On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
w % w mWjhi ^ m ^ Sr ^ m ^ gwfp * 4 m mimm . mm Mwk * W $ S {*<> WvjWP ^ yrfifa % . , wtytXw& Chri ^^ p Jejer ^ g ,. pp .. 21 ,- ^ 6 ;^ but 6 yr limits ^ w ^ ll npt # } ow ; us to expend x > $ r quotations ,: ajad we hope that % intirp - ducing his 4 tscourse to the knowledge of oui : readers , we shall lead many of them to a perusal of the whole .
Untitled Article
Ait * . yiJ ~ Z , ettre h M . C . Coquerel sur , le $ y 4 teme JjUroglyphique de M . Chdmpoliion , comickre dans ses Jlapports avec VEcriiure Sainte , par A < L . Coquerely Pasteur Extraordinokre de VEglhe Wattonne d' Amsterdam . Amsterdam . 1825 . pp . 48 *
( Tp ^ pamph ^ et 9 the title of which was qu ^ te ^ : fp , ^ ii article on Egyptian Hiero - gl yphs wvanotto department of our wor ^ A ( p ., 319 >) was originally designed t ^/ have , | >§ eu a communication to a periodical Work entitled Revue Protestante , established by M . Charles Coquerel at
Paris . A considerable part of it is occupied with an account of the discoveries of M . Champolliori , with the nature of which our readers are already acquainted . We . shall , therefore , confine our notice of the , work to those points of connexion between these discoveries and sacred
literature , Which have not been brought into view in the article before referred to . TJtie aiiti fluity of the Mosaic books has beeiV # out # ed on the ground that , even if \\ ie art of alphabetical writing were known so earjy , there is no reason to believe thiit mankind possessed a material on which bpbks could be written . Eichhorn ,
in his Iritrbduction , had endeavoured to obviate this objectibn , by appealing to the like of jiuett for this purpose in ancient timek ; but how completely is the difficulty ^ e ' niove ^ by M . Champollion ' s discbvei 7 bf a papyrus in the catacombs of Egypt , written , according to the date which he has read on it , 1732 years before the Christian era , or 3557 years before the present time ! ( Lettre a M . le Due de Blacas , II . 58 . ) He himself acknowledges that he was startled at the
discovery of a document at once so ancient and so frail , yet we see no reason to Suppose that he has deceived himself r ^ Becting its antiquity . M . Coquerel dHaWs fVoni this fact the legitimate inferenfe * The tittestVoii will never be asked aijaW , ' Idn what material could Moses \ v « ifer (! thfeuPmitfeiteu ^ tbo 16 ^ to be written on aWfDftft ^ ^ ortaMe m ^ ri ^? , and which was tp be deposited in the side of * % yK <) 'for ? Wejiiav ^ ' a 'liaWrus of
Untitled Article
$ m $ ^ 10 ^ ifflffl ^ ^ * w'te w M ^ m -, 9 t rf 98 # ^ (| Kings XXII ., 2 Chron . xxxiv .. ^ could flnd the autograph of Moses $ fee temple , after the lapse of nearly a ' tnousand years , since papyri o ^ thatjDerfod still exist and are still legible . TT % se new proofs in favour of the authenticity of the earliest books of Scripture are the more valuable , because not loug since a system * of infi ^
delity was built upon the pretended impossibility that the manuscript of Moses should have been preserved so long , and the absurd hypothesis that Hilkiah , at the instigation of Josiah and from mo « tives of self-interest , forged the Pentateuch , which he published under the name of Moses , pretending * in concert with the kiog , to have discovered it in the temple . "—P . 31 .
A considerable part of M . Coquerel ' s pamphlet is taken up withan endeavour to fix the reign of the Egyptian sovereign in which the Israelites went iip out oif Egypt , and he determines tliat the pharaoh of the Exodus was Ameiiop'his , the father of Sesostris , and that the Israelites were wandering in the J ^^ ser ^ Wnile , tl \ e latter prince performed bid' ce ^ ebratec !
expeditions . " We owe /' lie observes , " to M . Champollion the complete and entire solution of one of tne greatest difficulties of Scripture , which Wad never before been satisfact ^ rll ^ r ^ moVecl . R ^ dises , or Sesostrt ^ SvaS ( , 6 tie of the most famous cbuJuetpry of aritjqiilty ; he carried his victbrijbiikkrmsiiito Africa and Europe , 'to i ^ ea ^ h Asia he must have passed the Istfimus of Suez j Palestine was directly in his route , and he must
have conquered it before he could proceed any further ; and yet in Scripture there is not a word about him . What were ; the Hebrews doing then , it has been said : is it possible that they should not have ; come into contact with this conqueror , their uearest neighbour , or that events * . should have been passed over in silence '
by their historians , in which they nius * in some way orothef hare born , e' a part ? Criticism exhausted' itself in coinj ^ ctu ^ to accouutfor this , but to ^ dlUtiorl'fevery simple since the era df ISes ^ trisis ' known . His accession fell in the '^ ear 1473 B . C ., and , according * o ttie'feifcl chronologersthe Exodus ( thd ^ ft tbi ^
, is still a disputed point ) tdttfc { rtaW tof the year 1495 B . C . The % aeR ^ wel ^ therefore wandering in the ' Deae ^ rtt of i Arabia during the first 19 yfeai ^ s of 'hW retgri , and it ia not wondeWittl that ttiid ¦ Bible talses no notice of him . " M . Coquerel proceeds to bhew froni ancient
Untitled Article
c wtMM 9 tm * Si ?
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1827, page 917, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1803/page/61/
-