Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ARCHEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL RESEARCH.

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY AND ANTIQUITIES.

THE study of chronology has always been a puzzling one, and never more so than when applied to Egyptian antiquities. Yet great strides have been made during the past dozen years in this direction. Gap after gap has been filled up, link after link has been found, so that now the long chain reaching back into hoary antiquity is becoming more perfect every year. For nearly a century Egyptologists have suggested dates which have surprised both the friends and foes of revelation and have caused most men to shake their heads in wonder at the credulity of overzealous archæologists and those unable to distinguish the historical from the legendary.

Account for it as we may, there has always been a belief that the first ruler of Egypt was Mena, or, as the Greek historians called him, "Menes." The discoveries of the past few years, however, have made it perfectly clear that Mena could not have been the first to reign over Egypt, since the civilization which prevailed in his age presupposed centuries upon centuries of culture and growth. The story of Egypt, whatever the origin of the Egyptians might have been, must have commenced at least two thousand years before Mena, the so-called founder of the first dynasty.

The earliest documents for the study of Egyptian chronology are, first, the lists found on tablets of Abydos and Karnak and in a tomb at Sakkara containing the names of seventy-five, sixty-one, and forty-seven kings respectively. The list found at Abydos begins with Mena and ends with Seti I. The tablet from the tomb at Sakkara is less complete, and commences with Mer-ba-pen, the sixth king of the first dynasty. Besides these three great lists, there are a large number of shorter ones, which, in one way or another, furnish important dates; these latter are found for the most part in private tombs, but are none the less true or reliable for that reason. The next great document is the so-called Turin papyrus. Unfortunately this venerable manuscript is much mutilated, and consequently of proportionately less value. It is probable that it once contained the names of all the rulers from Mena down to the close of the Hyksos period, or to about 1700 B. C. To these must be added, thirdly, the history, written in Greek, by an Egyptian priest named Manetho during the reign and at the suggestion of Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), 286-247 B. C. The original work of Manetho has been lost, and all that we now possess of it are a few extracts in later writers, as in Josephus (see Contra Apion, i, 14,ff.) and in Eusebius, who in turn takes his data not directly from Manetho, but from the great work of Julius Africanus, entitled Πενταβιβλίον Χρονολογικόν,

being a history of the world from the creation (according to him 5499 B. C.) to 221 A. D. Now, this list, given by Eusebius and containing not only the dynasties, but also the number of the years of the reign of each king, is, as Budge observes, one of the most valuable documents which has come down to us; for Manetho, by his position as priest and his knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language, used the ancient literature in a way no other writer seems to have done. Let us be thankful that we have these valuable excerpts from his works, and cherish the hope that some untiring archæologist may yet discover the original book or papyrus.

As already stated, it has been quite usual to make the history of Egypt begin with Mena; but there has been no agreement as to the exact time when this ancient monarch reigned. While Mariette gives 5004 B. C., Wilkinson thinks 2320 B. C. nearer the beginning of his reign. Brugsch gives 4400 B. C., Lepsius 3892 B. C., Petrie 4777 B. C., and now comes the latest of writers on Egyptian chronology, Fleay, who thinks that Mena began his rule 2929 B. C. These various dates and differences of opinion are not difficult to explain. The chief reason, of course, is that we have insufficient data for a scientific calculation. But Egyptologists also proceed from different standpoints; for, while one class holds that all the kings of the several dynasties ruled in regular succession in one unbroken line, another assumes that some of the dynasties were contemporaneous and many of the reigns coincided and overlapped each other.

But to return to Mena. Though the date of his reign may never be discovered with absolute certainty, yet that he lived at least four thousand years before our era will be doubted by few who have kept themselves informed regarding the latest finds in the valley of the Nile. Much has been done during the last quarter of this century which must compel us to change our views concerning the beginnings of Egyptian history. Even twenty-five years ago it was quite common for a certain class of critics to treat Mena, and indeed the twenty-five kings of the first three dynasties, covering a period of 779 years, much in the same way as the heroes of Greece and Rome, as purely legendary, "having no better historical foundation than the primeval kings of Ireland." This has changed, for now the very tomb of Mena has been discovered at Negada. And, if the most learned Egyptologists are to be trusted, the very name of Mena has been deciphered upon a small ivory plate which, besides, is literally covered with representations of the funereal objects offered to the king. The tomb of Menes, measuring fifty-four by twenty-seven by four meters, and the multitude of articles therein discovered, bear eloquent testimony to the civilization then prevalent. The external ornamentations, though not elegant or elaborate, are yet of such a nature as to make it certain that Mena was not the first link in that long chain of Egyptian rulers. A learned German, Dr. Borchardt, well versed in Egyptian antiquities, and who has carefully examined the various articles found in Mena's tomb which are now deposited

in the Gizeh museum, expresses himself thus: "The skill with which ivory-carving was done in that early time is indeed amazing. Reclining lions, hunting dogs, and fish are so skillfully reproduced that one asks how many centuries of development must have preceded before the art of carving reached this perfection. A number of feet taken from the legs of small chairs and other similar furniture, and made in imitation of bulls' legs, show such a fixity of style, and at the same time such a freedom of execution, that no archæologist without the report of the excavator would dare to proclaim them the oldest dated works of Egyptian art."

These words are interesting, and will prepare us for the more recent discoveries, which, as Professor Flinders Petrie has ably shown in a recent work, prove clearly that the age of Mena was preceded by at least two well-defined and distinct civilizations. Indeed, this great English Egyptologist tells us that, no matter how far back we may go, we are always surprised at the perfection of Egyptian art. Even in the remotest predynastic times objects in copper, silver, and gold meet us. So, also, various articles carved in alabaster and modeled in clay and paste. He is also of the opinion that some system of hieroglyphics was practiced from the earliest ages, at least sufficiently developed to mark different articles belonging to different persons, though there are no hieroglyphic monuments, even of a few words, belonging to the predynastic ages.

