his host, his chariots and his horsemen. Accordingly, in Exod. xiv. 23 it is said, "The Egyptians pursued, and went in after them [the Hebrews] into the midst of the sea, every horse of Pharaoh and his chariot, and his horsemen, into the midst of the sea." It is true, indeed, that may

mean, all the horses of Pharaoh and all his chariots, viz. all those which belonged to his army. But is it not the natural implication here, that Pharaoh was at the head of his army and led them on? And when in Exod. xiv. 28 it is said, that of all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after the Israelites, there remained not so much as one of them, is not the natural implication here, that Pharaoh at the head of his army went into the sea, and perished along with them?

In the triumphal song of Moses and the Hebrews, recorded in Exod. xv., the implication in verses 4, 19, seems most naturally to be, that Pharaoh was joined with his army in the destruction to which they were subjected.

But still more does this appear, in Ps. cvi. 11, where it is said, "The waters covered their enemies [the Egyptians]; there was not one of them left." How could this well be said, if Pharaoh himself, the most powerful, unrelenting, and bitter enemy which they had, was still preserved alive, and permitted afterwards to make new conquests over his southern neighbors? This pasage M. Greppo has entirely overlooked.

In regard to Ps. cxxxvi. 15, the exegesis of our author is ingenious; but it will not bear the test of criticism. For example; in Exod. xiv. 27 it is said, "And the Lord overthrew the Egyptians, in the midst of the sea; where the Hebrew word answering to overthrew is from 2. But in Ps. cxxxvi. 15, the very same word is applied to Pharaoh and his host; "And he overthrew (~757) Pharaoh and his host. In both cases (which are exactly the same), the word means, he drave into (hineintreiben, Gesenius). Lord drave the Egyptians into the midst of the drave Pharaoh and his host into the midst of the not well see how Pharaoh escaped drowning. Accordingly, we find that such an occurrence is plainly recognized by Nehemiah ix. 10, 11, when, after mentioning Pharaoh, his servants, and his people, this distinguished man speaks of the

properly Now if the

sea, and also sea, we can

CC persecutors of the Hebrews as thrown into the deep, as a stone in the mighty waters."

As to any difficulties respecting chronology in this case, about which M. Greppo seems to be principally solicitous, it may be remarked, that the subject of ancient Egyptian chronology is yet very far from being so much cleared up, as to throw any real embarrassments in the way of Scripture facts. More light will give more satisfaction-as in the famous case of the zodiacs, so finely described in the last chapter of M. Greppo's book.

Besides the occasional references thus made in the Hebrew Scriptures to the catastrophe of Pharaoh, other accounts among ancient writers, even of heathen origin, seem to advert to the same occurrence. Thus in Eusebius' Præp. Evangelicæ, ix. 29, there is an extract from a tragic poem of an Sep.110, Alexandrine Jew, by the name of Ezekiel (of what age is uncertain, only that he probably lived before the commencement of the Christian era), in which this poet represents the Egyptians as exclaiming, "Already are they [the Hebrews] beyond the sea, and the huge wave comes roaring toward us. Let us fly toward our homes (cries every soldier as he sees this), for the hand of the Most High is with them. To them he affords aid; to us he brings destruction.-Then was the pass of the Red Sea overwhelmed with the waves, and the army was destroyed."

In Diodorus Siculus (Biblioth. III. 39), is a passage, which seems pretty plainly to be a vestige of tradition among the Greeks, respecting the extraordinary movement of the waters in the Red Sea. He is speaking of this sea, and of the Ichthyophagi on the borders of it, when he says; "With them is current a tradition, which has been preserved from ancient times (or from ancestors), that there was once a great ebb of the waters of the bay, the whole place becoming dry which presents a greenish appearance, the sea passing over to the opposite parts, so that dry land appeared at its bottom; but that the huge flood, returning again, restored the pass to its former condition." One can hardly fail to acknowledge here, vestiges of ancient history or report, in regard to the pass of the Hebrews through the Red Sea.

Justin also (Hist. xxxvI. 2), after relating a strange mixture of truth and error respecting the Hebrews, finally represents them as driven out of Egypt, because they had a leprous disease (scabies et vitiligo). He then states, that "by theft the Hebrews carried away the sacred things of the Egyptians; which the Egyptians seeking to reclaim by force of arms, were compelled to return home by reason of tempests." Plainly this, though sufficiently distorted, has a relation to the catastrophe related in the book of Exodus.

