« AnteriorContinuar »
Greeks was derived dur unwearied authoom Tartar, a ditch
the Egyptians casttarus was deriveduthor, that there any examples are
who, as Giraldes Cambrensis has long observed, derived their religion from the East.
Amongst other remarkable discoveries, is this,—the theology of the Greeks was derived from the Egyptians; and so many examples are brought forward by our unwearied author, that there can be no doubt on that head. Tartarus was derived from Tartar, a ditch into which the Egyptians cast debtors : Acheron, from the lake Acherjsia, or Acharejish, and the Elysian fields were fabled from the cemetery Elisout, which means rest, &c. &c. &c.
The most interesting discoveries which have been effected by the study of hieroglyphics are, however, historical : and biblical research receives no humble light from these inquiries. One of the first things of the kind mentioned by Spineto is the occurrence of an inscription in which the name of Joseph's wife, Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, is mentioned. (See Gen. xli. 45.) The passage in Exod. i. 11, concerning Ramses, the treasure-city, also meets with due attention, in connexion with Gen. xlvii. 11. It appears that Ramses was an honourable title held by several of the Pharaohs, and inscriptions relating to these kings (for such is the meaning of Pharaoh) have been deciphered. It is thus, as it were, that we converse with the actual men and things recorded in the Scriptures, and become acquainted with the princes of Egypt, who preceded “the Christian era by not less than 1800 years," and the Marquis says, this is a low calculation of the time.
Again, (says he) in one of the hieroglyphical inscriptions found at Karnac, we see the name of Osorchon. I produced one of the legends. Now Osorchon in the Coptic is called Zerach; and in the second book of Chronicles xiv. 9, we have, And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian, with a host of a thousand thousand and three hundred chariots.”
Again; there were several of the Pharaohs who were called Ramesses; and this name perpetually appears in hieroglyphical inscriptions. It seems that out of respect for some of these princes, the Egyptians had given this name of Ramesses to some of their towns. Two of them are recorded in three different places of the Pentateuch. In Genesis xlvii. 11, we have, “ And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, &c. in the best of land, in the land of Rameses." In Numbers xxxiii. 3, speaking of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, we find, “And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month," &c. And in Exodus i. 11, Moses, recording the hardships to which Pharaoh had condemned the Israelites, says, “And therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens; and they built for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom and Raamses."
Again; in our third Lecture, I produced the hieroglyphic legend mentioning the name of Chershak, or Shishak; and in the second book of Chronicles, the name of this prince is mentioned not less than three times in the twelfth chapter; first, in the second verse we have these words: “In the fifth year of king Rehoboam, Shishak, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem." In the fifth verse we read, “Then came Shemaiah, the prophet, to Rehoboam, and to the princes of Judah, that were gathered together at Jeruslem, because of Shishak, and said unto them, thus saith the Lord, Ye have forsaken me, and therefore I have left you in the hand of Shishak.” And, lastly, in the ninth verse we have,“ Shishak, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he took all, and carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made."
Again; in the same third Lecture, I mentioned the names of two Pharaohs which Mr. Salt, our consul at Alexandria, had discovered among the ruins at Medinet-habou; and one of these Pharaohs was called Tiraka. Now in the second book of Kings xix. 9, we find this Pharaoh mentioned in these words, “And when he heard say of Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, behold, he is come out to fight against thee."
Again; the name of the Pharaoh Necao, which is seen engraved and painted in many places of the ruins at Thebes, is mentioned in the second book of Chronicles xxxiii. 20, in these words : “ After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho, king of Egypt, came up to fight against Carchemish, by Euphrates :" and it may also be added, that the hatred which the Egyptians entertained against the Hyk-shos, or shepherds, as it is mentioned by Manetho, and appears from the monuments, is also recorded in Genesis xlvi. 34, in the advice which Joseph gives to his brethren, in these words: “And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation ? that ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth, even until now, both we and also our fathers : that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.”- Pp. 221-223.
Much is mentioned respecting these Hyk-shos. In the sixth year of Timaus Concharis, who was the last of the sixteenth dynasty,
A horde of foreigners, whom Manetho represents as Arabians, made an irruption into Egypt, and took possession of that part of the country which lies near the Mediterranean, and is called Lower Egypt, the capital of which was Memphis.
They formed a new dynasty, the seventeenth, which is distinguished by the historian by the name of Hyk-shos, or shepherd kings. It seems that they held the throne of Egypt for the space of 260 years; and though they assumed the title of Pharaohs, yet they are represented as perfect barbarians; rapacious and cruel, laying waste the country, pillaging and destroying temples and buildings, murdering all the men capable of bearing arms, and reducing to slåvery the women and children. During the whole of this disastrous time, Egypt was divided into two different governments, or kingdoms; the one held by the Hyk-shos, at Memphis, the other by the real Pharaohs, who had retired to Thebes; though it seems, that at the very beginning of the invasion, these latter, unable to withstand the torrent, became tributaries to the usurpers.
The Pharaohs, however, did not remain idle at Thebes. Recovering their strength and courage, they began to attack the Hyk-shos, and, after a struggle which lasted for some time, the sixth of the Pharaohs, called Misphramouthosis, gained so decisive a victory over the enemy, that he drove them to their last refuge, the town of Aouaris. This was a place of strength, a fortress, which the Iyk-shos bad built against the attempts of the Assyrians, and where they had collected the remainder of their forces. But the Pharaoh Thoutmosis, son and successor of Misphra, now master of the whole of Egypt, brought up so many forces against them, that they, unable to defend themselves any longer, left the country, and retired into Syria.
During this period, the deliverance or departure of the Israelites from the land of Egypt is fixed, and not without reason, as I shall have it in my power to prove hereafter.—Pp. 14, 15.
The irruption of the Hyk-shos seems to have taken place about 2082 years before Christ, in the sixth year of the reign of Timaus Concharis, the last prince of the sixteenth dynasty, which had been founded 190 years before that event,
by the Pharaoh Ousi-mandouei. It also seems, that the Pharaohs who had succeeded the unfortunate Timaus, unable to withstand the barbarians, retired into the Thebaide, and became even tributaries of these usurpers. Issuing from their retreat, as they acquired strength, they ventured, with various success, to attack the Hyk-shos, and after a period of 260 years, the Pharaoh Misphragmouthosis, having killed an immense number of these barbarians, drove the remainder of them to their last shelter, the town of Aouaris. This was the frontier town towards Assyria, which the Hyk-shos had fortified, and its very name exhibits another proof of the hatred of the Egyptians towards these barbarians. Aouaris, in fact, is a composition of two Coptic words, oua and iri, which signify to give a curse, to give a malediction. But this is not the only appellation by which it was designated; we find it occasionally called Thatiphoou, which means “the dwelling of Typhon," or "Typhonia," from having been the residence of the Hyk-shos, whom the Egyptians compared to Typhon, the author of all evil.
The victorious Pharaoh, however, did not leave them long unmolested, and his son and successor, named Thoutmosis, now master of the whole of Egypt, brought up so large a force against them, that the Hyk-shos, unable to oppose him, left the country, and retired into Syria, about the year 1822 before Christ, and the Pharaoh Thoutmosis, for having delivered his country from the tyranny of these barbarians, became the chief of the eighteenth dynasty.
It is, indeed, gratifying, after the lapse of hundreds, nay, thousands of years, to find authentic monuments, which establish so many historical facts, of which some have been controverted, others denied.* -Pp. 208–210.
There are introduced, in a subsequent portion of the book, some remarks on the hieroglyphical representation of the balance of Osiris, which are illustrated by a reference to a picture in Preston Church, near Brighton. We think a fitter allusion might have been discovered in the book of Daniel, to a balance of judgment; the “ Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin” would have come in admirably.
We have no room for the observations on the similarity between the Chinese and Egyptian characters and languages ; nor for a consideration of the question, whether alphabetic writing is antediluvian or not. We are equally compelled to avoid any allusion to the literature of the ancient Egyptians, or to the origin of Grecian history. And we must be brief in what we say of Egyptian topography. However, the derivation of the word Egypt iş so clearly made out, and so much illustrates the subject, that we shall quote the Marquis in loco.
Be this as it may, this name of Egypt seems a corruption of the Egyptian word Kupt, to which the Greeks added the syllable ai, and the termination os, and made Alyurt, and then AcyUTTOS. The signification of this word Kupt, or Gupt, is simply a Copt, that is, an inhabitant of that country, which we now call Egypt, but which, by the Egyptians themselves, was called KHULT (Kemi), or KHULE, (Keme), a name which we find in the enchorial or demotic text of the Rosetta stone, KULI, that is Kmi, leaving out the intermediate vowel, h or e, always corresponding to that of ALYUTTOS, of the Greek translation. It means
In addition to the above extracts, it may be mentioned, that, in the Twelfth Lecture a more full account of the Hyk-shos is given, and the opinions of Mr. Bryant respecting them refuted :--and in the Thirteenth, or concluding Lecture, that of Mr. Faber is analysed, by all which it appears, that the Egyptian monuments detail the histories of two irruptions, one of which belongs to these Hyk-slos, the other to the children of Israel under the same name.
VOL. XII. NO. 11.
black, and it seems that it was so called on account of the black mud which the waters of the Nile left on the land. For this fact we have the authority of Herodotus ; and it is even mentioned by Virgil, in the fourth of the Georgics, who says, Et viridem Ægyptum Nigrà fecundat arenâ.
Pp. 340, 341. By far the most instructive portion of the work is, in our minds, that which treats of chronology. The authority of the Septuagint version is, we think, conclusively established ; whilst the chronology of the Hebrew text is explained, so as to leave no room for scepticism.
