despair, Jehovah as the covenant-God of Israel comes forth in the full glory of His name. With this new significance which He gives to His name, He repeats previous promises (Exod. iii. 8-15) and assures the redemption of the people by great miracles and judgments, and their admission into a peculiar covenant relation. That the first general account anticipates some particulars of the second transaction is not an argument against it.

In view of the totality of the Mosaic legislation the fundamental law asserts itself, that as already mentioned, the essential parts are in the highest degree interdependent. Moses, as the author of the decalogue only, would no longer be Moses; but a system of offerings which was not founded upon this ethical basis, would seem to be an institution of sorcery. The preparations recorded in the book of Numbers, without these conditions precedent, would have to be regarded as measures for a conquest of the world by war. The proof of this compact organism of the Pentateuch is the complete interdependence of the separate parts.

For the sources of the Pentateuch, especially of these three books, see BLEEK, Introd. to Old Test. The various views, see in "Uebersicht der verschiedenen Vorstellungen über Ursprung und Zusammensetzung des Pentateuchs," page 172. According to EWALD, the Mosaic sources are difficult to disentangle. The defenders of a single authorship are indicated in HARTWIG'S Tabellen, pp. 28, 29. Comp. BUNSEN's Bibelwerk, 2 Abtheilung, Bibelurkunden, p. 108.

8. HISTORICAL FOUNDATION OF THE THREE BOOKS.

The Range of this History.

CHRONOLOGY.-In these books of the Pentateuch we have narrated the history of the birth of the people of Israel up to its complete development as a nation. As the typical history of the people of God, it is a miniature of the birth of Christianity. The course of the history begins with the theocratically noble origin of the people, and continues until they behold their inheritance, the promised land. Betwixt these is the history of an obscure embryonic condition, in which they gradually become a people, though at the same time they sink deeper and deeper into slavery, and of a birth as a nation in the midst of severe pangs, by which redemption is accomplished, and whieh is then confirmed by the discipline of the law and God's guidance of them through the desert, where the old generation dies away and a new generation grows up.

The narrative is joined to Genesis by the recapitulation of the settlement of Israel in Egypt, and of the death of Joseph, and continues to the time of the encampment in the plain of Moab, shortly before the death of Moses. According to Exod. xii. 40, the Israelites dwelt in Egypt four hundred and thirty years. To this must be added the sojourn in the desert, forty years (Numb. xiv. 33; xxxii. 13). The whole period of this history is therefore four hundred and seventy years. But out of this long period only a few special points are marked. The origin of the people dates from the death of Joseph to the commencement of the oppression. Of this interval we learn nothing. It is a period covered with a veil like that which covered the birth of Christianity from the close of the Pauline epistles to the great persecutions of the second century.

The duration of Israel's oppression cannot be accurately defined; it began at an unknown date, which preceded the birth of Moses and continued till his mission to Pharaoh. Then Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron was eighty-three years old (Exod. vii. 7). To this must be added the forty years of the march in the desert (besides the period in which Egyptian plagues occurred), and accordingly Moses at his death was one hundred and twenty years old (Deut. xxxiv. 7). That Moses was forty years old when he fled into the wilderness, and then lived in the wilderness forty years with Jethro (Acts vii. 23-30) is the statement of Jewish tradition. See Comm., 1. c.

The undefined period of the Egyptian plagues, which from their connection followed one another quickly, is terminated by the date of the exodus. The period from the departure from Egypt to Sinai, and from Sinai through the desert to Kadesh, is clearly marked. Departure on the 14th (15th) Abib or Nisan (Exod. xii. 17); arrival at Sinai in the third month (Exod. xix. 1); departure from Sinai on the 20th day of the 2d month of the 2d year (Numb.

x. 11); arrival at Kadesh Barnea in the wilderness of Paran in the 2d year (the spies' forty days, Numb. xiv. 34); abode at Kadesh (Numb. xxi. 1; Deut. i. 46) to the arrival at the East bank of the Jordan thirty-eight years. In the fortieth year of the exodus they came to Mount Hor, where Aaron died on the first day of the fifth month (Numb. xxxiii. 38). On the first day of the eleventh month of the fortieth year, Moses delivered his parting words to Israel (Deut. i. 3).

