Part 9

"Some of the numerous facts, which the study of Egyptian developed, will be applied to the Holy Scriptures in some of those portions which relate to Egypt, and they will shed much light upon these passages of the sacred annals. We shall endeavour to accomplish this work with all the precision and simplicity possible in researches which are necessarily scientific, but which are of high interest on account of their tendency; and it is on this account only, that we present them with such confidence.

"A religion whose origin is from above, is without doubt safe from the vain attacks of a few blinded men; and, while it has been defended for so many centuries by the most powerful minds that have shed a lustre upon the sciences and upon literature, it scarcely needs our weak defence. Yet it is consoling to a Christian, to witness the amazing progress of human knowledge. The mind is ever attaining to new truths, and is confirming the remark so often quoted from a celebrated English Chancellor, (Bacon) a remark which applies as well to revealed as to natural religion, of which Christianity is but the development; _Leves gustus in philosophia movere fortasse ad atheismum, sed pleniores haustus ad religionem reducere_: i. e. _superficial knowledge in philosophy may perhaps lead to atheism, but a fundamental knowledge will lead to religion_."

The Essay of Mons. Greppo is composed of two parts, the first of which is an explanation of the hieroglyphic system of Champollion; and the second, the application of the hieroglyphic system to the elucidation of the sacred writings. The relations of the Hebrews with the Egyptians were such, that the history of the latter cannot be otherwise than most intimately connected with the religion of the Bible. In fact, there was no country in the world, foreign to Judea, whose name is so conspicuous in the Bible, as that of Egypt; beginning at the time of Abraham, and going down to the very Apostolic age; and it hence follows, that he who would study in detail, the historic annals of the Hebrews, ought to be as fully acquainted with those of ancient Egypt, as the largest means will allow. In carrying out his intention, M. Greppo has gone deeply into philological, historical, chronological, and geographical considerations. By making the "precis" of Champollion the basis of his argument, and bringing in to his assistance the labours of the elder Champollion, called by way of distinction Champollion Figeac, from the place of his residence; he has investigated the history of the Pharaohs, as connected with the accounts given in the books of Genesis and Exodus, and the later historical writings.

In the fourth chapter of the second part, there is an interesting discussion relative to the difficulty of reconciling the position taken in Exodus, as to the perishing of Pharaoh, with the conclusions drawn from the investigations of Champollion. The last Pharaoh of the Exodus, is ascertained to be the King _Amenophis Ramses_. According to Manetho, he reigned twenty years; viz. from 1493 B. C., to 1473 B. C., so calculated also by Champollion Figeac. But the departure of the children of Israel took place about the year 1491 B. C., consequently in the second or third year of this Prince. If this Prince perished in the Red Sea, how can this be reconciled with the fact, that Manetho states him to have reigned twenty years, and this is confirmed by the calculations of the elder Champollion. M. Greppo goes into an interesting discussion, to prove that the text of the Book of Exodus does not state that Pharaoh perished in the Red Sea. His examination of the sacred text will be interesting to many of our readers:

"Scripture does not compel us to believe that the Pharaoh with whom we now are concerned, participated in the fatal calamity of his army. And first, Moses says not a word to this effect, when he relates the miracle performed by the Lord in favour of his people. He informs us, it is true, that Pharaoh marched in pursuit of the children of Israel; _And he made ready his chariot and took his people with him. And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel_ (Exod. xiv. 6-8.). A little further on he says; _And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them, into the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots and his horsemen_ (v. 23.). Finally he adds; _And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them_ (v. 28). Such are the principal features of the narrative which Moses gives of this Egyptian expedition, and of the terrible event in which it resulted. But in the circumstantial account of this disaster, he does not name Pharaoh personally except when he speaks of his departure. Now if the persecutor of Israel entered the Red Sea with his army, and was swallowed up with it, is it probable that the chief and legislator of the Hebrews would have been silent about such a circumstance as the tragical death of this prince? an event more important, perhaps, than even the destruction of his army, and surely very proper as a striking illustration both of the protection which God extended to his people, and of the chastisements his justice inflicted upon the impious. And further; to strengthen the faith of this people when in a state of distrust and murmuring, Moses often recounts to them their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, their passage through the Red Sea, and the other miracles which God had wrought for them; and on all these occasions, when the allusion to the death of an oppressive prince would have been so natural, he conveys no such idea.

