“ The Roman researches of Niebuhr had proved to me the uncertainty of the chronolo-
sical system of the Greeks, beyond the Olympiads ; and that even Eusebius 8 chronicle, as
preserved in the Armenian translation, furnishes merely isolated, although important, data
for the Assyrian and Babylonian chronology beyond the era of Nabonassar. Again, as
regards the Jewish computation of time, .the study! of Scripture had long °o»vin°ed me,
that there is in the Old Testament no;connected chronology, -prior to Solomon. All that now
passes for a system of ancient chronology beyond that fixed point, is the melancholy legaeg
of the Vith and 18th centuries ; a'compound of intentional deceit and utter misconception of
the principles of historical research.” (320)
With Germanic virility of diction, Bunsen further insists— ^ .
“ This fact must be explained. To deny it, after investigation once incited and begnn,
would imply, on the part of suoh investigator, small knowledge and Btill smaller
“ But fil s’en faut) much is wanting, we are convinced of it, that religious truth should
be thus tied to questions of literature or of chronology. Christian faith no more reposes
unon the chronology of Genesis, than upon its physics and its astronomy ; and besides, to
restrain ourselves to the subject that Occupies
largely opened to us by men who certainly were far from holding Christian orthodoxy
cheap.” (322)
Nor does our learned authority confine himself to mere assertion; because, within.
' year after the publication of the above passage, he pustrates the slight estimation m whiot
he holds Genesiacal chronology in the following emphatic manner ; ~ / I
date of 4136.before J. C.” (323)
That is, our author means, the third Pyramid was built in Egypt just 153 years beta
the world’s Creation, and exactly 1809 years before the Flood ; according to the Petavian
chronology of that Catholic Church in which M. Lenormant is a most devout communiai
We have thought it expedient to preface our chronological inquiries with the above foir
citations. Each of them will protect us, like an Ægis raised on the stalwart arm of Jot
or of Pallas. We have selected,out of the multitude before us, the highest représenta«
of distinct schools; who, nevertheless, perfectly agree in rejecting Scriptural eta*
ology : —- * , — , f
1st The Eev Dr. John Kenrick—author of 'mdny standard classical works, and o
• .E g y p t under the Pharaohs,’’ 1850,- o n e of the most brilliant Protestant sob
lars of England. . <
2d. James Cowles Prichard, M. D., F. R- S. - the noblest champion of the “Unity of
human species.” ' .
3d. Chev. Christian C. J. B n n s en -th e successor of Niebuhr as Prussian Ambassador «!;
the court of Borne, and of Wilhelm von Humboldt at that of St. James; the pup
Sehelling, and the friend of Lepsius. (324)
4th. Prof. Charles Lenormant - the companion and disciple of ChampoUion-le-Jeuie, ;
alike famed for Hellenic erudition, and for severe Catholicity; who now M |
chair of Egyptology, vacated by Letronne’s demise, at the Collège de France. (
It will moreover be remarked that our quotations set up no claim, as yet, for the respM-
(320) Bunsen : m p t ’sF ta c e in Vnicirsk SisUory-, L o n d o n , 1 84 8 P,| g | | | g 2„ 7 _ m u x om W
(3 2 1 ) Ibid.: JEgypUm SteUe in dcr WeUgeschuMe; H am b u r g , 1 8 4 6 , i. , B iu le it u n g , p p . c ,
o m it t e d i n Egy& s b y t h e a c c om p lish e d E n g l i s h t e am la t o r .
/qoo'i L e n o rm a n t : Cours ctHist. Ancienne ; P a r is , 1 , p* ^ . 1Qqq . n n T 6 24
323 L e n o rm a n t : É c la ir c is s em e n ts sur U Cercml du Roi Memphüe M ycennus; P a n s , 1 8 3 9 , p p . 3 , 6, 24.
(3 2 4 ) B e a d D r . A jffio in ’s e u lo g ie s o f t h i s illu s t r io u s g e n t lem a n .
(326) Gleddon: Olia Æ gyptiaca; 1849; pp.) 91, 92.
ability of the chronological systems of other nations at the expense of Judaism. On the
contrary, they bear with undivided force upon Hebrew computations, viewed for themselves
alone.
