Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

ORIGINES BIBLICÆ.

CHAPTER I.

The inspired character of the Bible asserted ;-Its consequent authority :—The position maintained, that they who deny its inspiration ought nevertheless, upon their own principles, to admit its historical authority.-Importance of the Bible simply in its historical character.-The error of allowing heathen authorities to stand upon an equality with the Bible as records of authentic history, and to bias the interpretation of the Sacred Volume: This error exemplified in the Geography of Sacred History: Origin and progress of the prevailing erroneous system of that Geography;-Its rise among the Jews consequent upon perversions derived from heathen sources;-Examples of these perversions in the positions assigned by them to Babel, Padan Aram, and Mitzraim (the Egypt of the Translations): -This erroneous system introduced into the Christian world by the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament :-Its consequences in the present day.-The system of Geography proposed by the author founded upon the evidence of Scripture alone:-Its results as connected with the Geography of Profane History, and with the consideration of the Primeval History of mankind.

THE BIBLE, from its character as the written Word of God, must necessarily hold a rank as infinitely superior to all human compositions, as is the Almighty and all-perfect Being from whom it has

B

2 IMPORTANCE OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES AS

emanated, above the weak and peccable creatures for whose instruction and guidance it is vouchsafed. Its statements, therefore, are equally to be received as authoritative in all matters relating to the history of the world, as are its doctrines and precepts imperative on all questions of faith and morals. The truth of this proposition, however, will not be admitted by those who dispute the sacred character of the Inspired Volume, and who in many cases have become so entirely blind to the truth, as to regard the Bible (or at least the early portions of it,) as little better than a collection of traditions and mere fables, possessing few if any higher claims to belief than the mythological legends of Greece or of India.

In answer to these unbelievers, I need only say, that it is not within the scope of the present Work to adduce arguments (if arguments be necessary,) in support of the authenticity of the Bible as an inspired composition, for which I must refer to the works of the various advocates of Revelation; but with respect to its authority as an historical work I claim for it, from those who admit the evidence of profane historians, that rank to which it is entitled in its character of the authentic records of the Israelitish nation. How far more important, simply in this character, is the Bible, in the consideration of the primeval history of mankind, than any heathen authorities whatever, will be at once acknowledged when its far higher antiquity is for a moment impartially regarded; for it is a fact which cannot

RECORDS OF PRIMEVAL HISTORY.

3

be too strongly borne in mind, that authentic Profane History terminates at the point at which, in the ascent into past ages, the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures only begins': Herodotus, the so-styled

1 The Phoenician History of Sanchoniatho, which is only known to us through the few remains which have been preserved of the Greek translation of Philo Biblius, cannot be regarded as forming a portion of veracious profane history, even if its authenticity be admitted, and its author consequently be entitled to the epithet of the most ancient writer of the heathen world.' Neither can the Babylonian annals of Berossus (who lived in the time of Alexander the Great, about a century after Herodotus,) be brought forward as authentic records of primeval history; nor is either their character for veracity or their authority advanced by the statement contained in them that they were compiled from 'written accounts, preserved at Babylon with the greatest care, comprehending a period of above fifteen myriads of years.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The writings of the Egyptian chronicler Manetho are in date yet a century later than those of Berossus, but as they are expressly stated to be taken from authentic sources of much earlier date, it might be contended that they ought to be received

an authority of greater antiquity; and especially so since the hieroglyphical disquisitions of the late M. Champollion and those scholars in France and England who have adopted the phonetic system of interpretation, profess to establish the entire correctness of the dynasties of Manetho. But from the circumstance that the correctness of the phonetic system of hieroglyphical interpretation cannot in reality be considered as established at a point far advanced beyond that at which it was left by the late Dr. Young, to whom the world is indebted for its discovery*, and

* See M. Julius Klaproth's able Examen Critique des Travaux de feu M. Champollion sur les Hieroglyphes, as reviewed in the Edinburgh Review, vol. lvii. pp. 461-476.

4 ERRORS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE

'Father of History' having been the contemporary of no earlier of the writers of the Bible, than Nehemiah, the last of the historians, and Malachi, the last of the prophets; whilst the earlier prophets and historians carry upwards an unbroken chain of evidence into the remotest ages of antiquity. In fact, with regard to the history of the world during the ages anterior to the Flood, and during also more

also from the fact that many of the statements of Manetho are (as I propose to demonstrate,) absolutely false, it follows that the writings bearing his name cannot be received as absolute authority; and, I may add, that even their authenticity is to be questioned.

With respect to the historical records of the Chinese and Hindoos, to which an idea of indefinite antiquity has generally been attached, the result of the learned and laborious researches of M. Julius Klaproth establish the fact, that the authentic records of the latter people go no further back in reality than the twelfth century AFTER the birth of Christ; whilst those of the former nation, which from their local character are entirely useless in the consideration of universal history, commence only at the ninth century B.C. The following summary from M. Klaproth's Essay on the Authority of the Asiatic Historians, as translated in the Asiatic Journal (vol. xvi. p. 435.), will not be uninteresting, as showing (to use M. Klaproth's words,) "that the expectation of deriving more materials for the ancient history of mankind than we find in the Mosaical books, or among the Babylonians, "Egyptians, or Greeks, is very much over-reached [-rated?]." "Beginning of the native authentic history of the

66

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

SCRIPTURES DERIVED FROM HEATHEN SOURCES. 5

than one half of the period which has elapsed since that epoch', every document possessed of any real claim to authority as historical evidence is contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in them alone.

Seeing, then, the vast importance of the Bible when regarded merely in its historical character, it is astonishing how, in the consideration of primeval history, the vague and unsatisfactory traditions of the Gentile world should be permitted to stand upon an equality with the explicit and authoritative statements of the Bible; and this, too, not merely by the opponents of Revelation, but by those persons also who implicitly receive the Scriptures as their absolute and exclusive guide in all matters of doctrine, of piety, and of moral conduct. Nor is this inconsistency the sole error committed even by the firmest and most sincere believers in the truths of Revelation; for by attributing to their heathen guides far greater importance than they are under any circumstances entitled to, they have permitted those guides to bias and controul their judgement in the investigation and interpretation also of the

1 The Flood (according to Dr. Hales) occurred in 3154 B.C., that is, 4988 years since; whilst Herodotus did not write until about 430 B.C., or only 2264 years ago. Except in some few instances, I adopt Dr. Hales's chronology, as being on the whole sufficiently correct. I say sufficiently,' since the difference of a hundred, or even a few hundred years, must be of comparatively little importance in an approximation to the history of the first ages of the world, such as the present Work is intended to present, so long as the principal epochs are defined and established with a degree of accuracy adequate to their importance.

« ForrigeFortsæt »