Goethe was therefore right when he said that Israel might have reached Canaan in two years. But he did not understand God's chastisement, nor, we may add, the human sagacity of Moses, which together occasioned a delay of thirty-eight years. And so Goethe's denial of Moses' talent as a ruler is a proof that he utterly misunderstood the exalted and sanctified worldly wisdom of Moses. But quite in accord with Goethe the Israelites, against the will of Moses, did make an attempt to take possession of Canaan (Numb. xiv. 40).

The endeavor to fill up the obscure interval between the death of Joseph and the history of Moses by the supposition of revelations proceeds from the idea that Old Testament revelation must be made continuous, agreeing with the continuity of the biblical books. But this would obliterate the distinction between periods and epochs made in Old Testament history, as well as the peculiar import of revelation at chosen times. It is only through a perception of the spiritual rhythm in the history of the kingdom of God (of the distinction between the xpóvo, in which a thousand years are as one day, and the kapot, in which a day is as a thousand years) that we reach an understanding of the great crises of revelation. SCHILLER'S words: "es gibt im Menschenleben Augenblicke," etc., may be paraphrased thus: there are moments in human life when it is nearer than at other times to the spirit of revelation, to eternity, to the other world. Concerning the strictures of DE WETTE, VATKE, and BRUNO BAUER on the "great chasm" in the chronology, see KURTZ's Hist. of Old Covenant, Vol. II., p. 21. Yet in that obscure interval came forth the special significance of the name Jehovah as already mentioned.

On making the length of the sojourn in Egypt four hundred and thirty years, see this Comm. on Gen. xv. 13. This Comm. on Gen. xiii. DELITZSCH, Gen., p. 371. This Comm. Acts vii. In relation to the various readings in the Septuagint, Samaritan Codex, and in Jonathan (the sojourn in Egypt 430-215 years), see KURTZ, Hist. of the Old Covenant, Vol. II., p. 135, as well as concerning the statement of Paul (Gal. iii.), which KURTZ explains by his citation of the Septuagint, while we date from the end of the time of promise. The objections which are made to the chronology of the Septuagint see examined in KURTZ as above. On the amazing conjectures of BAUMGARTEN, see KURTZ, Vol. II., p. 143. According to BUNSEN, the limit of the sojourn in Egypt is too short; according to Lepsius it was only ninety years.

We compute as follows: the whole sojourn was four hundred and thirty years. The thirty years were not counted because the oppression did not immediately begin; therefore four hundred years of oppression. But as the four hundred and thirty years (Gal. iii.) are apparently counted from Abraham, it would appear that the period in which the promises were made to Abraham and the patriarchs ended with the death of Jacob.

Egypt.

For the description of this land, where the Israelites became a nation, we must refer the reader to the literature of the subject, particularly to the articles on Egypt in WINER'S Bibl. Realwörterbuch; ZELLER's Bibl. Wörterbuch (Egypt); HERZOG's Real-Encyclopädie; BUNSEN, Egypt's Place in History; HENGSTENBERG, Egypt and the Books of Moses, with Appendix, Berlin, 1841; UHLEMANN, Thoth, oder die Wissenschaften der alten Egypter, Göttingen, 1855; EBERS, Egypten und die Bücher Moses', Vol. I., Leipzig, 1868; BRUGSCH, Reiseberichte aus Egypten, Leipzig, 1855; BRUGSCH, Die Egyptische Gräbervelt, ein Vortrag, Leipzig. 1868; SAM. SHARPE, History of Egypt, 2 Vols., London, 1870; A. KNOETEL, Cheops, der Pyramidenerbauer, Leipzig, 1861; Travels, SCHUBERT [see also the maps in the Ordnance Survey under direction of Sir Henry James, F. R. S.], STRAUSS, Sinai und Golgotha, etc. See the bibliog

raphy of the subject in KURTZ, Hist. of the Old Covenant, Vol. II., p. 380. Also in DANZ, 1gypt, Egyptians.

