Some Conclusions

In the December issue of the Iloiniletic Review, Rev. Dr. Cobern, of this city, has an able article upon "The Sácred Scripture of the Egyytians." After reciting niany interesting facts in relation thereto lie draws the following conclusions : "In view of the discussion regarding the oi'igin, date and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures and the changes which liave taken place in the text since their flrst publication, a few statements concerning the conclusions to which a study of the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" has led us, may not be without some value. The comparison must be limited to the religious texts, as there are no historical narrativesin the "Book of the Dead." Some of these conclusions seem entirely in the line of the most radical "higher criticism" of Germany. These Egyptian Scriptures claim to have been of divine authorship. The chapters were sometimes found, as the Book of Deuteronomy was found in Josiah's day ; but no author was ever assigned to them except Thoth, the god of wisdom. If one rëjëcts this traditional view, he is forced to believe that even the noblest chapters of this great work carne from the pen of "the Great Unknown."' Again, this work is full of supernatur alism ; a belief in divine appearances and other miracles. Much of it was ev identlj' written under priestly influence and with priestly bias. Still further, i is almost startling to discover that the "Redactor" has been at work upon al most every chapter ; and that in the seventh century - the century so famous in the Hebrew history of the Canon - a seeming codification of the various re ligious texts took place, and thereaftei what had been independent chapters became parts of a uniform and author ized volume. So far there appears to be perfect harmony between the hypothesis of the higher critics of the Hebrew Scriptures, whose opinions are based solely upon internal testimony, and the conclusions of Egyptologists, who have reached their conclusions, not simply by the examination of late texts, but by a comparison of hundreds of texts of undoubted authenticity, separated from each other by thousands of years. Other necessary conclusions from this study do not seem, however, to fit so easily into the new theories : 1. This book of religión was already written and considerable textual criticism had been expended upon it before the days of Abraham. In the days of Moses, no one could be buried without carrying with him to the tomb a portion of the written word. It is incredible that Moses could have been a religious teacher trained in the Egyptian schools and not put into writing his precepts. 2. While there are many changes which have crept into the text of various chapters, these chauges seem to have been due, almost always, to a misunderstanding of the primitivo text, or to some comment upon the text, which in after centimes was regarded as the text itself. All Egyptologists agree that there are fe"w intëntioniil inter'polations or falsifications. A text of Abraliam's day, when compared with a text of Josiah's day, is the same text, with only sucfi exceptious as ean be traced to the bluüders of copyists or the addition of explanations. When priestly bias is displayed, it is shown usually, not by mutilating an ancient prayer or hymn, but by ascribing this to some other god than that to whorn it was originally dedicated. Whatever may be said of the Hebre ws, the ancient Egyptians were very careful to retain the exact words of their sacred Scriptures, even when they did not understand at all the meaning of the words. 3. While a theological developinent can be traced in the "Book of the Dead," yet it proyes to be very different from what might have been expected. There is no such growth in the Egyptian conception of God and the soul and the future lite as has been affirmsd by some modern critics of the Hebrew. Indeed, theoldest chapters havo the least of magie and the most of sublimity iu them. They are the latest, not tlie earliest chapters, which are the most fetishistic and polytheistic. Even conservative critics liave agreed to the proposition that a book of ure could be dated öarlier or later than another, because of its more profound and supposedly "advanced" ideas of God; but tb e "Bookof the Dead" proves that this is ïiot an infallible test. In the oldest chapters there are such lofty conceptions that David's Psalms or the prayers of Moses and the prophets need not be rejected for that reasou. The developrnent in the historie period was not from bad to better, but from good to worse. In the earliest text of the most ancient chapters, the divinity affirms : "I am Yesterday and the Kiusman of To-morrow," but, the later additiou is : "Yesterday is Osiris, andTo-niorrow is Ra." In this same most ancient text it is affirmed of Ra: "His names together compose the cycle of the gods ;" but the comment is, "It is Ra who creates the names of his linibs which become the gods who accompany him." A papyrus as old as Abraham's day puts into the mouth of Ra : "I am he who closeth and he wlio openeth, and am but One," bul by the time of Moses, the foolish words had been added, "I was born from Nu." The latest chapters of this book- -some of which were written as late as the Ptolemaic -are full of somegibberish as the following: "Osiris is the emanation of the two eyes. Sharshar ohket is the name of one, Shapurka is the name of the other. ' His true name illuminating the earth on the brow of the Turn is Shakaamen-shak-anasa." It can hardly be doubted that if the age of the various chapters of this Scripture had to be determined by the spiritual insight and depth of theological knowledge manifested by the writers, there would be an inversión of the chronology which has been established by Egyptologists on the basis of contemporaneous documents. The first would be last and the last first, if the accepted canon of theological evolution were applied."