Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

city, Mr. Layard says, "No sculptures or inscribed slabs, the panelling of the walls of palaces, have been discovered among the ruins of Babylon as in those of Nineveh. Scarcely a detached figure in stone, or a solitary tablet, has been dug out of the vast heaps of rubbish. Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground." "

77

The well known infidel, Paine, says, "If by a prophet, we are to suppose a man to whom the Almighty communicated some event that would take place in the future, either there were such men or there were not. If there were, it is consistent to believe that the event so communicated would be told in terms that could be understood." It appears to the writer of these pages that the great events connected with the overthrow of Nineveh and Babylon, (not to refer to the cities of Idumea, Tyre, Samaria, Jerusalem, etc.,) were communicated in terms that could be understood, and that the remarkable coincidences between the statements of the Bible and the numerous inscriptions upon the monuments of Egypt and Assyria, are evidences of this fact, so minute and conclusive that no candid mind can fail to acknowledge their force. And, in the face of this proof, we are surprised to find the old objection repeated in this form,-"We have not the slightest direct evidence to show that there was any thing miraculous in their (the books of the Old Testament) composition." 78 Such a statement was comparatively true twenty years ago, when there was no record with which to compare much of the Old Testament; but if such volumes as have been given us by Messrs. Layard, Kenrick, Wilkinson, etc., do not contain direct evidence "that there was something miraculous in the composition of the books of the Old Testament," we should like to know what would be direct evidence.

Leaving the reader, however, to form his own opinion upon this subject from such materials as are furnished him, we pass to point out some of the prominent objections of skeptics which have been answered during the last few years.

77 Isaiah xxi. 9.

78 Parker's Discourse of Religion, p. 311.

Hume in his celebrated Essays 79 in speaking of the Pentateuch, says that it is to be regarded as "the production of a mere human writer and historian; a book presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and, in all probability, long after 80 the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts which every nation gives of its origin." Whatever may have been the fact in regard to the "no concurring testimony" to the statements of the five books of Moses when Mr. Hume penned this paragraph, one thing is very certain, there is an abudance of "concurring testimony" now, to prove his statement false. Out of the tombs of Egypt he is condemned. The Jews could not have been a "barbarous people," if the representations upon the monuments are correct, and who will dispute such "concurring testimony?"—for it has been clearly shown by Hengstenberg, Wilkinson and others that the Israelites did not merely continue their nomade life while they were in Egypt, but that they availed themselves of the advantages of Egyptian culture and civilization. This would follow almost of necessity. Of the "mixed multitude" who went up from Rameses to Succoth, many doubtless were "hewers of wood and drawers of water;" but of the "six hundred thousand on foot that were men," not a few were engaged upon the public buildings, while those who possessed superior skill gave their attention to some of the higher forms of the mechanic arts, as the representations upon the monuments show. And we have already furnished sufficient evidence to prove that the materials which were used in constructing the tabernacle, the robes of the priests, &c., were in use in Egypt at that time.

With these facts in mind, it is easy to see that Mr. Hume's statement is constructed upon false data. He is at variance with history; in attempting to show the "mistakes and inaccuracies" of the author of the Pentateuch,

79 Vol, ii., p. 137.

80 For proof of the authenticity of the Mosaic history, with special reference to the objection that the Pentateuch was compiled at the close of the captivity, see Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, chap. iv,

he has presented an argument of great force in proof of the reliableness of the Mosaic history. For had the Pentateuch been written by an "ignorant and barbarous people," "long after the facts which it relates" had transpired, there is every reason to believe that its author would have committed the same mistake that Mr. Hume has. And the very absence of such an error, goes far towards proving that the writer, whoever he may have been, must have lived at an earlier period than skeptics are willing to allow, and was personally and intimately familiar with the customs and culture of the Egyptians. How, otherwise, should he construct an account which in so many important respects is corroborated by illustrations and inscriptions drawn from obelisks, temples and tombs, of which even the learned,-not to say "barbarous and ignorant," have known almost nothing for at least twentyfour centuries. "Voltaire," it is said, "fearful of admitting a fact illustrative of the truth of the deluge, denied the existence of fossil remains." So too, in certain directions, were the results of the explorations carried on by Messrs. Rich and Botta treated with considerable contempt, but that day is past. Fossil remains and fossil cities are both well attested facts, and every candid mind is bound to recognize them as such.