In the eleventh Lecture, we have explanatory remarks on the changes of titles, which were common amongst the ancients, and which are exemplified in various places of Holy Writ. Thus Belus and Nimrod are the same person. Gilbert's letter* has supplied some respectable illustrations of the singular way of reckoning amongst the ancient chronologers.
From this statement it is evident that the length of the year, among the ancients, varied considerably. Sometimes it consisted of twelve, and at other times of six, or even three months; sometimes of four, and at other times one or two weeks, and very often of a single day. This difference, as I have already mentioned, arose from their taking now the sun, now the moon, and sometimes the whole, and at other times only a part, of the revolution of each of these luminaries, as a measure of time.-P. 400.
The Chaldean period of 473,000 years is thus reduced to 1296 of our years ; the Babylonian period of 720,000, to 1972, the period, within a little, stated by Callisthenes. According to this scale, the : 150,000 years, which Berosus mentions as the historical period of the
Babylonian monarchy, are cut down to 410 years 11 months and 15 days, which actually elapsed between Nabonassar and Alexander.' . In the same way, the 30,000 years which the Egyptians gave to the reign of the sun, under which appellation, according to the best critics, they symbolized Joseph, produce no more than eighty-two of our years, for which time, according to Scripture, the ministry of that patriarch lasted.-P. 403.
The most curious calculation however, in the whole letter of M. Gilbert, is the one which he makes to reduce the Chinese chronology to our mode of reckoning. By a series of detached facts, but closely connected with the chronology of the nation, he proves that the first astronomical observations made in China happened 150 years before the reign of the emperor Yao. Now according to the calculation of the celebrated Ferret, this emperor lived 2145 years before Christ. If, therefore, we add these two numbers together, we have the sum of 2295 years before Christ, as the epoch in which the Chinese made their first astronomical observations. But this epoch is nearly the same with the one we have just remarked of the same observations being made at Babylon; therefore the chronology of the Chinese and of the Babylonians, in regard at least to their astronomical observations, coincide amongst themselves, and by no means exceed the chronology of the sacred pages; they are nearly nine centuries distant from the flood, more than 500 years after Nimrod, but not quite two centuries before
* Published in 1743, at Amsterdam.
Ninus and Abraham, and consequently, much posterior to the first establishment of the Egyptian monarchy under Misraim, the brother of Cush, who was the father of Nimrod; and this furnishes us with a new argument to prove, that, after all, there is every reason to suppose that this proud nation of the Chinese are but a colony of the Egyptians, as I have already mentioned in a former Lecture.-Pp. 404, 405.
The Marquis has endeavoured to discover the names of the Pharaohs who reigned at the important periods mentioned in the Mosaic history, and he determines, that the Pharaoh Mandouei was the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus, and Amenophis, the prince who protected Joseph. The most extraordinary fact, however, is, that the Pharaoh who oppressed the Israelites is supposed to have been not an Egyptian, but one of the Hyk-shos, the enemies of both nations. This part of the work is laboured, but only partially satisfactory to us; still there appears good ground for believing, that what has been thus conjectured is true. For the monumental hieroglyphics describe three peoples-the Egyptians, the Hyk-shos, and the Israelites.
It might be said, (says the Marquis, almost anticipating the objections of the reader,) that if the Shepherds, and not the Egyptians, were the oppressors of the Israelites; and if, according to the opinion of Mr. Faber, the army of the former, and not of the latter, perished in the Red Sea; in short, if the Egyptians were as cruelly treated by the Shepherds as the Israelites, why should the Egyptians shew so much detestation for the Israelites, who, after all, were the descendants and relations of Joseph, of that very man who had conferred so much benefit on their land, and whose memory could never be forgotten? To this objection it may be answered that, according to the relation of Manetho, the Israelites had called to their aid the Hyk-shos, and the hardships which the Egyptians underwent, during the time of their dwelling in their land, were a strong and a sufficient reason to make them share in the hatred which the Egyptians felt for these destroyers of their country, even if there had been no previous cause for detesting them, which is not the case. For, in this respect, the same story is told both by the Holy Bible and Manetho. According to this historian, you remember, I hope, that the Shepherds held the throne of Memphis, and for some time at least rendered tributaries even the Pharaohs, who reigned at Thebes, from the death of Timaus to their leaving the country, by the victories of Thumosis, that is, for the space of 260 years. During this time, the Shepherds practised every species of cruelty and abomination throughout the land, and their behaviour certainly must have inspired the natives with sentiments and feelings of horror and detestation towards these barbarians. Now the same fact is recorded by our sacred Scripture. At the time of the descent of Israel into Egypt, we are informed in the book of Genesis, that Joseph instructed his brethren how, they should answer Pharaoh. « And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, what is your occupation ? that you shall say, thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we and also our fathers : that you may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.”—Pp. 470—472.
With this inquiry the Author closes this branch of his Lectures, intending to pursue the subjects of them through all their ramifications. We sincerely wish him such encouragement as will enable him to do so; for we are much mistaken, if his labours in compressing