82 
from Greece to Persia ; which event occurred (according to Eusebius’s 
Chronicle) B.G. 473, — i.e. eight or nine years previous to the death of 
Xerxes, according to the Ptolemaic Canon. 
I quite agree with Dr. Birch that the ruling dynasty at the time of 
Abraham’s visit to Egypt must be “ conjectural ” ; but cannot think it is 
so with regard to the time of the Exode ; and I venture to refer him to 
Canon Cook’s able dissertation on that subject in the first volume of the 
Speaker’s Commentary ; altogether I think the weight of evidence points 
to Thothmes IY. as the Pharaoh of the Exode, rather than to either of 
his two predecessors of the same name, to whom Dr. Birch alone alludes. 
As regards the name of “ Raamses” being a guide to the time of the Exode, 
Dr. Birch has omitted to notice that this name is to be found amongst the 
royal family of the 18th Dynasty, as well as in the line of kings belonging 
to the 19th and 20th dynasties. 
The mention of Nu or Noah as the “ celestial water,” § 31, must stand on 
its own merits ; and I think we are warranted in supposing that the tradition 
respecting Osiris, recorded by Plutarch, may possibly have arisen from his 
knowledge of the Biblical statement concerning the Noachian Flood. I was 
not aware of M. Oppert’s reading of the Cuneiform monument respecting the 
Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues having been subsequently 
“ recognized to be erroneous ” ; but if it be so, we may console ourselves with 
the fact that Mr. George Smith, the well-known discoverer of the Cuneiform 
record of the Flood, has also confirmed, from another monument, the 
Chaldean version of Babel as related in Scripture. I did not know that 
Mariette Bey had subsequently thrown doubts upon his own discovery of the 
tablet recording the Nubti era, as Dr. Birch says ; which of course relates 
to the genuineness of the tablet in question, as there can be no doubt of the 
correct reading of “ 400 years,” as given in all the copies of that monument. 
Palmer’s application of the genealogical hypothesis, in order to show the 
harmony between the chronologies of Israel and Egypt, appears to be as 
perfect as anything of that nature can well be ; and if such a fair system of 
induction be disregarded, it will be quite useless for any one ever to attempt 
to bring forward proofs of a similar nature. 
In reply to Mr. Cooper’s remarks, I would observe that the value of the 
quotations from the “ Acta Pilati,” and from the letters of “ Abgarus of 
Edessa,” must depend upon the credit which we may give to the testimony 
of Justin Martyr and Tertullian respecting the first, and that of Eusebius 
in reference to the last. Justin Martyr and Tertullian alike, speak of 
the “ Acta Pilati ” as if they were in existence in their own day, as 
they appeal to them in proof of their assertion concerning the founder 
of the Christian religion, and of his having been put to death in the 
reign of Tiberius. And as regards the interval of time between them 
and the events which they record, it may be compared to that of any 
historian in the present day describing an Act of Parliament passed in 