An objection somewhat similar to that which we have just considered, has a special claim upon our notice. relates to Sarah's appearance before the Egyptians unveiled, and to Joseph's temptation by the wife of Potiphar.

Some of the German theologians think that they are able to detect in these statements an error against Egyptian customs. V. Bohlen says: "Since eunuchs are supposed to exist, Joseph could not so much as come into the presence of the women, still less into the harem," while others distinctly declare that no virtuous woman would have thought of appearing unveiled in the streets of an Egyptian city. It appears, however, in the end, that the error is wholly upon the side of the critics. "They have transferred a custom of the East to the banks of the Nile, while he has spoken of Egyptian manners just as they were, thereby showing that intimate acquaintance with his subject which it is so difficult for a

forger to obtain." 81 Wilkinson says, that the monuments represent the women of Egypt as living under less. restraint than those even in Greece, and that ladies and gentlemen "are delineated as mingling together, in their festive entertainments, with all the freedom of modern European intercourse." In speaking upon this subject Gliddon 83 makes the following observation: "We have the most positive and incontrovertible evidence, in a series of monuments coëval with Egyptian events for 2500 years, to prove that the female sex in Egypt was honored, civilized, educated, and as free as among ourselves, and this is the most unanswerable proof of the high civilization of that ancient people. This is the

strongest point of distinction between the Egyptian social system of ancient times and that of any other Eastern nation." How came Moses to know any thing more about this " strongest point of distinction," than V. Bohlen, Tuch, and other learned German critics?

84

But we have been particularly interested in the summary manner in which a favorite objection to the chronology of the Bible has been disposed of by Dr. Kenrick. In her recent work upon the East, Miss Martineau says, "Taking the average length of human life, how many thou sand years would be occupied by the succession of three hundred and forty-five priests, in a direct line from father to son. According to the priests, it was nearly five thousand years from the time of Horus,—and it was not until after the reign of his son Horus that the first of these three hundred and forty-five priests came into power. From Osiris to King Amasis, the priests reckoned fifteen thousand years, declaring that they had exact registers of the successive lives which had filled up the time. Such is the legendary history as it existed five hundred years before Christ. We can gather this much from it-that the priests there looked back upon a long reach of time, and believed the art of registering to be of an old date." The commonly received chronology is very likely faulty

81 Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, p. 207. 82 Vol. ii. p. 167. Hengstenberg, p. 26. 83 Ancient Egypt, p. 48.

84 Eastern Life, Present and Past, p. 91.

in some respects,85 but this quotation from Miss Martineau by no means proves it to be so, however plausible her statement may appear at first view. We would respectfully refer her admirers to Dr. Kenrick's statement of the history of the Egyptians, wherein it is shown that the early years of the Egyptians. were lunar years of thirty days each 6-an important fact for one to consider who undertakes to dispute with doctors.87

86

The chronology of the Bible has of late years been a favorite topic with infidel writers. But we confess our inability to see the force of this class of objections, at least in a large majority of cases. In the first place it ought to be considered that there is no well defined, reliable system of chronology, outside of the Bible. The most learned in this department of knowledge, are at variance with each other, and do not hesitate to confess the subject, thus far, beset with insuperable difficulties. But in the second place, dates are not generally material to facts. Suppose the commonly received chronology of the Pentateuch is incorrect, what follows? Is the Mosaic record any the less reliable as a statement of actual events? "When time is not the essence of a fact recorded, it is unimportant. There are few, even of modern historians, that harmonize in dates; yet no one doubts the facts they state." 88 The real question is, are the statements of the Bible true? Does modern discovery confirm what we have so long read in the Old Testament concerning the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt, their deliverence, etc.? It may be useful to ascertain when the leading events of the Bible transpired, but it is not material; far more important is it to know "that the Egypt of the Bible is Egypt indeed, not a fiction nor an imposture, nor a blunder-as writers of the Voltaire school would persuade the world-but a reality; so far as it goes, a picture copied from actual life." 89

85 Dr. Pye Smith, on Genesis.

86 Vide Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. i., p. 13.

87 Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, chap. iii.; a very able statement of the uncertainty of early profane history.

88 Hawks' Egypt, p. 130.

89 Kitto's Ency. Art. Egypt.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »