Read Ebook: The Pentateuch in Its Progressive Revelations of God to Men by Cowles Henry

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 433 lines and 176667 words, and 9 pages

Under the first head the traces are either

From these admitted facts I make this special point, viz. that if man had lived on the earth contemporary with the oldest animal species, we ought to find not merely one skeleton or half a skeleton buried along-side of myriads of fossil sea-shells and fishes, but a fair show of specimens, so many at least as to leave no question as to his being a joint occupant with them of the earth as it then was. One or two, or even a dozen skeletons, gathered from every explored portion of the earth's surface, are too few for the base of a theory like this because such scattered cases, in number so meager, are always subject, more or less, to abatement from the following possibilities:

The human family in all ages have buried their dead, and often, during the earlier ages, in rock-hewn sepulchers or in natural caves;

In all ages of the world men have been liable to fall into rock-fissures and ravines and to die there; and to leave their skeletons to become fossil there, particularly in calcareous and similar rocks where decomposition or solution in water and new deposits are in progress;

Men have been wont to frequent caves for shelter, for safety in war or from persecution, and consequently might leave their bones there; or

Their bones may have been dragged into caverns by flesh-eating animals or borne into strange positions by underground currents of water; or again,

Since the historic Adam, drift deposits have in some circumstances been forming under water, in which waters men have been liable to be drowned and their skeletons to become imbedded in those deposits. Changes of elevation may bring such deposits to view.

Such possibilities must practically nullify confidence in the proof of man's high antiquity from his bones so long as the specimens are so exceedingly few and even these few found only quite near the surface.

Yet let it be understood:--The way is open for any extent of further investigation. We have no occasion to fear the result of the search. Let the rocks be torn up and examined; let mountains be tunneled and canals be dug; let railroad grading go where it will; if the human skeleton should be found where none of these or similar possibilities admit its date since Adam, we will certainly give the case all due consideration and weight.

The various stages of civilization developed in these ancient remains have been usually classified under three heads:

The time required for the succession of forest growths since his first appearance.

The age of the animal races, extinct or living, whose remains are found associated with his.

We have next and last another source of testimony which is mainly free from the uncertainties of estimate, viz. the question of commercial relations between the barbarous stone-age, bronze-age, or iron-age tribes, and the civilized nations of the early historic ages.

The estimates on these several points demand distinct consideration.

The estimate of the time required for the alluvial deposits along the banks of rivers, has been extremely various. Lyell, having visited the delta of the Mississippi river in person, estimated its time-period of accumulation at one hundred thousand years. But a careful examination made by gentlemen of the Coast Survey and other United States officers, reduces this time-period to four thousand and four hundred years. Again, Mr. Lyell estimates that 220,000 years are necessary to account for changes now going on upon the coast of Sweden. Later geologists reduce the time to one-tenth of that estimate. A piece of pottery was discovered deeply buried under the deposits at the mouth of the Nile. It was confidently asserted that the deposits could not have been made during the historic period, until it was proved that the article in question was of Roman manufacture. Such diversities suffice to show at least that somebody has blundered. Some of these high estimates are gratuitously extravagant. All estimates from the drift deposits, bearing on the antiquity of man, ought in reason to be made with careful reference to these two modifying considerations:

That drift deposits may have been, and with the utmost probability were, much more rapid in the earlier ages than at present. At the close of the glacial and ice period vast masses of loose matter were ready to be swept rapidly as drift by river freshets. Any farmer may have an illustration of this if he will plow his side-hill field, running his furrows up and down the hill. He will find that the first powerful shower will bring down far more drift than the fortieth. It would be very short-sighted in him to take the drift of the tenth year after the said plowing for his rate of annual deposition and estimate the whole period from this data. But on this mistaken principle some geologists have made their time estimates for the drift simply monstrous.

We may apply these modifying considerations to the case given by Lyell of the drift deposits near the Lake of Geneva. Here are five inches in thickness deposited since the Roman period which we safely put at 1800 years. Next below is a strata of six inches depth, marked by bronze implements, which he estimates to reach back from the present time, 3000 to 4000 years. Similarly, the next strata indicated as the Stone age, he counts at 5000 to 7000 years old. But if the depositions were much more rapid in the early than in the later ages of our world, these estimates for the ages of bronze and of stone must be materially shortened, and may reasonably be brought within the historic period of man.

The peat beds of Denmark are put by Lyell at a minimum of 4000 years. In the valley of the Somme they are found 30 feet deep; and in its upper strata there are Romish and Celtic memorials, showing that its depositions continued a considerable time after the historic age of Rome.

The time required for the succession of forest growths since the appearance of man.

On the point of the traditions and chronologies of the ancient nations of the East, the first problem is to ascertain what they are and what they claim. If they run up their figures to 20,000 years, the extravagance of the claim vitiates its credibility. We put it to the account of fancy and fiction, or of national pride, and rule it out from the realm of historic science. But if as estimated by Bailly the years from the Christian era back to the creation are put in Chinese chronology at 6157; in the Babylonian, at 6158; and in the Indian at 6174, we give these chronologies our respectful attention. The fact that the extreme difference in these three is but seventeen years is certainly striking, and indicates either a common origin of authority or an approximation toward the truth; perhaps both. We shall soon have occasion to compare these figures with the latest and most approved results of Biblical chronology.

As to the age of Egyptian art, civilization, and political power, the time allowed for its development in harmony with Usher's chronology must be admitted to be short--almost incredibly short. Here I submit that the primary question should be--the correctness of Usher. Let the Bible system of chronology be rigidly scanned--not for the purpose of making it tally with Egyptian claims, or with any other system of chronology not sacred; but for the purpose of arriving at the truth as ascertainable from the Bible itself.

HEBREW CHRONOLOGY.

B. C. The decree of Cyrus for the restoration of the Jews. 536 The duration of the captivity, from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 70 years. 606 From the revolt, first year of Rehoboam to the fall of the city, 388 years. 976 To the founding of the temple, beginning of Solomon's fourth year, 37 years. 1013

This last epoch has chronological importance--the foundation of the temple laid--A. D. 1013.

His computation runs thus:

The long period for the Judges rests primarily on Acts 13: 20, which states that "after having divided to them the land of Canaan by lot, God gave them judges 450 years until Samuel the prophet." Placing 450 in the above computation in place of 339--an excess of 111 years--we find the date of the Exodus B. C. 1604 instead of Usher's figures ?B. C. 1491.

In support of this long period for the Judges may be urged--

The authority of Paul as above which makes this period 450 years.

Josephus makes the interval from the Exodus to the founding of the temple 592 years, and not 480. The Jews of China also make it 592--facts which favor the supposition that the Hebrew text of 1 K. 6: 1, is in error. It can not be supposed that either Josephus or the Chinese Jews adjusted their figures to harmonize with Paul.

A distinct class of proofs came from an estimate of the generations between the fathers who went down into Egypt and the sons who entered Canaan. Of this, presently.

The evidence from the lapse of generations during the sojourn in Egypt is of great, not to say decisive, importance to our question. Here, however, opinions as to its bearing differ totally. One of the test passages is Ex. 6: 16-20, which makes the whole age of Levi 137 years; of Kohath, his son, 133; of Amram--apparently his son and the father of Moses, 137. The age of Moses when he stood before Pharaoh was 80. Kohath was born in Canaan; his father was older by several years than Benjamin; presumably, therefore, his children were older; yet Benjamin had ten sons when he went down into Egypt . If we suppose that Kohath was 25 when he went into Egypt, then he lived there 108 years. Amram lived there 137, and Moses at the Exodus had lived 80. With these given generations and ages, this computation is stretched to its utmost extent since it supposes Kohath's death at 133 and Amram's birth to have occurred in the same year; also Amram's death at 137 and the birth of Moses to be in the same year; yet the sum is only 325, which is less by 105 years than the long period. With these data the short period might be readily provided for.

