Is there any connection between the theories concerning the Khufu (Cheops) pyramid in Egypt and the statement made in Isaiah 19: 19, 20?
The mystic philosophy concerning the Khufu pyramid had its beginning with John Taylor, publisher to the London University, who, in 1859, wrote "The Great Pyramid; Why Was It Built and Who Built It?" In 1864 Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth, astronomer royal for Scotland, visited Egypt, and after spending months in taking measurements of the pyramid, invented the idea of the "pyramid inch," equaling 1.0011 British inches, but which when used gave a series of measurements about the pyramid equaling the same number of "inches" as there are days in a mean solar year, etc. In the last two decades this idea has been espoused by John and Morton Edgar, the latter publishing "The Great Pyramid, Its Spiritual Symbolism" in 1924, and by David Davidson, who wrote "The Great Pyramid, Its Divine Message" in 1927. Many others have written since then, taking their material from these authors.
In essence all the authors use the pyramid measurements to make the great stone monument appear to "set forth the plan of salvation presented in God's Holy Word" (Edgar, p. 32), and to show "that the purpose of the gospel age is not to bless all the families of the earth, but to select the seed of Abraham, the antitypical Isaac, the Christ." (Id., p. 39.)
Mr. Noel F. Wheeler, assistant archaeologist in the Harvard Expedition to Giza, has written three articles in Antiquity,* "An English Review of Archaeology," Vol. IX (1935), pp. 5-21, 161-189, 292-304, on "The Pyramids and Their Purpose." He gives a detailed description of the different pyramids, comparing the various proportions, dimensions, etc., of Khufu with those of similar contemporary structures, and finds them all of common use during the pyramid age. (Id., pp. 294, 295.)
After studying Edgar's and Davidson's figures of Khufu, he says: "The method of making these figures fit exactly is also a masterpiece. If the Egyptians made a passage, as they did, slightly wider in one place than another—inevitable from the nature of their tools and instruments—then a measure between these limits is assumed to suit what is required; for instance, if the limits happen to be three inches and three and one-half inches, then the assumed 'intended' measurement would be taken as 3.14159 and much marvel evoked because it equals the value of a. Another popular method is to add the required amount to a measurement to bring to what is wanted, and call this addition a 'special number' of the pyramid or of the chamber in question!" (P. 296.)
He finds his (Edgar's) reckonings for orientation toward Bethlehem incorrect, and for orientation of Khufu toward the cardinal points he finds examples of even more exact orientation elsewhere in Egypt. He denies (p. 298) "that the 'hollowed in' core masonry, by which each pyramid face of core is concave to the extent of some three feet in the center, was repeated in the outer casing." He charges Davidson with inaccurate translation of the name KHUFU AKHET, and of some of the pyramid texts used (pp. 300, 301). He states that the field of view from the bottom of the descending passages "includes practically one degree of the sky, vertically and horizontally," and therefore it would be impossible to arrive at the precise date of 2170 n.c. by the Polar Star alignment. (p. 302.)
It is true that this great pyramid, while constructed as a tomb, seems never to have been occupied by the king's mummy. As to why this was, Mr. Wheeler offers the following suggestion, after noting several plain evidences left within the pyramid of a change of plan in its erection:
"To sum up the facts which emerged: Hetepheres was the daughter of king Huni of the third Dynasty, wife of Seneferu, and mother of Khufu. She died in the reign of Khufu and was buried by him near the pyramid of her husband at Dahshur. Plunderers got at this tomb and their depredations were discovered too late, in that they had opened the sarcophagus and removed the body with the jewelry which was on it. The fact—of the robbery but probably not of the missing body —was conveyed to Khufu, and by his orders a secret tomb was commenced at once and finished roughly at great speed, situated in the most important point in his own royal cemetery at Giza. The tomb consisted of a vertical shaft, 100 ft. deep in the rock, leading to a rock-hewn burial chamber, and was situated alongside the causeway of Khufu's pyramid, nearer it even than the pyramid of the first queen of Khufu, and with the whole vast cemetery of his queens and children behind it. The whole shaft was filled solid with courses of fine limestone masonry in plaster of Paris, and the top course was of irregular pieces of the local nummulitic limestone, so that its secret was kept safely from the day of the reburial until A.D. 1925. . . . The idea of a secret tomb for the burial and a normal tomb with superstructure for the public to see was not a new one—Seneferu most probably had done the same thing, as others did after him—and if we put ourselves in Khufu's place, I think we should have cast quizzical eyes at our own pyramid from that day. There certainly would be ample reason for setting to and altering the whole intention of the pyramid; to continue the work so that outward seeming should not be changed while saving unnecessary work by omitting what was no longer essential in the construction, and devising some entirely unsuspected site for the actual burial. . . . It would have been quite in keeping for him to have arranged for a public ceremony at his funeral and a dummy burial in the pyramid, while those entrusted with the task buried him as previously planned where none other saw it." (Pp. 181, 182.)