Not less truthfully does the language of a profound thinker — expression of a fifth, and
far more liberal philosophy, — set forth the effeteness of Jewish chronology. Luke Burke’s
■writings are unmistakeable: his “ Critical Analysis of the Hebrew Chronology” (326) is
one of the most masterly productions our literature can boast. Curtailment is injustice to
its author: to the reader garbled extracts would be unsatisfactory; and the sincere investigator
knows where to peruse the whole. We content our present requirements with one
specimen: —
“ Such, then, is the character and importance of ‘ the most brilliant and important of
Primate* Usher’s improvements in chronology !-^ [as Dr. Hales terms the fabulous notion
that-Abraham was not the eldest son of Terah!] It consists, first, of an argument that
turns out to be groundless, in every one of its elements; and, which, if well-founded,
would prove the Old Testament to be one of the most absurdly written books in existence;
and secondly, of an assumption which, apart from this argument, is wholly gratuitous and
improbable; and w h ic h also, if admitted, would bear equally hard against the character
of the very writings for the support of which it was invented. And it.is by such arguments
as these that grave and léarned divines seek to ascertain the realities of ancient history,
and endeavor to place ohronology upon a rational and sure foundation! And it is to
such as these that men of science are required to bow, at the risk of being deemed sceptical,
dangerous, profane, &c., &c. For it must not be supposed that the present is an
isolated or exceptional instance of theological argument. On the contrary, it is a rule.
Volumes upon volumes have been written in precisely the same spirit —volumes numerous
enough, and ponderous enough, to fill vast libraries. Until a comparatively late era, all
historical criticism, on which Scriptural evidences could in any manner be brought to bear,
was carried on in this spirit. Nothing else was thought o f; nothing approaching to genuine
independence would have been tolerated. And thus the human world rolled round, century
after century; the brave trampled upon by slaves; the wise compelled to be silent in the
presence of fools ; the learned alternately serfs and tyrants, deluded and deluding, cheating
themselves, and cheating others with sophistries which, upon any other subject, would
disgrace even the mimic contests of schoolboys! For ourselves, we should feel a humiliation
to contend with such sophistries seriously, and in detail, were we not firmly convinced
that to do so is not merely the most legitimate, but also the only .mode by which truth can
be rendered permanently triumphant. Wit and sarcasm may obtain a temporary success,
they may awaken minds otherwise prepared for freedom, but they are often unjust, usually
unbenevolent, and consequently, in the majority of cases, they merely awaken antagonism,
and cause men to cling with increased fondness to their opinions. Nothing but minute,
searching, inexorable argument will ever obtain a speedy, or a permanent triumph over
deep-seated prejudices.” (327)
“ But, fortunately,” winds up another and a sixth formidable adversary to-Hebrew computation||
no less an archéologue than the great Parisian architect, L e su eu r^ “ fortunately,
questions of ciphers have nothing in common with religion. What imports it to us,
to us Christians, who date so to say from yesterday, that man should have been thrown
upon our globe at an epoch more or less remote; that the world should have been, created
in six days, or that its birth should have consumed myriads of centuries ? Can God,
through it, become less grand, his work less admirable ? We are, since the last eighteen
hundred years, dupes of the besotted vanity of the Jews. It is time that this mystification
should cease.” (328)
Italian scholarship speaks for itself:—(329)
“ The Bible is, certainly, as the most to be venerated, so the most authoritative fount of
history ; but, in so many varieties of chronological systems, which are all palmed off by
their authors as based upon indications of time taken from the Bible; in the very notable
difference of these indications between the Hebrew and the Samaritan text, and the Greek
version, and between the books of the Old and of the New Testament; finally, in the indecision,
in which the Chu rch has always left such controversy, that, I do not see any certain
standard, by which the duration of the Egyptian nation has to be levelled, unless this
(326) London Ethnological Journal; June, July, November, December, 1848.
(327) Op. cit. ; pp-. 274, 275.
(328) Chronologie des Rois d’Égypte—ouvrage couronné par l’Académie: Paris, 1848; pp. 304, 305.
(329) B arucchi, Director of the Museum of Turin; Discorsi Critici sopra la Ci'onólogia Egizia; Torino, 1844;
PP- 29, 43, 44,147.