The reader who venerates the Scriptures, will not be uninterested in these brief notices, which serve to confirm the narrations that are contained in the books of Moses.

M. S.]

[ R. p. 141. ]

Chronology of the Septuagint and Samaritan copies of the Old Testament.

[In regard to the affirmation of M. Greppo, that neither the chronology of the Hebrew and Vulgate, nor that of the Septuagint, nor of the Samaritan, is to be considered as true; if this be the case, it will be difficult to see of what avail will be, "the entire liberty which the Church has given to every individual to chose which he pleases." If neither is true, of what great consequence can it be which he chooses?

In respect to the Septuagint and Samaritan chronologies, however, mature criticism will hardly agree with M. Greppo, that they can compete with the Hebrew, as to their claims for credence. The credit of the Septuagint chronology has been irretrievably shaken to its foundation, by J. D. Michaelis, in his Essay upon it, printed in a volume of the Commentt. Soc. Götting. And with respect to the credit due to the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch, Gesenius, in his Commentatio respecting it, has utterly overthrown all claims to place it by the side of the Hebrew. It is notoriously altered, and mutilated in various places, by unfaithful and designing scribes.

The whole subject of Egyptian chronology, is yet mani

festly too much in its infancy, to entitle us to be confident as to any conclusions or difficulties respecting it. Of course, no fears or alarm need be entertained, when some seeming discrepancy between that and the Mosaic chronology presents itself. Patient development, allowance for the uncertainty of traditionary accounts as to matters of dates and proper names, and a fuller knowledge of the whole ground, we may well expect, will eventually chase away most of the darkness that yet covers any part of this subject. M. S.]

[ S. p. 148. ]

Location of Rameses.

[An overwhelming objection to this location of Rameses, is, that it must lie on the west side of the Nile, and at the distance of some 120 or more miles from the Red Sea; nay, more than 150 miles from that pass where the Hebrews went over it. Now there is not one word in Scripture about the Hebrews' passing the Nile, when they set out on their journey toward Palestine; a thing incredible, if they did indeed pass it, for this passage would have been more difficult than that of the Red Sea, inasmuch as the Egyptians could very easily annoy them, and the Hebrews had no means of passing it. But leaving this out of question; it appears by Ex. xii. 37 and xiii. 20, that at the end of the second day's journey from Rameses, the Hebrews were on the borders of the Red Sea. Could a caravan of three millions of people, heavily laden with baggage, and accompanied by all their women, children, and aged persons, as also by their flocks and herds, their sheep and goats,-could these travel 120 or 150 miles in two days? The thing is absolutely impossible. They must be taken up and carried through the air to accomplish this. They could, at most, advance not more than some 20 miles a day. Accordingly we are necessitated by this circumstance, to find Rameses within some 40 miles of the head of the Red Sea. In all probability it was at Abou

Keyshid, on the borders of the great Canal-Valley (Wadi Saba Byar), which is about 40 miles from Etham (Adjerout?) where the Hebrews encamped on the second day of their journey. At Abou Keyshid are still left not a few Egyptian monuments, probably of the Pharaonic age, which testify to this having been a place of importance under the Egyptian dynasty. See on this whole subject, an Excursus in No. I. Vol. II. of my Course of Hebrew Study.

M. S.]

[ T. p. 153. ]

Situation of Goshen.

[The same objections to the location of Goshen on the west of the Nile may be made, as against the location of Rameses there. Past all rational doubt, Goshen must have been east of the Nile, and have embraced the country (more or less of it) which now comprises what is called the isthmus of Suez, and which the Egyptians now call Tarabia, i. e. the Arabian part of Egypt (because it borders on Arabia), and also Sharkiya, i. e. eastern part, viz. of Egypt. It is now known, that this country is very far from being all a desert, and that in it are several extensive Wadies or valleys, where water is at all times very easily procured, and the soil is exceedingly fruitful, being occasionally overflowed by the Nile. I must refer the reader for a particular discussion of this whole subject, to the Excursus above named, where he will find some things to which our English geographies have not hitherto given us

access.

M. S.]