The following archaeologists agree with Wheeler in his findings:
Sir William Flinders Petrie, who in 1883 made a special survey of the Khufu pyramid, says:
"The principal result of the survey was to show that the casing did not slope down to the pavement above the corner sockets, but sloped down to the floors of the sockets, and the pavement was laid over it there. The base of the pyramid at the pavement was therefore much less than the distances between the outer sides of the rock sockets. Therefore instead of a pyramid measuring 9,140 inches, as was supposed, it measured only 9,069 inches. Hence all theorizing about the days in the year being represented was entirely erroneous. The size of the pyramid was ruled by being 7 x 40 "Egyptian cubits (20.6 in.) high and 11 x 40 cubits wide. This is strongly confirmed by the size of the pyramid of Meydum, which preceded it in date, being 7 x 25 cubits high and 11 x 25 cubits wide. . . . The angle of the slope required for this 7 and 11 proportion is within the small uncertainty (two minutes) of the actual remains. The theories as to the size of the pyramid are thus proved entirely impossible, and this is confirmed by later details of survey made by the Egyptian government."—"Seventy Years in Archaeology" (1933), p. 34.
E. A. Wallis Budge, assistant keeper in the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British Museum, adds this thought:
"There is no evidence whatever to show that they (the pyramids) were built for purposes of astronomical observations, and the theory that the Great Pyramid was built to serve as a standard of measurement is ingenious, but worthless. The significant fact, so ably pointed out by Mariette, that pyramids are only-found in cemeteries. is an answer to all such theories."—"The Mummy" (1893), p. 330.
Dr. George A. Reisner, director of the Joint Expedition of Harvard and the Boston Museum at Giza quite tritely dismisses the matter in the following words:
"The bulk of the evidence preserved to us of the arts, the crafts, and the culture of Dynasty IV. one of the great creative periods of Egyptian civilization, was contained in the royal cemetery at Giza. The pyramids and other tombs of this place have, therefore, attracted the researches of a series of modern scholars, Vyse, Mariette, Lepsius, and Professor Petrie, as well as the attention of several generations of illicit excavators serving the market created by the demands of European and American Museums for statues and reliefs. Of quite a different character was the interest excited by the supposed mysteries of the pyramids in the group of writers led by Piazzi Smyth, whose disquisitions have never had any archaeological value and need no further mention."—"Mycerinus" (1931), p. 4.
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to consider the exact statement of the text: "In that day there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar [Heb. matztzevah] at the border thereof to the Lord." The time, "In that day," certainly cannot be made to apply to the period of the IV Dynasty! No record is extant of any pyramid being used as an altar; it was a tomb. In front of the structure there was often a small mortuary temple where the king himself was worshiped, but no pyramid was itself ever used as an altar. Then, too, there is no evidence that the kings of Egypt at this period worshiped Jehovah. For the king to build this, the largest pyramid in Egypt, to Jehovah would be suicidal at a time when he was not only head of the state, but of the state religion as well. It would be parallel to the king of England's persuading Parliament to erect a Westminster Abbey in which he could worship Confucius.
The word "pillar" [Heb., matztzevah] is commonly used throughout the Old Testament. It denotes a memorial stone erected to the name of Jehovah or to some heathen deity. But it is always a single stone or obelisk, sometimes plain, sometimes carved into an image of the- god. It was a matztzevah that Jacob erected at Bethel. (Gen. 28:18-22.) It was a matztzevah that he and Laban erected together with a "heap of stones" at Mizpah, but notice the two are distinctly different conceptions. (Gen. 31:45-51.) It was the matztzevoth of the heathen that Israel were to destroy when they came to Canaan. (Ex. 23:24.)
From the above it would seem that there is no authority from either a philological or archaeological viewpoint for seeking a connection between Isaiah's statement and the present-day theories concerning the great Khufu pyramid at Giza.
Lynn H. WOOD.
Chicago, Ill.
