118 
all this is very curious indeed. The fact that there was always a colony of 
Jews in Mizraim south of Judea in later times is very clear, and there is no 
reason that I know of for doubting the account of their original advent into 
Mizraim, which was held for five hundred years by the Shepherds, a Semitic 
people ; and it is satisfactory to find Jannes and Jambres spoken of together 
in connection with the Semitic land of Dag. In one of the papyri the name 
of Moses actually occurs in a sort of narrative kept by an gyp ^ ru er 
about his slave people. But the whole thing is very curious and deserves 
the attention of those who are interested m such matters. (Cheers.) 
The Chairman. — In summing up this discussion, I mus express e 
opinion that an examination and discussion of the question as to what is the 
genuine Biblical chronology would be very desirable ; one might then come 
to some agreement as to where the gaps are to be found. That there are 
gaps in it seems unquestionable. Our existing chronologies are unsatisfactory, 
and it is very important that we should ascertain the gaps, even if wp canno 
ascertain the precise chronology. For instance, in the chronology of the Old 
Testament, it is questionable whether there are not several omissions, such as 
we know to be the case in the genealogies of Matthew. Indeed, some ho 
that we are hardly in a position to ascertain for certain the precise period 
which elapsed during the sojourn of Israel in Egypt. The best way o 
illustrate the history of Genesis is by bringing forward an amount of 
illustration from the habits, customs, and daily life of the Egyptians, wmch 
are unquestionably to be seen on the Egyptian monuments Of course 
the more the monuments of Egypt are thoroughly examined the more 
interesting it will be to find the points where they agree with the Bible, 
prove its credibility, and show that it was written by men well acquainted 
with Egyptian matters. There are some parts of Mr. Saviles paper the 
evidence for which I should greatly desire to see. Much of it does not rest 
upon certain evidence. In looking it over very rapidly, I have observed 
that the author has quoted as authorities persons who lived, one m the tlnr 
century, and another in the eighth century of the Christian era. Now 
authorities of that kind are not the best, and if Mr. Savile has pursued the 
same course in other parts of the paper where I am unable to follow him, 
such authorities must not have too much reliance placed upon them. Wha 
is the use of my testimony as evidence of what occurred 1,500 years ago. 
Traditions, after such an interval of time, are absolutely valueless. We 
must have better evidence than that for matters which happened at so 
remote a period. As to the fact of shepherds being an abomination to 
the Egyptians, it is not necessary to understand that the sacred writer meant 
that shepherds were an abomination to every race of the Egyptians, because 
we know that in different parts of Eygpt one animal was the subject of 
supreme reverence, while in other parts the same animal was the subject ol 
* That all do not concur in Mr. Dunbar Heath’s statements is well 
known. 