"The circumstance related by Moses, that no one escaped, _there remained not so much as one of them_, proves nothing relative to the supposed disaster of Pharaoh. It refers to those who followed the Hebrews into the sea, among whom Moses does not enumerate this prince. We remark also, that the sacred historian seems designedly to leave room for making exceptions to the general disaster, by the precise manner in which he announces, _that the waters covered the chariots and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them_; this literally signifies that the waters covered only the chariots and horsemen which entered into the sea, and leaves us to infer that all did not enter. The incidental expression in verse 28, _that came into the sea after them_, seems then to modify the more general expression in verse 23, _even all_, and authorizes us to understand it with some latitude, rather than to restrain it to its rigorous sense. All these circumstances of the narrative accord with the presumption, not only that Pharaoh did not enter into the Red Sea, but perhaps even that some of his infantry, if he possessed any, did not enter; and at least, that this is true of some principal chiefs who surrounded him, and who formed what we now call a body of _staff-officers_.

"In relating the miraculous passage of the Red Sea, the book of _Wisdom_, which describes so often and in such an admirable manner, the wonders of the Lord in conducting his people, and which celebrates the illustrious men whom he made his instruments, makes no mention either of Pharaoh or of his tragical death. It is limited to the remark, that in his wisdom he precipitated the enemies of Israel into the sea (_Wisdom of Solomon_, x. 19)."

Mons. Greppo appears to be aware, that there are difficulties attending his interpretation, arising out of the apparent positive declarations contained in other parts of the sacred volume: for instance, in Ex. ch. xv. 19th v., as also Ps. cxxxvi. 15th v. His answer to these objections, and some collateral arguments by which he endeavours to support his theory, are too long to be here introduced. Professor Stuart, in a learned note, part of which we feel compelled to quote, dissents from the reasoning of Mons. Greppo, and takes the safer course of leaving to further discoveries, what, in the present state of the researches, may not yet be considered as definitely settled.

"The modesty and ingenuity which M. Greppo has exhibited, in the discussion which gives occasion to the present note, certainly entitle him to much credit and approbation. Still it seems to me very doubtful, whether the exegesis in question can be supported. When God says, in Exod. xiv. 17, 'I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen;" and when he repeats the same sentiment in Exod. xiv. 18; the natural inference seems to be, that the fate of Pharaoh would be the same as that of his host, his chariots and his horsemen. Accordingly, in Exod. xiv. 23, it is said, 'The Egyptians pursued, and went in after them [the Hebrews] into the midst of the sea, _every horse of Pharaoh and his chariot_, and his horsemen, into the midst of the sea.' It is true, indeed, that kol-sus par`o v^eh.e-lo may mean, _all the horses of Pharaoh and all his chariots_, viz. all those which belonged to his army. But is it not the natural implication here, that Pharaoh was at the head of his army, and led them on? And when in Exod. xiv. 28 it is said, that of all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after the Israelites, _there remained not so much as one of them_, is not the natural implication here, that Pharaoh at the head of his army went into the sea, and perished along with them?

"In the triumphal song of Moses and the Hebrews, recorded in Exod. xv., the implication in verses 4, 19, seems most naturally to be, that Pharaoh was joined with his army in the destruction to which they were subjected.

"But still more does this appear, in Ps. cvi. 11, where it is said, 'The waters covered their enemies [the Egyptians]; _there was not one of them left_.' How could this well be said, if Pharaoh himself, the most powerful, unrelenting, and bitter enemy which they had, was still preserved alive, and permitted afterwards to make new conquests over his southern neighbours? This passage M. Greppo has entirely overlooked.

"In regard to Ps. cxxxvi. 15, the exegesis of our author is ingenious; but it will not bear the test of criticism. For example; in Exod. xiv. 27, it is said, 'And the Lord _overthrew_ the Egyptians, in the midst of the sea; where the Hebrew word answering to _overthrew_ is dgbz-r from vayna`er from ni`er. But in Ps. cxxxvi. 15, the very same word is applied to Pharaoh and his host; '_And he overthrew_ (vayna`er) _Pharaoh and his host_. In both cases (which are exactly the same), the word ni`er properly means, _he drave into_ (_hineintreiben, Gesenius_.) Now if the Lord _drave_ the Egyptians _into_ the midst of the sea, and also _drave_ Pharaoh and his host _into_ the midst of the sea, we cannot well see how Pharaoh escaped drowning. Accordingly, we find that such an occurrence is plainly recognized by Nehemiah ix. 10, 11, when, after mentioning Pharaoh, his servants, and his people, this distinguished man speaks of the 'persecutors of the Hebrews as thrown into the deep, as a stone in the mighty waters.'