A better view perhaps of the whole question will be obtained if at this point we study the corresponding table for the period from the birth of Arphaxad to the call of Abram, made up from the Hebrew text, from the Septuagint and from the Samaritan text of Gen. 11:10-26:

On the question--Which of these texts, the Hebrew or the Greek, has been corrupted? it may be said in favor of the integrity of the Hebrew:

In favor of the integrity of the Septuagint on the points now in question may be urged--

As to the period from Adam to Noah, the general concurrence of Josephus--an independent and reliable witness as to the state of all the Jewish authorities of his time. In regard to the period after the flood, the corresponding concurrence of the Samaritan text in all vital points.

The fact that there is no known reason for intentional corruption; while over against this it has been supposed that the Jews during their controversies with the Christians on the great question of the Messiah found it for their interest to shorten the period from the creation to the Christian era in order to prove that the Messiah had not yet come. This presupposes it admitted on both sides that he was to come within some given number of years after the creation--perhaps 4500 or 5000. We have already seen reason to suppose that the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 6: 1 is in error--perhaps corrupted. It is manifestly less than the truth by the difference between 480 and 591.

The accuracy of the Septuagint chronology on these contested points does not appear to have been called in question until at least 400 years after the translation was made--never before A. D. 150, about the date when the controversy arose respecting the Christian Messiah.

It was in use and fully accredited before the Christian era.

The Chaldean and Egyptian annals seem to demand more time back to the flood or to the creation than the present Hebrew text admits, and therefore lend their influence in favor of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew because of its longer periods.

This approximates toward harmony with the reported results of the Indian chronology which locates the creation B. C. 6174; also the ?Babylonian, B. C. 6158, and the Chinese, B. C. 6157--the excess of the latter above the longest sacred chronology being only 530 years. The approach toward harmony in these three not sacred chronologies--the Indian, the ?Babylonian and the Chinese--the extreme difference being only 17 years--is certainly a remarkable fact.

THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN RESUMED.

AS to the antiquity of Egyptian art, civilization and political power, there are two main questions:

The fertility of the Nile valley was prodigious; it was capable, therefore, of sustaining an immense population, and so would attract other people besides the lineal descendants of Mizraim. Every thing was propitious for the early and rapid peopling of their country.

Fixed residence, coupled with cheap bread and abundance of it, put the Egyptian on vantage-ground above any other ancient nation for the early culture of art and for rapid growth in all that made Egypt great.

It is a significant fact that the Chaldean tradition of the deluge as preserved by Berosus sets forth the special care taken by Noah to preserve and transmit to the new-born nations after the flood the arts and sciences which had been developed before that catastrophe. They say he was admonished to put in writing an account of these arts and sciences and deposit it in a place of safety until the flood should be past. This tradition reveals the fact of a current belief that there was such knowledge to be preserved, and that means were used to preserve it.

The standard historic authority is Manetho, an Egyptian priest of Heliopolis, of the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus , who is supposed to have made up from the ancient records of his nation a list of thirty or thirty-one dynasties of Egyptian kings, beginning with Menes and ending with the conquests of Alexander the Great, giving the years of each king's reign. Unfortunately it comes down in a somewhat fragmentary condition, as copied by Julius Africanus , who was himself in part copied by Eusebius and by Syncellus .

I place together the opinions of some of the best authorities:

B. C. Bunsen's latest revised recension of Egyptian Chronology locates him 3059 J. P. Thompson at least as far back as 3000 R. S. Poole 2717 Sir Gardner Wilkinson 2690 Wm. Palmer 2224 The "Old Chronicle" 2220 Eratosthenes and ?Apollodorus, original authorities, in no respect inferior to Manetho 2793

Other estimates from less reliable authorities carry him back yet further.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet