42 THE PHARAOH OP THE EXODUS 



5. Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, who give the history of Egypt 

 from the earliest times, with other writers who treat of ancient Egyptian 

 affairs, know nothing either of the name Thothmosis or of that of 

 Rameses, unless it be in the forms Rhampses and Rhampsinitus, ascrib- 

 ing the deeds of all the Thothmoses and Rameses to two kings both 

 called Sesostris or Sesoois, the first of whom was a great conqueror, 

 and the second an unfortunate Pharaoh, after whose death came Proteus 

 or Anarchy. '^^ 



6. The Rev. W. B. Galloway, a recent suggestive writer, decides that 

 Amosis, Thothmosis and Rameses are the same, or variations of the same 

 name, produced by the prefixes Ra, the sun, and Thoth, Mercury.''^ An 

 older authority, Mr, Henry Salt, does not scruple to say, ''I may 

 remark that one of the most interesting names of kings is that of 

 Rameses Thothmosis, who was nearly contemporary, as the best chro- 

 nologists agree, with Moses." '^ I observe that Mr. Osburn, in a portion 

 of a recent little work, which must have been under his supervision, 

 permits the omission of all the Thothmoses.''* 



7. An insuperable difficulty in the way of reconciling the Scripture 

 narrative with monumental evidence as it is now taken, has all along 

 been felt to arise from the long period of time by which the supposed 

 two great conquerors and enslavers of the 18th and 19th dynasties were 

 separated. The following statement of M. de Lanoye, in his little book 

 on Rameses the Great, will illustrate this: — "Rameses II. was the 

 persecutor of the Israelite family, whose increasing number became a 

 subject of alarm for his policy. * * We should point out that the cruel 

 policy practised by Rameses towards the Hebrews was not esclusively 

 his own; it had been that of all his predecessors," among whom he 

 specially mentions Thothmosis III.'''' If we are to believe the chrono- 

 logy of M. de Lanoye, which is that now generally received, two cen- 

 turies at least intervened between these two men, concerning whose 

 cruel treatment of the Israelites many monuments testify. The book of 

 Exodus mentions only two kings in immediate succession, whose joint 

 reigns cannot have amounted at most to one hundred years, as Israel's 

 oppressors. In spite, therefore, of Lepsius' attempted reconciliation,'® 



" Herod. L. ii, cc. 102-112 ; Diod. Sic. L. i, s. % ce. 9-12. 



72 Egypt's Record of Time to tlie Exodus of Israel, 1S69, p. 90. 



73 Essay on Dr. Young and M. ChampoUion's Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics, &c. ; 1S25. 

 '* Facts and Dates, by Dr. Mackay, 1869, tlie Introduction to Egyptian Clironology being 



written by Mr. Osburn. 



75 De Lanoye's Rameses the Great, p. 200. 



76 Lepsius' Letters, 424. 