For a sound knowledge of the history of Israel in Egypt one must consult the maps, etc. Kiepert, Atlas der alten Welt; Henry Lange, Bible-atlas in Bunsen's Bibelwerk; Chart and Conspectus of the written characters in BRUGSCH. Reiseberichte. LONG's Classical Atlas, New York, 1867.

God's providential arrangement that Israel should become a nation in Egypt is shown by the following plain proofs:

1. The people must prosper in that foreign land, and yet not feel at home. This was brought about, first, by a government which knew Joseph, that is, by national gratitude; then by a government which knew not, or did not wish to know Joseph, and which made the sojourn in Egypt very oppressive to the people.

2. The rapid growth of the people was favored by the great fertility of Egypt, which not only supplied abundant food, especially to a pastoral people living by themselves, but also revealed its blessing in the number of births.

3. A people who were to be educated to a complete understanding of the great antithesis between the blessing and the curse in divine providence could be taught in Egypt better than elsewhere to know the calamities attendant upon the curse. Here too were found the natural prerequisites for the extraordinary plagues which were to bring about the redemption of the people from slavery.

4. The capacity of Israel, to receive in faith the revelations of salvation and to manifest them to the world, needed as a stimulus of its development, contact and attrition with the various civilized nations (Egypt, Syria, Assyria, Phoenicia, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome). The first contact was pre-eminently important; by it the people of faith were prepared by an intercourse during centuries with the oldest civilized nation. Their lawgiver was educated in all the wisdom of Egypt, and the conditions of culture for the development of the religion of promise as a religion of law, the knowledge of writing, education in art, possession of property, etc., formed a great school of instruction for the people of Israel. The external culture of the theocracy and the Grecian culture of aesthetics grew from the same stock in Egypt.

5. And yet the national as well as the spiritual commingling of the people with Egypt must be precluded. The people were preserved from a national commingling by the antipathy between the higher Egyptian castes and that of shepherds, and by Israel's separate abode in Goshen, as well as by the gloomy, reserved character of the Copts and by the constantly increasing jealousy and antagonism of the Egyptians. The spiritual commingling was obviated by the degradation of the Egyptian worship of animals and the gloominess of their worship of the dead to a people who had preserved though but an obscure tradition of monotheistic worship of God. That the people were not altogether free from the infection of Egyptian leaven is shown by the history of the golden calf; yet this infection was in some degree refined by a knowledge of the symbolic interpretations held by the more cultured classes of Egypt, for the golden calf was intended to be regarded as a symbol, not as an idol, as was the case in later times among the ten tribes.

Israel in Egypt, the Hyksos, Pharaoh.

The date when the Israelites settled in Egypt has been, in earlier and later times, variously given, and with this indefiniteness of times has been joined the relation of Israel to the Hyksos mentioned by the Egyptian historians, who migrated into Egypt, and were afterwards driven out.

For the Biblical Chronology we refer to the exhaustive article by ROESCH in HERZOG'S Real-Encyclopädie. "Among chronologists who accept the scriptural accounts SCALIGER, CALVISIUS and JACOB CAPPEL place the exodus in 1497, PETAVIUS in 1531, MARSHAM in 1487, USHER in 1491," etc. DE WETTE makes the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt to be from 1921 to 1491 B. C. (Biblische Archäologie, p. 28). Various computations are found in the treatises, Biblische Chronologie, Tübingen, 1857; BECKER, Eine Karte der Chronologie

der Heiligen Schrift, Leipzig, 1859; V. GUTSCHMID, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alten Orients zur Würdigung von Bunsen's Egypten, Bd. 4 and 5. The chronology of MANETHO is exhaustively treated by UNGER, Chronologie des Manetho, Berlin, 1867.

