Читать книгу The Pentateuch, in Its Progressive Revelations of God to Men - Henry Cowles - Страница 8

Table of Contents

AS to the antiquity of Egyptian art, civilization and political power, there are two main questions:

1. How much time, after Noah, is required?

2. How much can be allowed in harmony with the most reliable authorities of Hebrew chronology?

1. Under the head of time required, it is in place to note the circumstances which favored the very rapid growth of Egyptian civilization and also of the numerical and political power of Egypt.

(a) Mizraim, the father of Egypt, who gave his name to the kingdom, was a grandson of Noah and the father of seven sons (Gen. 10:1, 6, 13,14). Consequently he started early and strong.

(b) The fertility of the Nile valley was prodigious; it was capable, therefore, of sustaining an immense population, and so would attract other people besides the lineal descendants of Mizraim. Every thing was propitious for the early and rapid peopling of their country.

(c) Fixed residence, coupled with cheap bread and abundance of it, put the Egyptian on vantage-ground above any other ancient nation for the early culture of art and for rapid growth in all that made Egypt great.

(d) It is a capital mistake to assume that the arts and sciences were originated in Egypt after the flood, and that therefore a very long time must be allowed for their growth and development up from utter barbarism. For there was surely no insignificant amount of art and science among the builders of Noah’s ark. The yet earlier history of the race names “the father of all such as handle the harp and organ,” and also “an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron” (Gen. 4: 21,22).

(e) It is a significant fact that the Chaldean tradition of the deluge as preserved by Berosus sets forth the special care taken by Noah to preserve and transmit to the new-born nations after the flood the arts and sciences which had been developed before that catastrophe. They say he was admonished to put in writing an account of these arts and sciences and deposit it in a place of safety until the flood should be past. This tradition reveals the fact of a current belief that there was such knowledge to be preserved, and that means were used to preserve it.

2. Under the head of time required it remains to give a synopsis of the latest and most reliable results of Egyptologists in regard to the Egyptian date of Menes, their first king, and of the building of the three great pyramids—these being the most important epochs of the earliest Egyptian antiquity.

The standard historic authority (not, however, above suspicion) is Manetho, an Egyptian priest of Heliopolis, of the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus (reigned B.C. 284–246), who is supposed to have made up from the ancient records of his nation a list of thirty or thirty-one dynasties of Egyptian kings, beginning with Menes and ending with the conquests of Alexander the Great, giving the years of each king’s reign. Unfortunately it comes down in a somewhat fragmentary condition, as copied by Julius Africanus (died A.D. 232), who was himself in part copied by Eusebius (of the fourth century) and by Syncellus (flourished A.D. 780).

Until recently it has been the current opinion of the best authorities (still held by many) that these dynasties were at some points contemporary and not successive—some of them reigning in Upper Egypt, others in Middle or Lower Egypt, at the same time. This would raise the problems—How many and which were contemporary? How much is the entire period actually shortened by this contemporaneousness?——Moreover it has been supposed also that on the same throne there has been at some points a joint occupancy of two or more kings—father and son perhaps, or of some rival claimants; so that the entire duration of a given dynasty may be less than the sum of the reigns of its enumerated kings.20——The problem of whole duration being complicated by these elements of uncertainty, it has been the great aim of recent investigation to gather in all possible aid from the monuments and bring their testimony to bear upon the tables of Manetho. The results are variously estimated and the problem can not be regarded as yet fully settled.

I place together the opinions of some of the best authorities:

I. For the date of Menes, reputed the first king.

	B. C.
Bunsen’s latest revised recension of Egyptian Chronology locates him21	3059
J. P. Thompson at least as far back as	3000
R. S. Poole (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p.682)	2717
Sir Gardner Wilkinson (see “Aids to Faith,” p.294)	2690
Wm. Palmer (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p.687)	2224
The “Old Chronicle” (very valuable authority)	2220
Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, original authorities, in no respect inferior to Manetho	2793

Other estimates from less reliable authorities carry him back yet further.