In view of the finds of Professor Petrie at Negada, in 1894-95, of De Morgan in the same place two years later, and of still later ones -not only by reputable and authorized explorers like Amelineau, Petrie, and others, but also by private individuals, mere speculators, digging simply for gain-Egyptian scholars are now taking new courage, and believe it quite possible to have a more scientific chronology. The London Athenæum in a recent number says editorially, "We have now to recognize that the art, language, literature, religion, and mechanical skill of the Egyptians are older by many tens of hundreds of years than Menes."

Had explorers in Egypt for the last fifty years-or from the time of Young and Champollion-paid the same attention to the classification of the objects discovered as has been paid to such during the past ten years, the chronology of Egypt would have been on a much firmer basis to-day. What Herodotus said, nearly five hundred years before our era, has never ceased to be true as far as archæology is concerned, namely, that Egypt "contains more wonders than any other land, and is preeminent above all other countries in the world for works that one can, hardly describe." This superabundance of articles is the one great reason why the chronology of this ancient land is not more clearly understood. Instead of examining each object where found and noting the exact location and the circumstances of the discovery, the explorers have seized the larger and more exquisite specimens to the neglect of things very much more ancient. But now Egypt has a large number of trained exca

vators who are not only trying to unearth new treasures, but are also bending all their energies upon a proper classification of those already discovered. The art of classifying Egyptian antiquities is progressing well, and, as new discoveries are being made almost every month, it will be easier for those studying them from the standpoint of chronology to verify the conclusions already accepted. From this time on every object can be examined at the time it is discovered, and not, as too often in the past, taken out of a promiscuous pile in the lumber room of some museum.

From a recent address by Sir John Evans, the president of the Egyptian Exploration Fund, we learn that the Egyptian government has allotted the English explorers a large area in and around Abydos, one of the most fertile spots in the whole of Egypt for antiquities belonging to every period of Egyptian history.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

THE episcopal address to the General Conference is in every way a model, and no part of it more so than the paragraphs entitled “Doctrinal Fidelity." This portion is both scholarly and evangelical, advanced enough for the most liberal and sufficiently conservative for the most pronounced champion of orthodoxy. Our bishops firmly believed that the permanence and growth of the Christian Church are inseparable from fidelity to the truth as revealed in Christ Jesus, our Lord. They rejoice that the teachings of our Church are in the main everywhere unchanged, and that the essential Christian verities as received from the fathers are firmly held and positively proclaimed both at home and abroad. They emphasize the fact that the reverent spirit of Methodist theology "has nothing in common with the destructive spirit of much recent criticism," whose tendency, if not its aim, seems to be the overthrow and not the conservation of the faith. The bishops unqualifiedly recommend a serious and patient study of the Bible in the following words: "It [the Church] believes in scholarship honestly directed to learn more than has hitherto been known of the divine word and the divine works. It believes that more light is yet to break forth from both. It contemns sciolism, self-sufficiency, love of novelty, the iconoclastic spirit in biblical studies; it welcomes truth, even new truths, if duly tested, confirmed, and found serviceable to the life of the soul.”

The words of Dr. Thomas Allen, fraternal delegate from England. are also very reassuring. He says: "The controversy in regard to the sacred book is not so acute as it was ten years ago. There is a calmer temper on both sides, a better understanding of the methods of investigation which are pursued, and a disposition to look at facts and to accept new knowledge. The critics are less dogmatic than they were, . . . and on the orthodox side men are finding out that neither science nor criticism has shaken the foundation principles of their holy religion, and so the spirit of panic has gone."

...

MISSIONARY REVIEW.

ONE OF OUR NEW PROBLEMS.

TWENTY-FIVE years ago many Christian people in the United States held it to be providential that, since we were not sending missionaries in reasonable numbers to evangelize the heathen, these heathen had taken to coming to our own shores; that God had thrust upon us the privilege and duty of evangelizing those who came to us; that many would return to their own land to propagate our faith; and that much information about the Christian religion would filter back to China or other lands from these immigrants to our shores. And the last expectation seemed reasonable enough. Protestant spiritual life had thus flowed back to northern and western Europe through converted Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Swiss, and Germans. As for China, it is still proving true that letters from former converts in our California Chinese missions tell of their Christian activity in their own land, and even of extraordinary revivals succeeding their efforts. In the case of Japanese students, in our schools on the Pacific coast, the proof is also abundant of the reflex influence of Christian instruction. We are told that some of these former students are found in the parliament of the Japanese nation; some are leading merchants; some the authors of books and some the editors of journals; some the managers of great industries; while some are teachers, pastors, and evangelists.

We have not, however, measured up to our responsibilities to the Chinese who are permitted a residence in this country. There was a temporary wave of enthusiasm over the new opportunity when Chinese immigration first set in on the Pacific slope. It is, however, needless to trace the incidents which checked this immigration and the corresponding missionary opportunity. Ten Chinatowns, each with from five hundred to a thousand Chinese, upon the California coast, are without a mission solely because the money for their support has not been forthcoming. If we now had the overwhelming numbers in the United States which, unrestricted, would have come to our shores, is there any assurance that we would have measured up to the duty of evangelizing them?

But now a wholly new phase of this matter has appeared, with the extension of our possessions to Hawaii and the Philippines. What are we to do with the twenty thousand Chinese in Hawaii, and the seventy thousand in Luzon? How can we help the thirty-three thousand Japanese in Hawaii, and soon a possible duplication of that number? They are now under our flag, and our obligations are accentuated, while in Hawaii the Congregationalists and the Methodist Episcopalians are the sole agencies from the United States

« AnteriorContinuar »