mountainman

Arnaldo Momigliano was perhaps one of the planet's foremost
ancient historians last century. His essay "Pagan and Christian
Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D." first appeared in a
publication edited by himself, "The Conflict Between Paganism
and Christianity in the Fourth Century", The Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99.

In the following extract we have Momigliano suggesting
that Eusebius was an incompetent chronologer. One of the citations
Momigliano states, bolded in its context below:

Moses, a contemporary of Ogyges according to Julius Africanus,
was made a contemporary of Kekrops with a loss of 300 years.

Can someone please explain the actual inconsistency in (presumably)
Egyptian chronology of 300 years that is being cited by Momigliano?

Is this 300 year chronological loss as Momigliano states?
Did Eusebius in fact make an adjustment to traditional chronology
with a net impact of a loss of 300 years?

Here is the quote above in context:

"At the beginning of the fourth century Christian chronology had already passed its creative stage. What Eusebius did was to correct and to improve the work of his predecessors, among whom he relied especially on Julius Africanus (14). He corrected details which seemed to him wrong even to the extent of reducing the priority of the Biblical heroes over the pagan ones. Moses, a contemporary of Ogyges according to Julius Africanus, was made a contemporary of Kekrops with a loss of 300 years. Eusebius was not afraid of attacking St Paul’s guesses about the chronology of the Book of Judges. He freely used Jewish and anti-Christian sources such as Porphyrios. He introduced a reckoning from Abraham which allowed him to avoid the pitfalls of a chronology according to the first chapters of Genesis. He seems to have been the first to use the convenient method of presenting the chronology of the various nations in parallel columns. None of the earlier chronographers seems to have used this scheme, though it has often been attributed to Castor or to Julius Africanus. He made many mistakes, but they do not surprise us any longer. Fifty years ago Eduard Schwartz, to save Eusebius’ reputation as a competent chronographer, conjectured that the two extant representatives of the lost original of Eusebius’ Chronicon — the Latin adaptation by St Jerome and the anonymous Armenian translation — were based on an interpolated text which passed for pure Eusebius. This conjecture is perhaps unnecessary; nor are we certain that the Armenian version is closer to the original than St Jerome’s Latin translation. Both versions reflect the inevitable vagaries of Eusebius’ mind to whom chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda.

But we recognize the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine in the absence of millenarian dreams"

mountainman

I have seen alot of posting in this forum concerning
the history of the Hebrew Bible and the chronology
purportedly supporting these texts.

Can anyone understand the details of the issue to
which Momigliano is referring here? If so, what is
the story on the "missing 300 years of Eusebian
chronology"?