For convenience of comparison we place here our corrected Bible Chronology for the call of Abraham—viz. B.C. 2248; and for the flood, by the longest Septuagint text, B.C. 3425, and by the shortest, B.C. 3325. These dates afford ample time for Mizraim, grandson of Noah, to make a home and found a community in Egypt, in which Menes might presently reach the dignity of being the first king.

II. The date of the Pyramids.

	B. C.
Bunsen in his latest recension, about	2600
Prof. C. Piazzi Smith, by astronomical calculations	2170
George Rawlinson (in “Aids to Faith,” p.297)	2400

These dates may be compared with the call of Abraham—B.C. 2248.——J.P. Thompson (Genesis and Geology, p.86) says—“The three great pyramids by the common consent of Egyptologers are assigned to the fourth dynasty of kings of the old empire, as given by Manetho.”

It will be seen that these dates for Menes, the first king, and for the oldest pyramids are amply provided for within the extension of sacred chronology as above indicated.——Other points in Egyptian antiquities will be treated of in their place.

On the general subject of the antiquity of man, it only remains to touch briefly the subsidiary questions stated above, p.49.

(a.) Were there one or more races of primeval men, pre-Adamic, but now extinct?

So far as reliable facts have yet come to light there is no sufficient evidence of the affirmative. Our investigations into the antiquity of man do not seem to demand a longer time than the extended sacred chronology above presented affords. It is perhaps too soon to say that no evidence will yet appear of a pre-Adamic race not in existence now. But it will be soon enough to recognize the fact when the evidence shall have been adduced. Till then, it is more scientific to believe only so far as we have knowledge based on evidence.

(b.) Have there been various head-centers of existing human species, or only one, and that Adam?——Or (the same question in different form) Are all the living varieties of race lineally descended from Adam? and all from Noah?——These questions contemplate the well known diversities of race in the existing human family.

The classification of race is made somewhat variously by different authors; but the more common one makes five classes: The Caucasian, or white; The Mongolian, or yellow; The Ethiopian negro race, or black; The American, or red; and the Malayan, or brown. (See Webster.)

Let it be premised in the outset that this distinction of race is one of variety and not of species. It sits upon the surface and does not penetrate to the inner nature. All these races have the same anatomical structure; the same physical organs; and what is far more, the same intellectual and moral nature. Every-where they exhibit the common effects of the fall of Adam; the same depravity of moral nature; the same common need of redemption by Christ.——These are cardinal traits and tests. What is the color of the skin compared with the stamp of God’s image upon the very nature itself?

That these races intermingle and cross indefinitely is sufficient proof that they are only varieties, and by no means distinct species.——Yet this of itself does not prove that all men have descended from one first man—Adam. For the Lord had power to create five or ten Adams, each the head-center of as many distinct races, yet all, of the one species, man. So far therefore as respects the creative power of God or the constitution of man, this is an open question: What then are the facts?

1. The Scriptures imply with the strongest form of implication that the Adam of Genesis is the father—the one only father—of the whole human race. The narrative of the creation; of the fall; and of the first promise of redemption—all imply this. Paul implies it in those passages in which he compares the ruin of the race through the one man Adam with the salvation provided for the race through the greater second Man, Jesus Christ. The strong passages are Rom. 5: 12–19 and 1Cor. 15:21,22.

2. The diversities of race may be accounted for as produced by either or both of two causes; (a.)Climatic influences; (b.)Sporadic, abnormal peculiarities, appearing suddenly, and perpetuating themselves by inheritance.

3. The geographical distribution of the race from one head-center, Adam, is certainly possible. There is some reason to suppose that the relative position of the seas, oceans, and continents at their points of nearest approach may have been different in the earlier ages from the present.

4. The proofs of a common language from which all known human languages have been derived conspire to sustain the common origin of all the human family.

This list of proofs might be extended and the argument from these points greatly expanded.

On the subordinate question whether Noah was the common ancestor of all the races living since his day, the answer turns mainly on the point of the universality of the deluge; or rather, on this precise point—Did the deluge destroy all the living men except those saved with Noah in the ark?

This question will be considered in its place.