that St. Paul reckonod no more than 430 years from the call of Abraham to the Exodus (Gal. iii. 17). Now, certainly, if the genealogies are complete, and especie.lly that of Moses and Ae.ron, the longer term of years cannot have been reached, since even if Kohath was but a yoar old at the time of his being carried into Egypt (Gen. :xlvi. 11), and if Amram was born in the last year of Kohath's life, and Moses in the last year of Amram's, the eightieth year of Moses, in which the Exodus took place (Ex. vii. 7), would be only the 350th from the descent into Egypt and not the 430th. 1 But the ordinary Jewish practice with regard to genealogies was to contract them; and it is quite possible that in all the recorded genealogies of this period, except that of Joshua (1 Chr. vii. 22-27), there are omissions. 'l'he number of generations in the genealogy of Joshua is ten, an amount very much more consonant with the period of 430 than with that of 215 years; and this number we are bound to accept as historical, since there could be no possible reason why the writer of Chronicles should have invented it; so that, on the whole, the argument to be drawn from the Scriptural genealogies is rather in favour of the long period than against it. It is the Oriental practice to call any male descendant a son, any female descendant a daughter; 2 it is the Jewish practice to contract genealogies by means of omissions; 3 it is unheard-of to expand a genealogy by thrusting in un- historical names: there must consequently have been ten generations from Joseph to Joshua. Ten generations would certainly, at this period of Jewish history, represent 400 years, and might easily cover 430, giving an average 9f forty-three years to a generation, instead. of the thirty-three years of later times. 4 With respect to St. Paul's estimate (Gal. iii. 17), it would simply show that, in writing to Greek-speaking Jews, whose only Bible was the Septuagint version, he made use of that translation. It would not even prove his own opinion upon the point, since the chronological question is not pertinent to his argument, and, whatever he may have thought upon it, he would certainly not have obtruded upon his Galatian disciples a wholly irrelevant discussion. In favour of the longer term the great argument is the general one, that 1 Colenso"s statement is correct-" Now supposing that Koha.th was only an infant, when
brought down by his father to Egypt with Jacob, and that he begat Am.ram at the very end of his life, when 133 years old, and that Am.ram, in like manner, begat Moses when ~e was 137 years old, still these two numbel'6 added to eighty years, the age of Moses at the tune of the Exodus, would only amount to 350 years, instead of 430 " (' The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua.,' Part I., p. 92). • No one would suppose that" a daughter of Levi" in Ex, ii. 1 meant more than a female descendant of Levi; yet when exactly the same phrase is used of the same pel'6on in Nwn. xxvi :,l:J, it has been argued that an e.ctual daughter must be intended. 3 In the genealogy of Ezra (Ezr. vii. 1-!I) at least seven nam_es are omitted i. in that of our Lord (Matt. i. 2-16) at Ieas.t _three, probably more. A_ compar~o~ of 1 Chr. 1x. 4-19 with N"ehem. xi. 4-22, gives additional evidence of the/ractice of oJWSs1on. • Herod. ii. 142--yEv<11l ..-oe,s 411?pii111 l,c11..-011 l..-. lun. Compare Clem Alex 'Strom.' i. 21, p 145 IN'£RODUCTION. xix
tho Hobrow text is to be taken as the true original unless it contains internal signs of imperfection, and that here there are no such signR. On the other hand, there are signs that the Septuagint and Samaritan texts are interpolated-viz. first, their variations; 1 and secondly, the fact that the length of the sojourn in Egypt is alone naturally before the writer's minrl at this point of his narrative. A further argument is furnished by Gen. xv. 13-16, where the term of the Egyptian sojourn is prophetically given (in round numbers) as 400 years; a passage quoted by St. Stephen (ActR vii. 6), who clearly regards the prophecy as fulfilled. It has been argued that "the 400 years is meant to refer to the time during which the ' seed of Abraham' should be sojourners in a strange land," rather than to the time during which they should suffer oppression, and so, that the sojourn in Canaan is included; 2 but this exposition, which is admitted to be con- trary to the apparent sense, 3 cannot possibly be allowed, since Gen. xv. 13-16 speaks of one land and one nation-a nation which should "afflict" them, and which they should "serve," and which at the end of the 400 years should be" judged! "-whereas the Canaanites did not" afflict" them, for quarrels about wells (Gen. xxvi. 15-21) are not an" affliction" in the language of Scripture,4 and certainly they did not "serve" the Canaanites- neither could it possibly be of the Canaanites that it is said, "That nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge, and afterward shall they come out with great substance" (Gen. xv. 14). Finally, the long term is most consonant alike with the estimate formed of the entire number of the grown males at the time of the Exodus (600,000, Ex. xii. 37), and with the details given of particular families in the Book of Numbers, as especially those of the families of the Levites, in eh. iii. 21-39. If, upon these grounds, the longer term of 430 years for the sojourn in Egypt be preferred to the shorter term of 215 years, the details of the chronology must be arranged as follows : 6- Years. From the descent of Jacob into Egypt to the death of Joseph . 71 death of Joseph to the birth of Moses 278 birth of Moses to his flight into Midian . 40 flight of Moses into Midian to his return to Egypt 40 return of Moses to the Exodus I 430
It is a different, and a much more intricate, question, how the chronology of this period is to be attached to the general chronology of mundane 1 See above, p. xvii.
• Colenso, 'The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua,' Part l, p. 94. • Ibid. • Note the constant use of the terms" affliction" and "afflict" with reference to Egypt in the Pcntntench (Gen. xii. 52; Ex. i. 11, 12; iii. 7, 17; iv. 31; Dent. xxvi. 6, 7). They are never used in reference to nny suffering the Israelites may have undergone in Cana.an • See Keil and Delitzsch, ' Commentary on the Old Testanient,' vol. i. p. 4H, E. T ; and Kalisch, ' Comment on Exodus,' Introduction, pp xi.-xiii c--:.! XX INTRODUCTION.