121 
before Christ, speaks of a certain place known by a certain name at the time 
he was writing ; just as Moses (Gen. xlvii. 11) calls Goshen “the land of 
Rameses,” which Pharaoh had given to Jacob and his sons, though it could 
not have borne that name until the time when another king arose, who 
knew not Joseph, and which must have been at least a century later. 
Mr. Titcomb considers I have made a “ strange mistake ” in asserting that 
the famine in Joseph’s time was not in Egypt ; but he has misapprehended 
my meaning. What I wished to show was this — that the inscription on the 
tomb of Amenj Amenemha, governor of the nome or district of Sah, in 
Upper Egypt, respecting the great famine in all other parts of Egypt save 
his own district during the reign of Sesertesen I., differed so much from the 
Scripture narrative respecting the seven years’ famine that it completely 
disproved Bunsen’s rash assertion of their being a record of the same event ; 
and I am unable to see wherein lies my “ mistake.” 
With regard to Mr. Titcomb’s objection respecting a “ Semitic race” ruling 
in Egypt during the time of Joseph, I would refer him to Mariette’s papers 
in the Revue ArcMologique , in which he will find the subject discussed with 
great learning, and I hope as convincingly to him as to myself. 
Mr. Titcomb asks how I get my date for the Exode as b.c. 1580, in 
opposition to Archbishop Usher, who dates it b c. 1491. A proper answer 
to this very natural question would involve the whole subject of Biblical 
chronology. It will be sufficient if I point out — 1st, that the famous 
passage in 1 Kings vi. 1, “in the four hundred and eightieth year after the 
Children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt,” is probably an inter- 
polation ; 2nd, that it may be proved by secular records, independent of both 
Scripture and Egyptian chronology, that Solomon built the Temple b.c. 1014, 
and that the Exodus of the Israelites had taken place 566 years previously* 
which brings the date of that event to b.c. 1580 ; and 3rd, that this 
synchronizes with the chronology of Manetho’s dynasties of the kings of 
Egypt, and also with other “ fixed dates,” determined by M. Biot and 
others. 
With regard to the remarks of both the Chairman and Mr. Titcomb 
respecting the “ generations ” mentioned in the Old Testament, much must 
depend upon the context and the sense in which each passage where the 
word occurs is to be understood ; e.g., in the disputed passage of Gen. xv. 16, 
“ in the fourth generation,” some of the best interpreters (e.g., Cornelius a 
Lapide, Calvin, Gesenius, Ewald, &c.) have held that the Hebrew word dor 
means seculum, “ age,” or a hundred years ; and that the words refer to the 
four hundred years mentioned previously in ver. 13, and which is the sense 
required by the context. Or if the word “ generation ” is to be understood 
of the period between father and son, we may lawfully suppose, as Mr. Row 
* It is important to note that this agrees with the computation of both the 
Old and the New Testament alike. 
