THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN RESUMED.
AS to the antiquity of Egyptian art, civilization and political power,
there are two main questions:
1. _How much time, after Noah, is required?_
2. _How much can be allowed in harmony with the most reliable
authorities of Hebrew chronology?_
1. Under the head of _time required_, it is in place to note the
circumstances which favored the very rapid growth of Egyptian
civilization and also of the numerical and political power of Egypt.
(a) Mizraim, the father of Egypt, who gave his name to the kingdom, was
a grandson of Noah and the father of seven sons (Gen. 10: 1, 6, 13, 14).
Consequently he started _early and strong_.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(d) It is a capital mistake to assume that the arts and sciences _were
originated_ in Egypt after the flood, and that therefore a very long
time must be allowed for their growth and development up from utter
barbarism. For there was surely no insignificant amount of art and
science among the builders of Noah’s ark. The yet earlier history of
the race names “the father of all such as handle the harp and organ,”
and also “an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron” (Gen.
4: 21, 22).
(e) 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.
2. Under the head of _time required_ it remains to give a synopsis
of the latest and most reliable results of Egyptologists in regard to
the Egyptian date of _Menes_, their first king, and of the building of
the three great pyramids――these being the most important epochs of the
earliest Egyptian antiquity.
The standard historic authority (not, however, above suspicion) is
Manetho, an Egyptian priest of Heliopolis, of the age of Ptolemy
Philadelphus (reigned B. C. 284–246), 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 (died A. D. 232), who was himself in part
copied by Eusebius (of the fourth century) and by Syncellus (flourished
A. D. 780).
Until recently it has been the current opinion of the best
authorities (still held by many) that these dynasties were at some
points _contemporary_ and not _successive_――some of them reigning
in Upper Egypt, others in Middle or Lower Egypt, _at the same time_.
This would raise the problems――How many and which were contemporary?
How much is the entire period actually shortened by this
contemporaneousness?――――Moreover it has been supposed also that on the
same throne there has been at some points a joint occupancy of two or
more kings――father and son perhaps, or of some rival claimants; so that
the entire duration of a given dynasty may be less than the sum of the
reigns of its enumerated kings.[20]――――The problem of whole duration
being complicated by these elements of uncertainty, it has been the
great aim of recent investigation to gather in all possible aid from
the monuments and bring their testimony to bear upon the tables of
Manetho. The results are variously estimated and the problem can not
be regarded as yet fully settled.
I place together the opinions of some of the best authorities:
I. _For the date of Menes, reputed the first king._
B. C.
Bunsen’s latest revised recension of Egyptian Chronology
locates him[21] 3059
J. P. Thompson at least as far back as 3000
R. S. Poole (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 682) 2717
Sir Gardner Wilkinson (see “Aids to Faith,” p. 294) 2690
Wm. Palmer (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 687) 2224
The “Old Chronicle” (very valuable authority) 2220
Eratosthenes and ♦Apollodorus, original authorities,
in no respect inferior to Manetho 2793
Other estimates from less reliable authorities carry him back yet
further.
For convenience of comparison we place here our corrected Bible
Chronology for the call of Abraham――viz. B. C. 2248; and for the
flood, by the longest Septuagint text, B. C. 3425, and by the shortest,
B. C. 3325. These dates afford ample time for Mizraim, grandson of
Noah, to make a home and found a community in Egypt, in which Menes
might presently reach the dignity of being the first king.
II. _The date of the Pyramids._
B. C.
Bunsen in his latest recension, about 2600
Prof. C. Piazzi Smith, by astronomical calculations 2170
George Rawlinson (in “Aids to Faith,” p. 297) 2400
These dates may be compared with the call of Abraham――B. C.
2248.――――J. P. Thompson (Genesis and Geology, p. 86) says――“The three
great pyramids by the common consent of Egyptologers are assigned to
the fourth dynasty of kings of the old empire, as given by Manetho.”
It will be seen that these dates for Menes, the first king, and for the
oldest pyramids are amply provided for within the extension of sacred
chronology as above indicated.――――Other points in Egyptian antiquities
will be treated of in their place.
* * * * *
On the general subject of the _antiquity of man_, it only remains to
touch briefly the subsidiary questions stated above, p. 49.
(a.) _Were there one or more races of primeval men, pre-Adamic, but now
extinct?_
So far as reliable facts have yet come to light there is no sufficient
evidence of the affirmative. Our investigations into the antiquity
of man do not seem to demand a longer time than the extended sacred
chronology above presented affords. It is perhaps too soon to say that
no evidence will yet appear of a pre-Adamic race not in existence now.
But it will be soon enough to recognize the fact when the evidence
shall have been adduced. Till then, it is more scientific to believe
only so far as we have knowledge based on evidence.
(b.) _Have there been various head-centers of existing human species,
or only one, and that Adam?_――――Or (the same question in different
form) Are all the living varieties of race lineally descended from
Adam? and all from Noah?――――These questions contemplate the well known
diversities of race in the existing human family.
The classification of _race_ is made somewhat variously by different
authors; but the more common one makes _five_ classes: The Caucasian,
or white; The Mongolian, or yellow; The Ethiopian negro race, or black;
The American, or red; and the Malayan, or brown. (See Webster.)
Let it be premised in the outset that this distinction of race is
one of _variety_ and not of _species_. It sits upon the surface and
does not penetrate to the inner nature. All these races have the same
anatomical structure; the same physical organs; and what is far more,
the same intellectual and moral nature. Every-where they exhibit the
common effects of the fall of Adam; the same depravity of moral nature;
the same common need of redemption by Christ.――――These are cardinal
traits and tests. What is the color of the skin compared with the stamp
of God’s image upon the very nature itself?
That these races intermingle and cross indefinitely is sufficient
proof that they are only _varieties_, and by no means distinct
_species_.――――Yet this of itself does not prove that all men have
descended from one first man――Adam. For the Lord had power to create
five or ten Adams, each the head-center of as many distinct races,
yet all, of the one species, _man_. So far therefore as respects the
creative power of God or the constitution of man, this is an open
question: _What then are the facts_?
1. The Scriptures imply with the strongest form of implication that
the Adam of Genesis is the father――the one only father――of the whole
human race. The narrative of the creation; of the fall; and of the
first promise of redemption――all imply this. Paul implies it in those
passages in which he compares the ruin of the race through the one
man Adam with the salvation provided for the race through the greater
second _Man_, Jesus Christ. The strong passages are Rom. 5: 12–19 and
1 Cor. 15: 21, 22.
2. The diversities of race may be accounted for as produced by either
or both of two causes; (a.) Climatic influences; (b.) Sporadic,
abnormal peculiarities, appearing suddenly, and perpetuating themselves
by inheritance.
3. The geographical distribution of the race from one head-center,
Adam, is certainly possible. There is some reason to suppose that the
relative position of the seas, oceans, and continents at their points
of nearest approach may have been different in the earlier ages from
the present.
4. The proofs of a common language from which all known human languages
have been derived conspire to sustain the common origin of all the
human family.
This list of proofs might be extended and the argument from these
points greatly expanded.
On the subordinate question whether Noah was the common ancestor of all
the races living since his day, the answer turns mainly on the point of
the universality of the deluge; or rather, on this precise point――Did
the deluge destroy all the living men except those saved with Noah in
the ark?
This question will be considered in its place.