"As to any difficulties respecting _chronology_ in this case, about which M. Greppo seems to be principally solicitous, it may be remarked, that the subject of ancient Egyptian chronology is yet very far from being so much cleared up, as to throw any real embarrassments in the way of Scripture facts. More light will give more satisfaction--as in the famous case of the zodiacs, so finely described in the last chapter of M. Greppo's book."

The fifth and sixth chapters of the work of Mons. Greppo, are devoted to the examination of the history of the Pharaohs mentioned in the sacred writings, down to the time of Solomon, and of the other kings of Egypt, who are distinguished by proper names.

The seventh chapter is devoted to the chronology of Manetho, the official historiographer of Egypt; and several questions are discussed, which relate to the difference between him, and the scripture chronologers. In the close of the chapter, the author draws two conclusions, which we are disposed to think entirely justified by the present state of the investigations--these conclusions will be better stated in the author's own words:--

"From the remarks which we have communicated to our readers, we infer that there is no foundation for that fear about the advance of Egyptian studies, which the religious zeal of some estimable men has led them to cherish; neither is there any occasion to distrust the _data_ transmitted by the historian of the Pharaohs. Nothing can authorize such a distrust. On the other hand, every thing conspires to prove, at the present time, that the new discoveries and their application to chronology, will disclose more and more the truth and exactness of the historic facts in Scripture. We believe that men are too apt to form a judgment of systems when they hardly understand them; and perhaps they are too prone to forget that if true faith is timorous, it is not distrustful, like the pride which is connected with the vain theories of men; because it views the basis, upon which the august edifice of divine revelation reposes, as immoveable. Inspired with this thought, we have adopted, from entire conviction, all the satisfactory results elicited by the labours of the Champollions; and we wait, with impatience and with confidence, the new developments which they promise, persuaded beforehand that revealed religion cannot but gain from them."

In the eighth chapter of his essay, Mons. Greppo applies the discoveries of Champollion to the Egyptian geography, so far as the scriptures are concerned. If it be true, as he conceives, that the city of Rameses occupied the site of the Arabian city, now called Ramsis, there seems to be an irreconcilable difference with some of the scripture relations; for this city, _Ramsis_, is on the western side of the river Nile, and not less than one hundred and fifty miles from that position on the Red Sea, where it is believed that the passage of the Israelites was made. However the question may eventually be settled, it appears to us, that this location can in no sense consist with the text of the sacred writings; for, in the first place, it would have required that the Israelites should have crossed the Nile, on their journey towards Palestine. Of this there is no account; neither had they any means; and it would have required a miraculous interposition to enable them so to do. But, second, the sacred text informs us, that, at the close of the second day after the departure of the Israelites from Rameses, they reached the borders of the Red Sea. It is utterly impossible that they could have crossed the Nile, and travelled one hundred and fifty miles in two days. It is beyond all rational calculation to suppose that they could have travelled at the rate of more than twenty miles per day, and, consequently, we must look for the situation of Rameses at a distance not greater certainly than forty miles from the Red Sea, and on the eastern side of the Nile. If the integrity of the sacred writings is to be preserved, the idea that the Rameses of the Bible, and the Ramsis of the Arabians are identical, must be abandoned, or, at any rate, not adopted until something far more conclusive shall be found, than has yet been given. Professor Stuart, in a note which we have above condensed, refers to a previous work of his, where this subject is more largely discussed, and which, as it may not be familiar to the mass of our readers, being a work distinctly connected with theological studies, will be referred to for a moment. In this work, the Professor enters largely into the examination of the location of Rameses, which stands also for Goshen. He considers, and with vast power of argument and illustration, that the royal residence of the Pharaohs at the time of Joseph and Moses, was at Zoan, and not Memphis, as has been generally supposed. There can be no question, that Zoan was one of the oldest cities of Lower Egypt, and situated on the eastern shore of the second or Tanitic mouth of the Nile, and this was but a little distance from the Pelusiac or eastern branch, on which the residence of the Israelites has generally been supposed to have been. It was an extensive city, and its ruins in the time of the French expedition, occupied an extensive country. Champollion has remarked that the word signifies, "mollis, delicatus, jucundus," which would make Zoan to mean Pleasant town. The reader will be interested to observe, that, in Ps. lxxviii, the writer alludes to Zoan, as the scenes of the miracles of Moses: also Ps. v. verse 12, and also lxxii. verse 43. In the time of Isaiah, it is quite clear, that Zoan was the place where the Egyptian court resided, at least for a time. See ch. xix. verse 11. There are objections to this view of Professor Stuart, but not stronger, than to others; and the most probable is, that the kings of Egypt had different places of royal residence, as is still customary. We know that Cyrus, after conquering Babylon, spent part of his time there, and part at the capital of his native country.

