Feb.4] SOCIETYOF BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. [1890.cessorHorus,whohad been a "beholder of the gods," was Horem-
hebi,the last king of the XVIIIth dynasty. He analysed the genea
logiesof the Old Testament, and endeavoured to prove thatonlyten
or eleven generations,equalto about threehundred years,elapsed
betweenthe Exodus andthe building of the temple, insteadof four
hundredand eighty years,as stated in 1 Kings; and, followingthe
same method, allowed only three generations, or ninety years,
betweenthe entrance of Jacob intoEgyptandthe Exodus, andonly
one hundred and eighty,or at most twohundredandfifteenyears,
fromAbramto Moses. All this seems veryconsistent andconvin
cingat first sight,but on second thoughtssome difficultiespresent
themselves. If the descendants of Jacob wereonlyninetyyearsor
so in Egypt, theymust eitherhaveformed but a very insignificant
partof the multitude whowentout and afterwardsformedthe king
domsof Judah and Israel,or, if those who went out were,as has
alwaysbeen believed,chieflythe descendants of Jacob, the Exodus
musthavebeensucha trifling affairthatthe absence of any mention
of it in Egyptian inscriptionscan no longer surpriseus. Lepsius
wouldprobablyselect the former alternative, butit seems to me
mostreasonableto suppose thatwe have onlyfragmentary genea
logies,andthatsomeof the generations havebeen omitted. The
identificationof Horus, the "beholder of the gods," withHoremhebi
is not conclusive ; the seventh kingof the Vth dynasty(Mencheres
of Manetho) is called Hormenka in the Turin papyrusand the
AbydosandSaqqarahlists,and the names of some otherunplaced
kingsbeginwith Hor,and as the "beholding of the gods" must
havebeena mythical event,it is most likelyto have beenattributed
to some Horor Horus muchmoreremote from Mer-en-ptah than
wasHoremhebi.
The strongest argument in favour of Mer-en-ptah and not
Tahutmesbeingthe Pharaoh of the Exodus, is that no mention of
the Hebrews occursin the account of the wars of Ramessu II in
Syria,and that no mention of the Egyptian invasionof that country
occursin the Jewish annals, from which it is inferred that the
Hebrewswere not then settledin Judea, and could not therefore
haveleft Egypt so early as the reign of Tahutmes II or III.
Thisobjection applies to the second theory which I have to
notice; that, namely, of Mr. Basil Cooper, who fixed upon
TahutmesII as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, andupon 15 15 b.c. as
its date. TheonlyreasonI can find given for his doing so is that he
168