IV.-EGYPT: HER TESTIMONY TO THE TRUTH.*

THE believer in the truthfulness and inspired character of the Books of Moses, cannot but have been deeply impressed with the remarkable testimony to their genuineness and authenticity, which has been brought to light by modern researches in the hieroglyphic and monumental literature of ancient Egypt. We may truly call those singular and enigmatical inscriptions a literature. It is without a parallel in the history of the nations of the earth, and nearly imperishable by the lapse of ages. Parchment scrolls, with many other things adopted by man for the perpetuation of his thoughts and deeds in the infant ages of the world, have crumbled into nothingness, excepting only a few Egyptian papyri, and the wonderful and inspired records of the Bible preserved by Divine foresight and care, and now illustrated by the mural inscriptions and paintings of a race, with whom the chosen people of God were brought for a while into contact.

We cannot doubt the interposition and providence of God in the present state of these inquiries. Their results have become most definite, and therefore of the highest value, just at a period when modern intellect, in the pride of spiritualism, rejects the Pentateuch as a bundle of myths, the fabulous legends of the infancy of man, the unchecked imaginative creations of a people's childhood. The internal evidence of the authenticity of the Mosaic records, presented by the simplicity of their narrations, the undefinable charm of their truthful stories of patriarchal life, the absence of all exaggerated language and impossible events, so common in the early accounts of other nations, so long and so deservedly relied on, is deemed to be no longer worthy of regard. Moses speaks a language that does not accord with the philosophic conclusions of modern students in the history and origin of man. His ideas of God are too gross for their refined sensibilities. Their religious sentiment refuses to entertain the conception of the Divine Being, so simple yet so grand, of these primitive documents. They fashion a God after their own phantasy, and then, since its features and chiselled form do not agree with the God of facts and history, all facts and history are unscrupulously cast away. They cannot but believe that these ancient manifestations of Deity are mere fictions, only produced from the poetic imagination of the more recent scribe, the absence of all check from contemporaneous evidence giving free scope thereto : overlooking the probable truth, that they too are but dreamers, regarding their own fictions as realities.

Truly their condemnation will be just. It pleases God to accumulate evidence against their false philosophy, and to confound their vain imaginations from the most unexpected sources. The monuments of Egypt bear a most impartial testimony to the truth of the Mosaic

*ANCIENT EGYPT; her Testimony to the truth of the Bible, being an interpretation of the Inscriptions and Pictures which remain upon her tombs and temples.' By William Osburn, jun. London: Bagster and Sons. 1846.

the

records. By a series of most minute and interesting pictures upon walls of ancient Mitzraic architecture, its sketches of patriarchal domestic history, of early civilization, and of political life, are wonderfully and completely verified. No doubt of the trustworthiness of the witnesses can arise. Imperishable granite and the colours of the painter's pencil have preserved to us indubitable proof of the civilization, social economy, manners and habits of those remote times, in all things coincident with the details of the inspired author of the Pentateuch.

These investigations have been carried on, not by men favourable to the claims of Moses, but by men avowedly jealous of his veracity, and watchful to discern the least discrepancy. Many times have his descriptions and statements been upon the point of rejection, when some newly discovered tomb, or unrolled mummy, or once ambiguous inscription, has again placed beyond contradiction the minute accuracy of his information, and by their undesigned testimony established the correctness of the inspired historian. There has, indeed, been an ostentatious setting aside of the Mosaic record. Moses has not been permitted to cast his antique light on the path of those groping in the dark passages of hieroglyphic investigation. Notwithstanding the innumerable examples of his accuracy and truthfulness, he has been treated as a suspected thief, unworthy of credit until some other historian, more trustworthy, should speak the same. Manetho, Herodotus, Eusebius, and others, may have their accounts freely received, their truth and correctness supposed until the contrary appear, and that in the face of numerous proved contradictions and errors. Not so Moses. He must always be put upon his trial. Nothing recorded in the Bible is to be thought true, or taken as evidence, until some other writer, imagined to be more unbiassed, can be found to corroborate his testimony.

But while we may regret this exhibition of enmity to the divine will, and to the revelation which God hath himself given, it has been productive of the most valuable results. The corroborations drawn from the monuments of Egypt are thus placed beyond suspicion. Their elucidations of obscure references, occurring in the books of Moses, have received no colouring from the pallet of partial friends. Such as they are, they are independent, unbiassed, impartial testimonies to the antiquity, the truthfulness, and the minute accuracy of the sacred historian. From whatever sources derived,-whether we regard the Pentateuch as a collection of traditions, or of written documents preserved in patriarchal registers,-his narratives are proved worthy of the highest confidence, and must therefore be decisive in disputed matters, whenever their witness is available.

Mr. Osburn's work is, however, an exception to the tenor of these remarks. With reverence for the inspired records, he has entered upon an investigation of the hieroglyphic literature of Egypt, and drawn thence some most striking and remarkable proofs of its perfect accuracy. Availing himself of the labours of Champollion, Wilkinson, VOL. I.-No. I.

ъс

and other explorers in this mine of philologic lore, he has succeeded in transmuting many enigmatic inscriptions into intelligible language. By placing before the reader the materials upon which his judgment has been formed, he has enabled the student to test the correctness of his translations, and to assure himself of the general fidelity of his views. But the interesting introduction of the hieroglyphic language our author seeks to interpret into the text of the work, renders it impossible to make the extracts we should desire. Our remarks must therefore be very general in their character.

Four sources of information are open for the materials of ancient Egyptian history; the Bible, the ruins of temples, tombs, &c., the fragments of the work of Manetho, and the Greek historians, Herodotus and Diodorus. The last two require perpetual correction from the discoveries of the two former. Manetho's work, portions only of which are extant in the writings of Josephus, Eusebius, and Syncellus, is of great value as giving the names of the sovereigns of the various dynasties, and thereby assisting their recognition in the mural hieroglyphics of the tombs and temples. His chronology is, however, most uncertain. Many of the dynasties he has given are evidently fabulous, and others reigned contemporaneously over different parts of Egypt.

Mr. Osburn divides the monumental history of Egypt into five eras, or periods. The first is the era of Menes, the first Monarch; who, according to Josephus, reigned many years before Abraham.

The second is the era of the pyramids ; the names of the builders of three of them were Suphos, Cephrenes, and Mencheres.

The third, is the era of Osirtasen I. It was during the reign of his successors that lower Egypt appears to have been under the dominion of the Hycsos, or shepherd-kings, who derived their origin from Canaan. It was during this period that the children of Israel are supposed to have established themselves in Egypt. To one of them, by name Apophis, Joseph was prime minister, according to Manetho. If it be so, the fact involves a correction of the ordinary chronology of the Bible, which, as is well known, is but one of the many series that have been calculated, and possesses no divine authority whatever.

The fourth era is that of Amosis; or of Manetho's eighteenth dynasty. This was the golden age of Egyptian prosperity. Nearly all the erections, of which the ruins now exist, were built during the warlike and successful reigns of these sovereigns. The fifth era is that of decline; commencing with the overthrow of the last sovereign of the eighteenth dynasty, the Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea upon the exode of the Israelites from Egypt.

The monuments clearly indicate the eastern origin of the Egyptians. They must have been among the earliest to leave the plains of Shinar, and abandon the abortive erection of Babel. At the time when Abraham first went down into Egypt, they had reached a high state of civilization; but this appears to have been under the dynasty of the

shepherd kings, who occupied the throne of Lower Egypt for at least 250 years. It is our author's opinion that these shepherds are identical with the people known in Scripture as Philistines, and were allied to the Zuzim, or Zamzummim of Scripture. Their personal appearance differed very little from that of the Egyptians. They were also descended from Mizraim. Various paintings illustrative of their manners are found upon the monuments, agreeing in every respect with what is known of them from the inspired records. If this conjecture be correct, it was to one of this race that Joseph became prime minister, and their overthrow and expulsion was coincident with the loss of his influence and authority, and with the succession of the Pharaoh which knew not Joseph.

Mr. Osburn has given, with no expression of doubt of its correctness, the regnal table of the eighteenth dynasty, from the calculations of M. Champollion Figeac. The founder of this dynasty was Amosis, who expelled the shepherd kings, and established the throne of the Pharaohs in that family for a period of 348 years. If we assume the data thus presented as correct, it appears most probable that Amosis, or his son, was the Pharaoh with whom commenced the oppression of Israel. The conclusion must also follow, that the 430 years of its duration must be reckoned from the going down of Jacob into Egypt, -according to Exodus xii. 40, 41-and not from the appearance of Abraham in that country, as in the common chronology. The latter calculation leaves only 144 years for the sufferings of Israel, a most insufficient interval after the death of Joseph for the decease of that generation, the large increase of the children of Israel, as seen in the multitudes who left at the exode, and for the erection of the cities, temples, and monuments in which, under their cruel taskmasters, we know they were employed. See Exodus i. 6, 7. Numb. i. 45, 46. There is nothing in the inspired narrative to reject the idea, that the expulsion of the shepherd kings was coincident with, or shortly after, the death of Joseph. His decease occurred fifty-four years after that of his father, and Jacob died seventeen years after his arrival in Egypt. This would leave some ten years to intervene between the death of Joseph and the rise of the Pharaoh who recognized not his claims to respect, nor that of his brethren to support. That they had been favourites of the hated race of the shepherd kings, and were brethren of one of their prime ministers, would be a more than sufficient reason to oppress them.

It was during the long slavery of the Israelites that the wars, so spiritedly depicted on the walls and monuments of Egypt, were carried on. Under Sethos, Ramses II., Sesostris, and Ramses IV., the countries of Canaan were repeatedly invaded, and the triumphs of the conquering arms of Egypt recorded in indelible forms on their temples and tombs. Into the details of these wars we cannot enter. are so mingled with hieroglyphic inscriptions by our author, as to render it impracticable to attempt to present them to the reader. But some most interesting conclusions are arrived at. The inscriptions

They

prove that these wars were with nations familiar to the bible student. There is scarcely a nation mentioned in its pages, as inhabiting the land of Canaan, which has not its name and portrait on these mural tablets. Mr. Osburn has succeeded in identifying the Syrians, Arvadites, Sidonians, Jebusites, Hittites, Amorites, Philistines, and Syrians, or Hamathites, as parties in the conflicts depicted on these imperishable monuments.

war.

A most interesting example of this identification is given by our author in the case of the Moabites and Ammonites. A name hitherto unknown, occurs frequently in the hieroglyphic records of the reign of Sethos, Sesostris, and Ramses. The people indicated were not properly Canaanites, yet resembled them in their costume and weapons of Their chariots differed somewhat from those of the Egyptians, and they appear to have brought into the field a larger force, both of chariots and horsemen, than the Canaanites were accustomed to do. Their frequent wars with Egypt render it probable that they lived not far from the frontiers. An embassy sent to Sesostris near Mount Hor, and their subsequent seige of Hadasha, near the Dead Sea, prove that their country lay not far distant from those points. Sethos and Sesostris also used on some occasions the ships of the Arvadites, which were probably on the Dead Sea. On the monuments at Ipsambul, where the countries subdued by Sesostris are named, their country is placed between Mesopotamia and Heth, so that it lay probably between these two countries. The inscriptions apply also to two confederated races, and indicate that there were in their country two cities, both of which were known by the name of Rabbah. The country of the Moabites and Ammonites satisfies all these particulars. They were descendants of the incestuous daughters of Lot, and therefore related to each other. Though not Canaanites they were in constant communication with them, and embraced their side against the Israelites in after-times. Lot's descendants also resembled this unknown people in the employment of large bodies of chariots and horsemen, I Chron. xix. 7. The two capital cities of Ammon and Moab had both the same name, Rabbah. From these and some other particulars, our author is led to the conclusion that the people referred to on the monuments, under this unknown name, were the confederate races. But even this missing link, the name, is supplied by the prophetic denunciation of Balaam against Moab :—

"There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy the children of Sheth.”Numb. xxiv. 17. It is needless to dwell upon the undisputed fact, that as Jacob and Israel in the one parallel, are two names of the same people, this must also be the case with Moab and Sheth in the other. Sheth, therefore, was a name of Moab, and this was also the name by which they and the children of Ammon were known in Egypt."—p. 136.

The hieroglyphics are the equivalents of the Hebrew letters, and therefore identify the people of Sheth as the people of Ammon and Moab.