Contrary, therefore, to the opinion of Mons. Greppo, Professor Stuart considers Rameses or Goshen, to be decidedly on the eastern side of the Nile, and this is rendered more certain, if, as the Professor has attempted to prove, _Zoan_ was frequently a royal residence of the Pharaohs. The opinion taken by Mons. Greppo, that Rameses was on the western side of the Nile, in what may be called Lower Eastern Egypt, without the delta, is refuted in Michaelis _Supp. ad Lex._ Hebraica, p. 397. We make no pretentions to the ability of settling these disputed points, and consider it perfectly safe to abide by the present general idea, as to the location of Rameses, especially as there is nothing yet in the shape of positive testimony against it. The reader who is particularly interested in Biblical Archaeology, will be highly gratified by consulting the work of Dr. Stuart, entitled--"Course of Hebrew Study." In the ninth chapter of his Essay, the author has made use of the discoveries of Champollion, to defeat certain objections to the genuineness and authenticity of the Books of Moses, which were started by Voltaire and others of his time. The high antiquity of the Pentateuch was doubted, on the ground that writing in the common language could not then have been known. Champollion has decyphered a manuscript, which contains an act of the fifth year of the reign of Thouthmosis III. This prince governed Egypt at a time when Joseph was carried there as a slave, and this was at least two hundred years previous to the time in which Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

An objection to the truth of the history of the Pentateuch, also, arose out of the circumstance, that the magnificence and excellence of the work said there to have been put upon the ark and its furniture in the wilderness, was utterly beyond the state of the arts at the time challenged in the relation. The discoveries of Champollion have overthrown a supposition which had been held almost indisputable, viz:--that the arts of Egypt had been indebted for their progress, to the influence of those from Greece under the domination of the Lagidae kings. He has established the contrary, beyond doubt, and has proved that the most brilliant epoch of the arts in Egypt, was under a dynasty contemporary with the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt.

The only remaining objection which is noticed by the author, is one which he considers as capable of receiving the same satisfactory solution.

It is objected that the name of _Sesostris_ is not mentioned in Scripture, nor any feature of his history recognised. To this, the investigations made by Champollion and the calculations of Champollion Figeac are made to answer. The commencement of the reign of Sesostris is fixed by these, in the year 1473, B. C.; consequently, this was seventeen or eighteen years after the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. While they were wandering in the wilderness, Sesostris overran Palestine, which was then in possession of its primitive inhabitants, and before the Israelites reached that land, the expedition of Sesostris had long passed, for Diodorus tells us, that it terminated in the ninth year of his reign. The silence of Scripture, therefore, as to Sesostris, is in no wise remarkable, as the people of Israel had no connexion with him, either as friend or foe.

The tenth chapter of the Essay, relates to the Egyptian Zodiacs. To our readers who have examined the subject at all, the history of these is now familiar,--the curious may turn to the Number of this Journal for December, 1827, p. 520, where will be found an ample description.

We have thus given a detailed description of the Essay of Mons. Greppo, and we cannot resist the pleasure before we close, of presenting the few remarks with which he concludes his discussion.

"We come now to the conclusion of our undertaking. With the aid of the new discoveries in Egypt, we think that we have shed some light upon various passages of the sacred annals, and that we have resolved, in a more satisfactory manner, certain difficulties which were opposed to their veracity. We have attentively examined the resources which the writings and monuments of Egypt afford, in the interpretation and defence of a religion, whose lot has been, in all ages, to meet with enemies, when it should have found only admirers and disciples. But the researches to which we have been attending very naturally, as we think, give rise to a thought consoling to the Christian.

"Providence, whose operations are so sensibly exhibited in the whole physical constitution of the world, has not abandoned to chance the government of the moral or intellectual world. By means often imperceptible even to the eye of the man of observation, and which seem reserved for his own secret counsel, God directs second causes, gives them efficiency according to his will, and makes them serve, sometimes even contrary to their natural tendency, to accomplish his own immutable decrees, and to propagate and support that religion which he has revealed to us. It is in this way that, consistently with his own will, he delays or accelerates the march of human intellect; that he gives it a direction such as he pleases; that he causes discoveries to spring up in their time, as fruits ripen in their season; and that the revolutions which renew the sciences, like those which change the face of empires, enter into the plan which he traced out for himself from all eternity.

"Does not this sublime truth, which affords an inexhaustible subject of meditation to the well instructed and reflecting man, but which needs for its development the pen of a Bossuet,--does it not apply with great force to the subject that we have been considering?