700 PROF. C. P. SMYTH ON THE REPUTED METROLOGICAL SYSTEM 



(12.) The Final Argument* 



We are now approaching the point when it becomes necessary to attempt to 

 institute an inquiry as to whence, at that early age of the world, more than 200 

 years before Abraham, so much knowledge of difficult secrets in physical science, 

 allied with some of the earlier Divine commands in the Pentateuch, originally 

 came ; and why, or under what circumstances such particulars were so carefully, 

 lastingly, and expensively embodied in the Great Pyramid. Contracted space, 

 however, forbids my doing more at present than referring to the discussion of 

 this very difficult, but most extraordinarily important, division of the subject in 

 Parts IV. and V. of my recently published book, " Our Inheritance in the Great 

 Pyramid ;" and concluding with the two following appendixed notes. 



APPENDIX I. 



Chronology corrected by the Great Pyramid. 



In the table of approximate chronology given in the work above mentioned, I 

 was content to follow for the absolute dates those pubUshed by some of the best 

 modern hierologists, as being not only in all probability very close to the truth, 

 but also specially able to prove beyond hieroglyphic doubt, that the Great 

 Pyramid, if built in the reigns of Kings Shofo and Nou-Shofo, of the 4th Egyptian 

 Dynasty, as attested by the quarry marks on the rough stones, must have been a 

 pre-Ahrahamic monument. 



But the hierologists, though exceedingly trustworthy when speaking of suc- 

 cessional order, have few or no means in their science which enable them to fix 

 absolute dates with great exactness. What, then, does the Great Pyramid's 

 absolute date, alluded to on p. 699, say upon this important question ? 



It seems to assert this, that the early hierologist dates are rather too large ; 

 or, in other words, that they are evidently of the school of Josephus and the 

 Septuagint version of the Scriptures ; while the Great Pyramid's metrical and 

 build ed date, astronomically computed, agrees rather with the chronology of the 

 Hebrew version of the Scriptures. Which very notable and perhaps desirable 

 additional testimony, in the present disputed state of the two chronologies (see 

 " Kitto's Cyclopsedia of Biblical Literature"), may be best illustrated by the two 

 columns of rival dates in the subjoined table :— 



* Written in September 1864. 



