DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6359#0148
132
EGYPT AND ITS MONUMENTS.
from it, to rely upon the classical authorities, the oldest of
which dates at least 1000 years after the temples on which
the sculptures occur. Now, that a record of the same fact is
sometimes preserved hoth in the Bible and on the monuments,
is undeniable; should not this coincidence have at least begot-
ten the suspicion that possibly, as a mere history, illustrative
of the monuments, the Bible was actually the best help to be
had ? Indeed, had it been presented to the world as a mere
history of human events, without any other claim to acceptance
than that which belongs to Herodotus, for instance; had it
not professed to fulfil the higher object of being a guide froffl
God, authoritatively addressed to man; who can doubt that
many a modern archaeologist would have gladly availed him-
self of its aid, and trumpeted forth the accuracy of his hiei'0'
glyphical interpretations as proved by the wonderful confirma-
tion they received from that veritable historian, Moses ? Very
sure it is, that, as yet, the perfect certainty in some instances
of correct hieroglyphical interpretation can be proved only W
referring to the narratives of the Bible. The book is not
indebted to the monuments for confirmation of its truth, aS
much as the monuments are to it, for proof of their correct
interpretation. It would seem, too, that there has been aI1
error even on the part of some of the friends of revelation, 10
presenting the coincidences between the Bible and the mollU'
ments, as exhibited in the pictures merely, while the w.
scriptions that accompany them, and, in truth, form their
explanation, have been neglected.
Entering upon a comparison of the Bible with EgyPtial|
monuments, these preliminary remarks may not be wit'10
use, as indicating, in some degree, what we may expect to W
Whoever supposes that he will meet with a continuous sc« P
EGYPT AND ITS MONUMENTS.
from it, to rely upon the classical authorities, the oldest of
which dates at least 1000 years after the temples on which
the sculptures occur. Now, that a record of the same fact is
sometimes preserved hoth in the Bible and on the monuments,
is undeniable; should not this coincidence have at least begot-
ten the suspicion that possibly, as a mere history, illustrative
of the monuments, the Bible was actually the best help to be
had ? Indeed, had it been presented to the world as a mere
history of human events, without any other claim to acceptance
than that which belongs to Herodotus, for instance; had it
not professed to fulfil the higher object of being a guide froffl
God, authoritatively addressed to man; who can doubt that
many a modern archaeologist would have gladly availed him-
self of its aid, and trumpeted forth the accuracy of his hiei'0'
glyphical interpretations as proved by the wonderful confirma-
tion they received from that veritable historian, Moses ? Very
sure it is, that, as yet, the perfect certainty in some instances
of correct hieroglyphical interpretation can be proved only W
referring to the narratives of the Bible. The book is not
indebted to the monuments for confirmation of its truth, aS
much as the monuments are to it, for proof of their correct
interpretation. It would seem, too, that there has been aI1
error even on the part of some of the friends of revelation, 10
presenting the coincidences between the Bible and the mollU'
ments, as exhibited in the pictures merely, while the w.
scriptions that accompany them, and, in truth, form their
explanation, have been neglected.
Entering upon a comparison of the Bible with EgyPtial|
monuments, these preliminary remarks may not be wit'10
use, as indicating, in some degree, what we may expect to W
Whoever supposes that he will meet with a continuous sc« P