Some chronologists of the present day by the combination of Egyptian traditions have arrived at results very different from the above. According to LEPSIUS (see KURTZ, Vol. II. 409), the Hyksos came into Egypt as conquerors about the year 2100 B. C., and after a sojourn of five hundred and eleven years were driven back to Syria. "After this about two hundred years pass away before the immigration of the Israelites into Egypt, which, as well as their exodus about a hundred years after, took place under the nineteenth dynasty." Sethos I. (1445-1394, by the Greeks called Sesostris) was the Pharaoh under whom Joseph came to Egypt: his son Ramses II., Miamun the Great (1394-1328), was the king at whose court Moses was brought up; and his son, Menephthes (1328-1309), the Amenophis of Josephus, was the Pharaoh of the exodus, which took place in the year 1314. See the remarks by KURTZ and this Comm., Introd. to Genesis.

According to BUNSEN (Bibelwerk, Bibelurkunden Theil I., 111), the Israelites lived in Egypt many hundred years before their enslavement. Then a few centuries more passed until the oppression culminated under Ramses II., and under King Menophthah (1324–1305) the exodus took place. Here Biblical Chronology is made entirely dependent on conjectures in Egyptology. It does not speak well for the infallibility of the research, that one requires only ninety years, the other about nine hundred years, for the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt.

In this connection the following questions are to be considered:

1. What is the solution of the difference between the four hundred and thirty years as given in Exodus and the period shortened by the two hundred and fifteen years of the patriarchs, as given by the Septuagint and the Samaritan codex?

2. What is the solution of the statement of the Bible that the building of Solomon's temple was begun four hundred and eighty years after the exodus of the children of Israel out of Egypt (1 Kings vi. 1)?

3. What relation does the history of the Israelites bear to the account by MANETHO of the Hyksos and the lepers?

As to the first question, we refer to the explanation in this Comm., Genesis xv. 14. Comp. KURTZ, Vol. II., p. 133. As to the second question, see this Comm.; The Books of Kings by BAEHR, 1 Kings vi. 1. The reconciliation of this statement with other chronological statements of the Bible is found, first, in the view that many of the periods mentioned in the Book of Judges are to be regarded as contemporaneous; second, in the indefiniteness of the four hundred and fifty years of the judges (Acts xiii. 20).

The third question has become the subject of various learned conjectures. The account of MANETHO concerning the expulsion of the Hyksos and the lepers from Egypt seems hitherto to have obscured rather than illustrated the history of Israel in Egypt. According to the first account of the Egyptian priest MANETHO (JOSEPHUS, c. Apion I. 14), people from eastern lands invaded Egypt under King Timaus, conquered the land and its princes, and ruled five hundred and eleven years. They were called Hyksos, that is, shepherd-kings. At the end of this period they were overcome by a native king, and finally having capitulated, were driven out of their fortress, Avaris, by the king's son Thummosis. They then retreated through the desert to Syria, settled in Judea, and there built a city (Hierosolyma) which could hold their entire host (240,000 persons). JOSEPHUS referred this tradition to the exodus of the Israelites.

The second account of MANETHO tells of an expulsion of the lepers (c. Apion, I. 26). Amenophis, an imaginary king, desired to see the gods. He was commanded by another Amenophis first to clear the country of all lepers. From all Egypt he collected them, eighty thousand in number. The king sent them first into the eastern quarries, later into the city Avaris, where the Hyksos were said to have entrenched themselves. A priest from Heliopolis, chosen by them, taught them customs which were opposed to those of the Egyptians. Then he called the Hyksos from Jerusalem tó a united struggle against the Egyptians. King

Amenophis marched against the united forces with 300,000 men. But fearing the gods, he retired to Ethiopia, while the enemy committed the greatest atrocities in Egypt. The priest (Osarsiph) who led the lepers, now called himself Moses. After thirteen years Amenophis came with Ethiopian confederates, defeated the shepherds and the lepers, and pursued them to the Syrian boundary (see the full account in Kurtz, v. 2, pp. 380-429).

