123 
throne. But to speak of Amenophis III. as “ the successor of Harnesses n is 
as great a mistake as it would be if an historian were to assume that 
William III., the hero of our Revolution, and not William IV., was the suc- 
cessor of George IV., and to draw his conclusions therefrom. If Mr. Titcomb 
will again refer to Dr. Birch, I think he will be convinced that such is^the 
case,* though, in respect to this point, it is easy to misunderstand Josephus, 
who, in his quotation of Manetho, couples Amenophis and “his son Rhampses ” 
together in a very singular manner. (See Josephus, Contr. Apion, i. § 27.) 
It is not very clear who these Pharaohs are that are thus named, but it is 
certain that directly after Josephus gives this quotation from Manetho he 
adds — “ These and the like accounts are written by Manetho. But I will 
show that he trifles and tells arrant lies.” I would call the attention of Mr. 
Titcomb to this, and at the same time remark on the impossibility of under- 
standing the few fragments of Manetho’s history which have been handed 
down to us by Josephus, save by comparing them with the monuments, which 
are so great in number at that period of Egyptian history, the inscriptions of 
which have been rendered so accessible to the student by the unwearied 
labours of Egyptian scholars in our own age. 
With reference to Mr. Graham’s objection to my reading of Genesis xlvi. 
34, I admit that it may be fairly disputed. Dr. Birch called my attention 
to the fact of some Hebraists rendering the word translated “ abomination ’* 
in A.V., in the way I have done, and which, in its root, according to Gesenius 
and other lexicographers, has the double meaning of “ to desire ” as well as 
“ to abominate ” or “ abhor ” ; and I still think that the first meaning is the 
true one of the word as used in the passage in dispute. But it is rather to 
the previous verses to which I would ask attention ; and, in as much as it is 
clear from the context that Joseph sought the favour of Pharaoh on behalf of 
his brethren because they were “ shepherds,” it appears a strong argument 
in support of the belief that the patron of Joseph was a Shepherd king. 
Moreover, when we know that the ancient tradition named Apophis the last, 
or the last but one, of the Shepherd kings as Joseph’s patron, and coupling it 
with all that the monuments have brought to light relating to this Pharaoh, 
the accumulated proofs that such was the case seem to assume the form of a 
mathematical demonstration. If Mr. Graham will remember that Herodotus, 
as Mr. Row justly reminded the meeting, mentions that, although in one part 
of Egypt the goat was the subject of adoration, and in another part was the 
subject of detestation, it may help to modify his objection to my interpreta- 
tion of the passage in dispute. 
I have had occasion to modify my own opinion respecting Moses’s 
“ Ethiopian” wife alluded to in Numbers xii. 1, since my paper was written, 
on which Mr. Graham very properly raises the question, whether Zipporah 
* The newly-discovered Seti tablet has proved beyond dispute the exact 
succession of the kings of the 18th Dynasty, and of those of the 19th down 
to the time of Ramesses the Great, as clearly as the succession of the kings of 
England may be shown from the windows of the House of Lords. 
VOL. VI. L 
