As an Egyptologist, Professor Müller is recognized for his scholarship
and learning on both sides of the Atlantic. A favorite pupil of Georg
Ebers, he continued his studies at the University of Berlin under Adolf
Erman, and soon made a mark for himself. His _Asien und Europa nach
Altägypt Denkmaller_,–“Asia and Europe from the Egyptian Monuments,”–at
once gave him high standing in that field. Expressing his regret that he
was not able to give more time to the examination of “The Threshold
Covenant” in its proof-sheets, he says:
“You did not hear from me earlier because my too close occupation
prevented my studying your book as thoroughly as I wished, and
contributing, as I hoped to, something on the threshold question. Even
now I have to write hastily.
“I have found your book most interesting and suggestive, so that I
heartily recommend its publication. I hope to be able to read it more
carefully, and to give a more detailed criticism, after a while.
“A few remarks:
“Page 103.–_Per-ao_ [Pharaoh]–gate, door. Not to be proved. Strangely,
the root _pire_ means ‘to go out.’ Originally _pr_ may have been ‘door,’
but not in historic times.
“Page 161.–[Calling the region of Sinai, the ‘land of God’.] A mistake!
The ‘land of God’ is only the land on the Red Sea. No such records known
of Mt. Sinai.
“Page 180, line 5.–[A memorial stone spoken of as marking the boundary
line.] How do you know it was a boundary stone?
“There is rich material of better and earlier passages on boundary
stones than that given on page 180.
“_El gisr_ means ‘bridge.’ The dictionaries do not give ‘threshold.’
“Page 184.–Sinai, an ‘Egyptian boundary line’? Still less did the ‘holy
mountain’ (p. 185) ever mark the southern frontier. The threshold
sacrifices are evidently a mistake. But I do not have at hand Brugsch’s
book–a very fanciful and unreliable book.
“I hope that as soon as a very pressing work has been finished, I shall
be able to revise all your passages bearing on Egypt. But even if I
should find some more of these minor faults, they would not change the
good general impression of the book.”
It will be seen that none of the points questioned by Professor Müller
are vital to the main thesis of the book, or essential to its
illustration of the prevalence of the threshold covenant customs in
Egypt. Moreover, it will be observed, by a reference to my authorities
at the pages mentioned, that the facts and opinions I have presented at
these points are on the authority of Brugsch Bey and other scholars. The
scholarship of Professor Müller, of course, gives him the right to
question the testimony of any other Egyptologist.
As to the boundary line of Egypt in the Sinaitic peninsula, that simply
refers to the famous tablet and inscription, in Wady Maghara, of Snefru,
the great king of the fourth dynasty, when he had first extended his
dominions thus far.[714] What was then Egypt’s boundary line of conquest
in that direction may, indeed, not have continued to be so. The same may
be said of the southern boundary of Egypt on the Nubian frontier.[715]
My reasons for giving “the threshold” as a meaning of _el gisr_ are to
be found in full in my “Kadesh-barnea,” at pages 50, 339, 341 f.
It is to be noted that Professor Müller had already pointed out to me
the existence of a temple at Thebes bearing the name of the “Silver
Threshold,”[716] after the days of the eighteenth dynasty. He promises
other notes in this direction when he has time for further research.
-----
Footnote 713:
This is the discovery to which Professor Hilprecht refers in his
letter, Professor Hommel’s note having been received just before
Professor Hilprecht sailed for Constantinople.
Footnote 714:
See Erman’s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 468 f.; Maspero’s _Dawn of
Civilization_, pp. 242, note, 391.
Footnote 715:
See Erman, pp. 467, 503, and Maspero, pp. 484, 490.
Footnote 716:
See p. 127, _supra_.
-----