These utterly fabulous stories are well fitted as a stage for the higher learning. According to Josephus and many others, the Hyksos were the Israelites, according to others the Hyksos lived with the Israelites, and if so, according to one view, they were the protectors and defenders of Israel, according to an opposite view, they were the oppressors of Israel (Kurtz, vol. 2, p. 380). According to Lepsius, the Hyksos were expelled two hundred years before the immigration of the Israelites. According to Saalschütz, the destruction of Pharaoh in the Red Sea, and the destruction of the dynasty of the Hyksos, occurred at the same time; but the expulsion of the Hyksos took place later.

In a careful consideration of the stories of Manetho great difficulties arise against every conjecture. If the Hyksos left Egypt for Jerusalem before the Jews, then history must show some trace that the Jews in their march through the wilderness to Palestine came upon this powerful people who preceded them in migration. If the Hyksos left Egypt after the Israelites, then the Hyksos in their journey to Jerusalem must have met with the Israelites. Finally, if these pastoral people were together in Egypt, the shepherd-kings could not have preserved an entire separation from the Jewish shepherds. KURTZ supposes that the Hyksos were Canaanites, and the immigration of Israel took place under their supremacy. He also finds in the legend of the lepers a reference to the Israelites, a view which requires some modification, if Manetho's connecting the lepers with the Hyksos points to the Mosaic account that a mixed multitude joined themselves to the departing Israelites.

HENGSTENBERG, in his work "Egypt and the Books of Moses," with an appendix, "Manetho and the Hyksos," opposes the prevailing view that Manetho was the chief of the priesthood in Heliopolis, the most learned in Egypt, and wrote the history of Egypt by order of king Ptolemy Philadelphus, using the works which were found in the temple. His reasons are the following: evidences of striking ignorance of Egyptian mythology, of geography, etc., remarkable agreement of his account of the Jews with the statements of writers like Chæremon, Lysimachus, Apion, Apollonius Molo, all of whom lived under the Roman empire. There are no other witnesses who corroborate his statements. Manetho was a forger of later times, like Pseudo-Aristeas. In later times there was a large number of Jews who cast off their nationality, only retaining the national pride and antipathies, of whom Apion was an example. Accordingly HENGSTENBERG holds the view, "that the Hyksos were no other than the Israelites, that no ancient Egyptian originals formed the basis of MANETHO'S accounts, but that the history preserved by the Jews was transformed to suit Egyptian national vanity."

If we grant the statements concerning the historical character of MANETHO it is still possible that there arose in Egypt false traditions of the sojourn of the Israelites and of their exodus. It is easily conceivable that the national pride of the Egyptians did not perpetuate this history, as it really was, on their monuments: and it is just as conceivable that the unpleasant tradition of this history was transformed in accordance with Egyptian interests and with different points of view. The legend of the Hyksos intimates the origin, mode of life, and power of the Israelites, that by them great distress came upon Egypt, and that they went away to Canaan and founded Jerusalem, while the legend of the lepers, to please Egyptian pride and hatred, has made of the same history a fable. The names Avaris and Hierosolym", as well as other marks, prove that these two legends are very closely connected. A. KNOETEL in his treatise "Cheops" presents a peculiar construction of Egyptian history, which proceeds upon the supposition of the untrustworthiness of MANETHO. That the shepherd kings came from Babylon, and imposed upon the Copts the building of the pyramids and the worship of the dead, is a surprising statement in a work showing great research.

That an intimate acquaintance with Egypt is shown in the Pentateuch, is proved by HENGSTENBERG with great learning in the work quoted above. He has also manifested undeniable impartiality, as his departures from the orthodox traditions prove in his history of