thebans were only vassals, and the Shepherds were the real rulers of Egypt.

Turning next to Africanus' list, it is also easy, with the reconstructed Manetho story in mind, to explain its anomalous features. He, like Eusebius, accurately numbered the dynastic divisions ; but it is evident that he failed yet more than Eusebius in grasping their true significance. He indeed completely overlooked the first Manetho point, — viz., the continuity of the Theban line throughout the Dynasties notwithstanding its troubles. He was more impressed with its troubles, more influenced by the emphasis Manetho put on his second point, — the contestants and the enemies of the Thebans. Like Eusebius, he made the Xo'ites to be the true Dynasty XIY., and doubtless for the same reasons. The remaining three Dynasties he understood to be Shepherd Dynasties, his very description of them sounding like a veritable quotation, — " Shepherds," " Other Shepherds," and " Other Shepherds and Thebans," — and because they were in reality the de facto, albeit in the view of an Egyptian priest not the de jure, Dynasties.

But the reconstructed Manetho story not only helps us to see how Africanus and Eusebius understood, or rather misunderstood, their author, and serves to reconcile their otherwise inexplicable contradictions ; it will be found to be in harmony also with the other Manetho lists. The Josephus lists do not accentuate the dynastic divisions as clearly as those of Africanus and Eusebius, but they really yield the same story. Josephus was more concerned with Manetho's traditions respecting the Shepherds than with the chronology of the era. His object in quoting at all was to identify the Hyksos as the Hebrews. But the very traditions he quotes would show that the Shepherds' stay in Egypt was marked, as the reconstructed story would say, by stages ; that however sudden the initial movement was, the conquest of the country was effected by degrees ; and that there was a marked difference in the attitude of the Shepherds, comparing the earlier and later stages, — that whereas they were at first merciless and despotic, they changed erelong to another mood, and became more tolerant, nay, almost Egyptianized, though the Dynasty was hated none the less, and remained throughout a government of foreigners.