Feb.4] SOCIETYOF BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. [189aThelatestpropositionis that put before us to-night by M. de
Bunsen, which, likethat of Mr. Schwartz, is mainly based on
chronology, but whichsuggests Amenhotep I as the king of the
Exodusinsteadof Tahutmes III, and 1563 b.c. as the date instead
of 1438. Theauthoradmits thatthe truth of his theory depends
on the correctness of the following assumptions:—Firstly, that
2360 b.c. was the year of the deluge. As M. de Bunsen placesthe
delugein the middle of his Egyptian chronology,I suppose he con
sidersit to have beena limited andcomparativelysmallone,but if
it were so, the Hebrew accountsof it are so far erroneous as to
the facts, thatwe cannot placeany reliance on the number of years
or generations which they state to have elapsedbetween it and
Abraham, since facts are much more likely to be handed down
correctlythanfigures. Secondly,that 928 b.c. was the year of the
captureof Jerusalem by Shishak, in the seventh yearof his sole
reign,or the 20th fromhis association withPisemkeb; the capture
of Jerusalem by Shishak was, however,placedin his 14th yearby
Mr. Bosanquet, whosaidthe date was 949 B.C., and by Mr Schwartz,
whosaysit was 924 B.C. ; either of these dates maybe right, or all
may be wrong, for anything I can now say to the contrary, but
M. de Bunsen's assumptionwill evidentlynot be allowed to pass
unchallenged,especiallysincehe admits thatit is based on vague
statementsin the Septuagint thatRehoboambecamekingtwo years
afterthe death of Solomon. Thirdly,thatthe regnal yearsof the
Pharaohshavebeentransmittedwithabsoluteaccuracyby Manelho;
in this matter the lists of Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and
Syncellus not onlydiffer from eachother, but their totals,when
givenseparately,do not agree withthe additions of their ownlists,
andM. de Bunsen himselfappearsto differ fromall of them. These
threeassumptions, whichM. de Bunsen admitsto be essential to
his theory, certainlymakea large drafton our powers of belief; but
he says thatall objections to them fall to the ground because,if his
dateof 928 b.c.be the right onefor the capture of Jerusalem by
Shishak, a period of 390 years, concerningwhich Ezekielhad a
revelation, wouldevidentlyrun from 928 to 538 B.C.,the date of
Cyrus' edict. I cannot think that Ezekiel's vision referred to
Shishak'ssiegeat all, but, if it did, thereis still anotherperiodof
fortyyearsmentionedby the prophet in the same chapter,of which
M. de Bunsen takesno notice, but which he ought to account for in
someway. Whenwe turn fromthesechronologicalassumptionsto
170