That the exode cannot be placed before the 19th dy- nasty, Bunsen {ut sup. p. 234) holds to be conclusively shown by the fact that on the monuments which record the conquests of Rameses the Great in Palestine, no men- tion occurs of the Israelites among the Kheti (Hittites) and other conquered nations; while, on the other hand, there is no hint in the book of Judges of an Egyptian invasion and servitude. On similar negative grounds he urges that the settlement in Palestine must have been subsequent to the conquests made in that country by Rameses III, first king of the 20th dynasty. To this it may be replied, (1.) that we have no clear informa- tion as to the route of the invaders; if it was either along the coast or to the east of Jordan, the tribes, per- haps, were not directly affected by it. (2.) The expe- ditions so pompously described on the monuments (as in the Statistical Table of Karnak, Thothmes III, and similar recitals of the conquests of Rameses II and III ; see Mr. Birch, in Trans. ofR. S. Lit. ii, 317 sq. ; and vii, 50 sq.) certainly did not result in the permanent subju- gation of the countries invaded. This is sufficiently shown by the fact that the contiucsts repeat themselves under different kings, and even in the same reign. Year
MANETHO
V04
MANETHO
by year the king with liis army sets out on a gigantic razzia, to return with spoil of cattle, slaves, and prod- uce of the countries overrun. (3.) If the lands of the tribes were thus overrun, it may have been during one of the periods of servitude, in which case they suffered only as the vassals of their Canaanitish, Moabitish, or other oppressors. That this may possibly have been the case is sufficient to deprive of all its force the argu- ment derived from the silence of the monuments, and of the book of Judges.
Tliere remains to be noticed one piece of documentary evidence which has quite recently been brought to light. Dr. Brugsch {Zeitschrift, Sept. 18G3) reports that " one set of the Leyden hieratic papyri, now publishing b}' Dr. Leemans, consists of letters and official reports. In several of these, examined by M. Chabas, repeated men- tion is made of certain foreigners, called Apuniju, i. e. Hebrews, compelled by Rameses II to drag stones for the building of the city Raamses." In his Melanges Eyyi^tol. 18G2, 4th dissertation, M. Chabas calls them AikHu. It is certainly striking, as Mr. Birch remarks (in Revue Archeol. April, 1862, p. 291), that " in the three docu- ments which speak of these foreigners, they appear en- gaged on works of the same kind as those to which the Hebrews were subjected by the Egyptians; it is also important that the papyri were found at JMemphis. But the more inviting the proposed identilication, the more cautious one needs to be." As the sounds R and L are not discriminated in Egyptian writing, it may be that the name is Apeliu; and as B and P have distinct char- acters, one does not see why the b of D'i"i2" should be rendered hy p. (The case of .£);?/> = !3"^ 2 N is different; see below.) It seems, also, that the same name occin's as late as the time of Rameses IV, where it can hardly mean the Hebrews. Besides, the monument of Thoth- mes III above mentioned leads to quite a different con- clusion. Where the evidence is so conflicting, the in- quirer who seeks only truth, not the confirmation of a foregone conclusion, has no choice but to reserve his judgment.
The time of this Menephtha, so unhesitatingh' pro- claimed to be the Pharaoh of the Exode, is placed be- yond all controversy — so Bunsen and Lepsius maintain — by an in\-aluable piece of evidence furnished by The- on, the Alexandrine mathematician of the 4th century. In a passage of his unpublished commentary on the Al- magest, first given to the world by Larcher (Ilcrodot. ii, 553), and since by Biot {Snr la periode Solhiaque, p. 18, 129 sq.), it is stated that the Sothiac Cycle of Astrono- my which, as it ended in A.D. 139, commenced in B.C. 1322 (20th July), was known in his time as " the sera of Jlenophres" {irr] cnro Mtvo^pfwt,). There is no king of this name : read Mti/od^fwC — so we have Menephtha of the 19th dynasty, the king of the leper-story, the Exodus Pharaoh. Lepsius, making the reign begin in B.C. 1328, places the exode at B.C. 1314 = 15 jMeneph- tha, in accordance with the alleged thirteen years' re- tirement into Ethiopia and the return in the fourteenth or fifteenth year. Certainly the precise name Meno- phres does not appear in the lists ; but in later times that name may have been used for the purpose of dis- tinguishing some particular king from others of the same name; and there is reason to lliink this was act- ually the case. (1.) The king Tetlimosis or Thothmes III repeatedly appears on monuments with the addition to his royal legend Mai-Re, " Beloved of Ri^," with the article ^^ai-ph-Re, and with the prejiosition Mai-n'-ph- Re, which last is precisely Theon's Mtvofpi]!;. (2.) The acknowledged confusion of names in that part of the bsth dynasty where this king occurs — Misa/ihris, Mi.t- phrf.t, Mnnphres (Arraen.),then J/ts/j/;?-agmuthosis (the AAIi;il>P. of Joscphus is evijlently an error of copying for MI2<M». : in the list ibiil the 5th and 6th names arc M)](ppi](;, Mffppa^iov^ojrrti:) — is perhaps best explain- ed by supposing that the king was entered in the lists by his distinctive as well as his family name. (3.) In