New Light on Atlantis and the Exodus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NEW LIGHT ON ATLANTIS AND THE EXODUS THE INSTITUTE FOR THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY AND THE SCIENCES, LTD. AUTUMN LECTURES 1962 by J. G. Bennett FIRST SERIES - NATURAL CATASTROPHES THAT CHANGE HISTORY Second lecture, Monday, October 8th, 1962 The subject of my lecture tonight is, in my opinion, one of the most remarkable developments in our knowledge of Greek and biblical history since Schliemann rediscovered Troy. I make bold to say this because I personally do not claim any of the credit, which is due to Professor Angelos G. Galanopoulos, Head of the Seismological Department of the University of Athens, whose published articles and information sent to me in private correspondence have provided the key to an interpretation of Plato's story of Atlantis that is I am sure the right one. I myself reached further conclusions particularly as regards the connection between the destruction of Atlantis and the Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt. For these conclusions I alone take the responsibility. They are so startling that I put them forward at this stage only as striking illustrations of the general theme of these lectures that0 there is a providential connection between things that happen to the Earth and many events of human history both great and small. I hope to convince you that one single prodigious catastrophe was responsible for the destruction of Atlantis, for the Flood of Deucalion described in Greek literature, and for the plagues of Egypt which made the Exodus possible. We must begin with Plato's story. I shall assume that you have all read the relevant passages of the Timaeus and the Critias.1 The first question is whether the story is and is intended to be an historical account of events that actually occurred or whether, as most scholars have supposed- a myth invented by Plato to illustrate his theme. I am sure that Plato intended the story of Atlantis to be read as history. It is not really relevant to the subject matter of the Timaeus; and 1 Included at the end of the transcription as an Appendix 1 Plato seems to have brought it in because he was genuinely impressed by what he had heard from Critias. He refers to it several times as an authentic tradition, whereas in the case of other stories, for example, the tale in Book X of the Timaeus, of Er the son of Armenius the Pamphylian, he speaks of "tales which have been preserved”. No one who reads the Timaeus and Critias and compares the account of Atlantis with the tales and fables in other dialogues can doubt that Plato believed that the kingdoms of Atlantis really existed and were suddenly destroyed by a catastrophe. Moreover, he gives a clear account of how the story came to his knowledge. He says that Solon. The great law giver of Athens had in his early travels visited Egypt and while discussing the story of the Flood of Deucalion had been told by the Egyptian priests that the Greeks were mere babes who had no knowledge of the ancient past. He had then been told the story in which the Athenians played a dramatic and noble part, and had decided to write an epic poem. The old Critias who had known Solon was convinced that the poem would have been written. but for Solon's preoccupation with Athenian affairs and that it would have rivaled or even surpassed Homer’s “Iliad.” When Jowett made his translation of Plato, he dismissed the story of Atlantis as an invention of Plato himself, with no historical foundation whatsoever. The same skeptical attitude was shown towards the Homeric poems and the stories of the Old Testament. Archaeological discovery has shown that all this skepticism was unjustified. Since Schliemann rediscovered Troy and Mycenae, our attitude to Homer has become one of great respect for his historical accuracy and the same is true of Herodotus. This applies even more strikingly too many of the stories of the Bible. The tendency today is to take ancient traditions very seriously, and this alone should justify us in accepting Plato's assessment of the Atlantis story as probably correct. When, however, we come to study the. story itself, we find that there are contradictions that make it impossible to take the whole of it literally. These contradictions concern, the chronology on the one hand and the description of the culture and relationships of Atlantis on the other. According to the story told by Critias, Solon was informed by the Egyptian priests that Athens had existed 9,000 years before and had been engaged in a life and death struggle with the kings of Atlantis when the great destruction suddenly occurred. He also adds that the story was written down a thousand years later. This in itself throws doubt upon the chronology even before we begin to study its implications. Very little knowledge of the discoveries of ancient history and prehistory is enough to convince us that the description of Atlantis given by Plato applies to a Bronze Age civilization. Now the Bronze Age dates from about 2200 to 1000 B.C. Before 3000 B.C. all the peoples of the world were still in the Neolithic or New Stone Age. After 1000 B.C. the Age of Iron began. There is no description of iron in Plato's story of Atlantis, but there are many references to gold, copper, aurichalcum and, most significant of all, to tin. These references justify us in fixing with confidence the extreme limits of the Age of Atlantis as being between 2200 B. C. and 1000 B C. The date alleged to have been given by the Egyptian priests works out at 11,500 years before the present. At that time Northern Europe was still in the throes of the last Ice Age, and although the glaciers had not reached the Mediterranean, the climate must have been far too cold for the way of life that the Atlanteans enjoyed. In any case it is quite certain that there were no Egyptian priests 11,500 years ago to observe and make records of historical events. The ancient history of Egypt has been established in great detail. Although some early dates are still in dispute, there is no doubt at all that the use of writing did not reach Egypt until 3500 B.C. at the earliest, that is, 5000 years later than the Egyptian priests were supposed to have written down the story of Atlantis. The solution of the problem is I think, quite obvious. The description of the culture of Atlantis can be accepted, but the chronology must be rejected. Very probably Solon made a mistake in interpreting the story he received, and read 1,000 for 100. This might have happened also in the transmission of the story by Critias, if we correct the 9,000 years to 900 years, the destruction of Atlantis would fall between 1400 and 1500 B. C. This admirably fits the description; that time was the height of the Bronze Age civilization, and there was a great, development of shipping and commerce. The types of buildings and the way that people lived and behaved in all parts of the world of which we have some record agree quite well with the description in the Critias of Plato. The mistake is a simple one and easily made, and it does not detract from the historical value of Plato's account. Now if there was a mistake in the reading of a symbol whereby 100 was read as 1,000, this would no doubt apply not only to duration of time, but also to distances, and it is very probable therefore, that when Plato refers to the great plain of Atlantis as being 3000 x 2000 stadia in extent, we should read 300 x 200 stadia. As the old stadium was about 600 feet, this is 100 x 70 miles instead of 1000 x 7002. The smaller figure is far more plausible because in the second millennium B.C. there were no means of measuring distances as great as 1,000 miles. It seems therefore, that we can make sense of the whole of Plato's story if we change 9000 years into 900, and the size of the plain of Atlantis from 1000 x 700 to 100 x 70 miles. This latter change makes it unnecessary to suppose, as Plato did, that the island of Atlantis must be situated in the Atlantic Ocean, and there are good reasons for supposing that it must have been in the Eastern Mediterranean, partly on account of the names and partly on account of the reference to Hercules, whose journeys and labours were confined to the Eastern Mediterranean. Geologists are quite satisfied that there has not been within the last 10,000 years a great island in the middle of the Atlantic, and in any case an island of such size could not possibly have disappeared in a sudden convulsion of the kind that Plato describes. We are therefore free to look much nearer to Athens for the site of Atlantis, and I think there is no doubt that Professor Galanopoulos is right in identifying the larger island of Atlantis with the island now called Crete. This suggestion is not new. I believe it was first made by an anonymous writer to The Times newspaper on the 19th of February 1909, drawing attention to the remarkable similarity between Plato’s description of the main island and the central plain of Crete. The following brief description will probably suffice.