| OCR Text |
Show 472 T Jl E M 0 N 0 G F. N 1ST S AND Even for tho only trno synchronism, yet proved, between Egyptian monuments anu Hebrew records, viz: the conquest of Jerusalem by Shislutk ;217 a latitude of some 15 years must be allowed, as shown by the following taLlc.218 0/iampol/ion-Figeac, Lelronne, Lenormanl, Willci11son, Blmstn, De Rougt, Barucchi, 13. c. 071. !)80. 981. 978. 982. 973. 989. Thoro being absolutely nothiug, heretofore discovered, in the hieroglyphics, relative to any preceding relations between tho Israelites and the EO'yptians, we arc reduced to the vague process of clt?·onological pa1·allels for conj ecturing under what particular "Pharaoh" (king), occurred tho Exodus, or Joseph's ministry, or Abraham's visit; and inasmuch as neither on tho.Egyptian, nol' on tho Jewish side, can arithmetical precision 219 be atta,incd beyond Solomon's ag ', or about 1000 n. c., we may now, after 34 years of incessant scrutiny since Champollion's "Pr6cis," give up furLhcr illusion that any closer synchl'onism bctwo 11 Moses and tho "Phat-aoh" who was not drowned in tlto Red Sca,Z.!(' than tho one very plausibly arrived at by Lepsius,:m and adopted by Vi count E. de Rong6,22'l will ever l>e wrought out. Afto1· showing tlto probability that Moses must have succeeded the r ign of a Ramscs (Exud, I, 11-"Raamscs "),and that the Exodo prob~tbly took place while MENEPIITIIAII, son of Ramscs II, was on the Lhronc, De Roug6 now confirms an assertion made by me, ever since I acquired some knowledge of hieroglyphics (in Egypt, 1839- 41),-and advanced in the face of then-preponderating hopes rather than testimony to the contrary, tbat-"wo have not found, upon tho monuments, the trace of those first relations of the Israelites with Egypt." They never will be found; and this for reasons which a critical cxamin:Hion of the ages and wl'itcrs of tho boolc called "Exodus" would conclnsivoly explain. ." ?hronology,".continucs De Rouge, "prcF~ents too many unccrtamtics, as much 1~ Egyptian history as iu the Bible, and especially when an endeavor IS .m~dc to measure the period of the Judges, for one t~ be aLlo, a prwn .and through a simple comparison of dates, t~ dofmc ~mdc.r what lnng took place the exit from Egypt. Tho difficulty IS Rtlll gl'catcl' when it concerns tho patriarch J oscph, 2ll Gr.tnnoN, Clwpters on Early Egyptian Ilistory, .Arclla:ology, ftc., 1st ed., Now York, 1843; lliLh ed., l'biladclphia, 1864; pp. 2, 3. 218 0RCUllT11 op. cit. p. 50. 219 TttPt& of Ma11lci11d, pp. 688, 706, 714. ~~ W IJ,KINSO~, llfan. a11d Cust. of the .Ancie11t Egyptia11s, London, 1837; I. pp. 54-li • . , Chronologre dtr .IEgypter, Berlin, 4to, 1st part, 1849; pp. 868-68. 22 • Conservator of tho Imperial 1\1 t 1 L . ~ . d " uReum a t 1e ouvre- No/tee Somma ire des 1Jfomww1u gypt1e11& u •uusle du Louvre, Paris, 18mo, 1866; pp. 14, 16, 22-8. TilE POLYGENISTS. 47:1 because the length of the time of servitude in Egypt is itself thu object of numerous controversies." * * * "As we have said, the synchronism of Moses with Ramscs II [XIXth dynasty], so precious at the historical I oint of view, gives us insuilicicnt light for chronology; because the duration of the time of the J uclgcs of Israel is not known in a v ry certain manner. We slHtll remain within the limit of tho probable on placing S1~TI I about 1500 [B. c.], and the commencement of tho XVIIIth dynasty toward the 18th century. But it would bo by no means astonishing if we deceived oursolv s two hundred years in the estimate, so greatly arc the documents vitiated in history or incomplete upon the monuments. "We have thus mounted up to tho moment of tbc expulsion of the Shepherds [.llylcso.s]: here we shall not cv n undertake any further cakulation. The texts do not accord as to the time which the occupation of Egypt by these terrible guests lasted, and tbo monuments arc silent in this respect. That time was long; severa l dynasties succeeded each other before Htc deliverance: this is all that wo know about it. We arc not bettor edified concerning tho length of the first empire, and we possess no reasonable means of measuring the age of the pyramids, those witnesses of the grandam of the primitive Egyptians. If ncvorthel ss we recall to mind, that tho generations which constructed them arc separated from our vulgar era, ftrst by the eighteen centu ries of the second Egyptian empire, next by the very long period of the Asiatic invasion, and lastly by several numerous and powerful dynasties illHt have bequeathed to us some monuments of t1t cir passage, the hoary antiquity of tho pyramids, maugrc inability to calculate it oxaetly, will lose nothing of its majesty in tho eyes of the historian." From this rapid sketch of the unanimity of opinion as to the lzistoric and p1·elti~;to1·ic periods of human life in Egypt (oldest of historical countries) towat·ds which scientific men in France, Italy, Germany, and England, arc now convcl'ging, the reader will appreciate the eot't'cctncss of tl1c view taken by me, and supported with othrr citations, in ':l'ypes of JJ1anlcind. It merely slwws how difl:et·ent mind,;, reasoning without prejudice upon the same common stock of data, necessarily arrive at similar conclusions. But M. de Roug6's reference to the difficulties of adjusting tho chronology of the Book of Jud,;es induces a glance at its new and likely solution proposed by Mr. Samuel Sharpc.zl:l TIJC obstacles to previous settlement of the succession of Israel's 22ll Ilistoric notes on the Books of the Old and New Tes/ammts (supra, note 29) pp. 40-6. I i'l' I . I |
