245

INTRODUCTION.

I.

SURVEY OF THE HEBREW SYNCHRONISMS GENERALLY.

THERE is still in the court of the Palace of Karnak a representation either of the son of Solomon himself, with the tablet on his breast, or of a Jewish figure typifying him, which forms part of the triumphal procession of Sheshonk. The knotty point in the later Jewish synchronisms, the chronology of the Assyrian and Babylonian wars, has been already partially solved when treating of those subjects. As regards Jewish research, the date of their commencement cannot be accurately determined without a previous determination of the date of the commencement of the kingdom. As this depends upon the length of the so-called period of the Judges (the republic of the tribes); so, again, is the definition. of that period dependent upon the century, and, if possible, the very year in which the Exodus took place.

The next synchronism which presents itself to our notice in the ascending line is the fifth year of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, and the reign of the chief of the 22nd Dynasty, Sesak or Sheshonk. With our present knowledge of the history of these times this synchronism offers no further difficulty. Even those who despise Egyptology have at last been obliged to admit that Rehoboam is the personage depicted at Karnak as the representative of Judah among the prisoners of Sheshonk.

Our inquiries therefore must necessarily commence

with an event of such signal importance to history in general as the Exodus. We think it is already proved that the Egyptian traditions and monuments will not admit of our placing it earlier than the reign of Menephthah, the son of the Great Ramesses. Upon this assumption, one of the dates of the period of bondage (215 years), based upon biblical data, is explained almost to a year, and the statement relative to the king "who knew not Joseph" likewise becomes perfectly intelligible.

We will now proceed to follow out those researches which have been touched upon above, down to the close of the kingdom of Israel.

We shall then go gradually backwards to the two great historical personages in the early history of the Israelites, or the days of the patriarchs Joseph and Abraham, that is, to the immigration of the Hebrews into Lower Egypt under Jacob and his sons, and previously into Canaan under Abraham.

This latter, the most remote synchronistic point, can likewise be satisfactorily established by the Egyptian annals, upon our assumption of the length of the Hyksos period. Those who have followed us in our Egyptian calculations are aware that the historical character of Abraham can thus, for the first time, be demonstrated, and his chronological position in the history of the world be approximatively determined.

Even if some of the details should be capable of a different and a better explanation, the earlier Jewish history can only be properly admitted within the pale of World-history through the restoration of Egyptian chronology. This is a fact which nothing will be able to gainsay.

II.

RETROSPECT OF THE NOTICES AS TO THE LENGTH OF THE PERIOD FROM THE EXODUS TO THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE.

IT cannot be within the province of the critic to prove from Hebrew tradition that the interval from the Exodus to the building of the Temple was between 306 and 310 years.

For it is a settled point that that tradition, as it stands, contains no chronology whatever; it would consequently be absurd to endeavour to prove any thing out of it. The critic, nevertheless, may naturally ask two questions:

First: If the Egyptian monuments and chronologies

show that the Exodus must have taken place from 310 to 320 years before the building of the Temple, how are we to account for that same tradition making the interval extend to 440, 480, 593, and even 722 years?

And secondly: Whether the events in the history of Asia or Egypt, so far as known to us at present, are more favourable to our assumption or to any other?

Supposing no satisfactory answer could be given to these questions, the position of the critic would remain just where it is. It would not render the chronology a whit more uncertain, or impair in the slightest degree our respect for the Sacred Books. Chronology is foreign to their purpose and vocation. They relate exactly what tradition or later research enabled their authors to discover in regard to the ancient times. But if a satisfactory explanation could be arrived at, such a result would tell in favour both of Egyptian and Hebrew tradition.

Since my preliminary criticism of Jewish chronology was published, several plans have been proposed for computing the length of this period. One of them is based upon the registers of generations and lists of the high priests. We will first of all test the latter of these, premising, however, that we have always had more hope of getting a clue to the correct chronology by means of the historical narratives themselves. The Book of Joshua, as well as the Book of Judges, contains fragments of the most ancient traditions which have been incorporated into the new version (itself an ancient one), which accounts have been faithfully preserved.

As regards the registers of generations, which we have mentioned as one of the elements of biblical chronology, that of the children of Levi and Aaron (1 Chron. vi.), which is connected with the lists of the high priests, undoubtedly bears the palm over all the rest. These and all the others have been very ably sifted by Lepsius, who has drawn from them conclusions from which, as regards the pre-Aaronic times, we entirely differ, and which can only be adopted with certain limitations as regards the subsequent period. The eleven generations from Aaron to Zadok cannot represent a period of 400 still less 600 years. Supposing them to be complete, they cannot represent the series of high priests, which is no where found in the Bible, unless that office were hereditary in one line by the right of primogeniture. It lasted, without doubt, till the Babylonish captivity in the house of Aaron, as much as possible upon the principle of primogeniture, in one or other of the lines of Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron. A list of the high priests would consequently be a certain measure of the chronology of those times in a general sense, if we could venture to assume that the one which was afterwards adopted by the Jews-from which Josephus and Seder Olam copied them-had any historical warranty. But

how can we believe this when the Chronicles themselves, the latest historical work in the Jewish canon, which carefully record, as far as possible, every thing connected with the priesthood, make no mention of it? Added to which, there are instances, beyond all cavil, of the office of high priest being at that time administered rather in a collegiate form, as will shortly appear in greater detail. It is singular that this list squares as little with the hypothesis of a period of from 440 to 600 years, as do the registers of generations, whereas it accords perfectly with our hypothesis. It may, perhaps, be admitted that the sacred breastplate of the high priest, as well as the tabernacle, the service of which was inseparably combined with it, lasted, without a break, through the stormy times of the Judges. This is implied by the mention of these priests at the tabernacle, which of course is merely a casual remark, and, as Hengstenberg rightly observes, no impartial critic will doubt the fact.144 Assuming, then, the existence of such a succession, it may be considered as equivalent in those times to a series of generations, just as much so as a succession of hereditary kings. It is true that a high priest was liable to be deprived of his office, but in other respects he was subject to much fewer vicissitudes than a king or a captain of the host. It is clear that the succession by primogeniture was not practicable in all cases. A child or a boy might become king, but not high priest. Under these circumstances the office passed to the nephew, of which there are instances on record. In the time of Saul, David, and Solomon, there were always two appointed conjointly, the high priest proper, and probably his deputy or substitute. There are also instances in those times of their being deprived of their offices. Saul caused Ahimelech, the son of

144 Pentateuch ii. 74. Comp. Selden de Successione in Pontif. i. 10. p. 153., and other passages on the whole subject.