round and sacred number.

The 33|rd years also of the Egyptian generations, accord-

ing to Herodotus (ii. 142), was rather a subdivision of the

century than a calculation of the real succession of genera-

');
}
elseif (getClientWidth() > 430)
{
document.write('');
}
else
{
document.write('');
}
//-->

tions. The longest series, from which we could obtain a

mean number, are the series of kings. But we can obtain no

scale even from them. The kings of Judah only reigned on

an average nineteen years, those of Israel only twelve years.

Successions of reigns are, however, always shorter than

generations, and in J udah seven out of twenty kings were

killed, or expelled ; in Israel, fully half out of twenty. We

shall therefore approach much nearer the truth if we adopt

the Greek acceptation^ of thirty years for a generation, in

which we only follow most of the modern scholars.

Admitting this, ten or eleven generations would amount

to 300 or 330 years, and if we place Solomon about the year

1000, the genealogies would lead us to 1300 or 1330 years

before Christ, which most perfectly agrees with our earlier

results, since, according to Manetho, we believe we ought to

place MenepJithes 132Sā 1309. The Ballinical date of the

Exodus is B.C. 1314, exactly between 1300 and 1330, upon

which of course no more importance is to be laid than is

allowable by the indeterminate factors of the calculation. At

any rate the whole discussion leads to this, that i\\e genealogies,

the only trustworthy although less exact chronological thread

of those Hebrew times, speak as decidedly against the calcu-

lation hitherto adopted of 4S0 years, as in favour of our

calculation of, about, 300 years. This agreement appears to

me of the greatest importance in judgmg both the Eg}-ptian

as well as the Jewish history.

But if, finally, we look at the numbers in the Book of

Judges, we have already seen that, according to the usual

; According to Eratosthenes, Apollodor, Diodor. &c.: see Larcher,

Herod, torn. vii. p. 51, 53, 68, 395, 397.

DATE OF TILE EXODUS. 171

modt' of reckoning, they arc by no means found to agreo

immediately with any other chronological acceptation ; still

the dironological character of many separate numbers cannot

be misitaken, and we may at least expect that, from our point

of view also, a simple solution nuist present itself, ^vhich

would release the statements of numbers in the Book of

Judges from the contradictions in which, as hitherto inter-

preted, they have stood ^^-ith the ^lanethonic chronology.

Buusen^ gives us a survey of this period. He compares

the " Time of Foreign Rule and Anarchy" with the " Time

of the Judges and of Peace." For the former he puts

3 J* -f 111 years, for the latter, including the monarchical

time to the building of the Temple, 4 x -f 4-i2 years. He consi-

ders the first, less historical than the last (p. 212), and supposes

tliat the number 4S0 is perhaps formed out of the latter 412.

At all events, he believes we must start from this number.

But I should prefer an entirely different combination, which

promises to lead sooner to a result. If we place the un-

certain and round numbers upon one side, and the remain-

ing on the other side, we shall obtain the following survey* :

' Arq. i. p. 209ā214. (Tr. vol. i. p. 1G6ā 171.)

- Two points may, poriiaps, strike the reader in the survey of the

tlirfirent statements of numbers given here from the Book of Judges,

u\xm which I will subjoin what follows in explanation. I have placc