Imagens das páginas


he gave a further account of the sources of his history, vi learn from Eusebius. In describing the history of the dynasties of Egypt, Eusebius says: "These, he. (Manetho, according to his own account, copied from the inscriptions which were engres ren in the sacred dialect and hieroglyphic characters, upen the columns set up in the Seriadic land, by Thoth, the first Hermes and after the deluge, translated from the sacred dialect in hien11 glyphic characters, into the Greek tongue.** This it will be borne in mind, is not the language of Manetho, but a sanitat of his language, made by Eusebius, and evidently contains a

T! confused statement, of two distinct and independent facts. The first part of the above quotation, declares, that Manetho kime copied his history from hieroglyphic inscriptions on colunk

, of course, then existing in the Seriadic, or Egyptian land. But the second part would seem to intimate, that he only copied from the translations of Hermes. The truth seems to be, that for the early portion of his history, for all that preceded some "deluz" Manetho copied from books purporting to be such translations and that for the last, he copied from the columns themselves. If this be the fact, then this circumstance of itself, makes the truth of our supposition probable.

3. We infer the existence of such a division, from facts de tailed by Manetho himself. Thus he informs us, that “ in the reign of Timæus, elsewhere called Concharis, a rugged, robust people from the east, made an inroad upon the country, and conquered it;-that they put the Egyptian princes in chains, and burnt their cities, demolished their temples, and cruelly op y Pe pressed the inhabitants.”+ Now we learn from Herodotus, that the columns or pillars, containing historical inscriptions, were mostly set up in the Egyptian temples II and hence it follows that the destruction of the temples would also cause the destruction of all the monuments contained within them. Now as the credibility of the history of Manetho depends upon the certainty of his possessing authentic monuments; it follows necessarily, that he could not have monuments of this description previous to the irruption of those foreigners, who were the shepherd kings, composing the seventeenth of Manetho's dypasties. These facts authorize the conclusion, that before this period, all Egyptian history must be entirely traditionary, and

I mostly fabulous.

[ocr errors]

the te


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

4. The same conclusion is sustained by the labors of those ngaged in the study of hieroglyphics. From their researches

appears, that there is not now in existence any monument of Ider date than the eighteenth dynasty, and, that no legend has been found, tending to illustrate the history of the sixteenth, or my preceding dynasty.* It also appears, that the temples of

the eighteenth dynasty, contain mutilated fragments of former A temples and columns of an older date, but which from their paucity and fragmentary character, furnish no historical data.

This is in exact correspondence with the evidence furnished

by Manetho, and all taken together, may be regarded as con:-clusive.

5. This conclusion is also rendered probable, by the eristence La of a similar division in other ancient histories. Thus VARRO, as

we learn from Censorinus,t divided time into three parts ;ce that before the former deluge, which he called fabulous ;- from

the former deluge to the building of Rome, which he called res Mythic; and from thence he denominated it historic. The

period which Varro called Mythic, commenced according to his chronology B. C. 2353 years. So the Chinese historians

divide the history of that nation into the fabulous, the tradiLetionary, and the historic periods, and make the historic period

begin B. C. 2356 years. I Following the chronology of Manetho, to the end of the dynasties, and from thence the Plolemaic Canon, and the sixteenth dynasty began to reign in Egypt, and the historic period commenced B. C. 2338. Now the birth of Peleg, according to Dr. Hales, was B. C. 2754; according to Calmet, B.C. 2230; but according to the chronology given in the text of our common Hebrew Bibles, B. C. 2456 years. Comparing these different chronologies, and the Chinese history begins, and the nation, in all probability was planted, in the one hundredth year of Peleg; the history of Varro begins with the one hundred and third year of Peleg; and the Egyptian history and nation, date from the one hundred and eighteenth year of the same man.

Truly, such coincidences are most astonishing! It is impossible that they should be the result of either fraud or accident. Every probability is against such a supposition,--the very idea is absurd.

Having satisfactorily disposed of by far the larger portion of time ascribed to the existence of the Egyptian nation, we shall

[ocr errors]

* Wiseman's Lectures, pp. 267–9. (8vo, Andover, 1837.)
| De Natali Die. c. 21.' Cory, An. Frag. p. 324.
# Medhurst’s China, pp. 15–18, and Appendix,

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

proceed to add some further reasons in favor of the credibility of Manetho, and detail some other remarkable coincidences in the ancient chronologies. In our former article (Vol. ix. we proved by a comparison of the biblical and Egyptian histories (1.) that the Exodus took place in the last year of Menophes, the last king of the 18th dynasty ; and (2.) that the death of Josiah happened in the 1st or 2d year of Necho II, of Egypt. In reference to this last point we observe, that Nebuchodnezzar began to reign four years after the death of Josiah, (Jer. 25: 1, 46: 2,) and that in the first year of his reign he slew Necho in battle. Consequently the fourth year of Jehoakim, the last of Necho, and the first of Nebuchodnezzar, correspond. To the above points of comparison we add (3.) that the end of the seventy years' captivity, or rather the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem, (Dan. 9:2,) ended in the sixth year of Darius I. (Ez. 4: 15,) when the new temple was completed. Hence, the end of the seventy years," corresponds with the sixth year of Darius I, of Persia. Again, another (4.) point of comparison between the biblical and Assyrian chronologies, is furnished by the scripture account, at the time of the completion of the walls of Jerusalem. We learn from Daniel (9:25,) that from the completion of the walls of the holy city to the birth of Christ, should be sixty two prophetic weeks, that is, four hundred and thirty four years. And in other places we read, that Nehemiah left the court of the Assyrian monarch in the 20th year of Artaxerxes I, (Neh. 2: 1,) and went to Jerusalem to superintend the building of the walls ;-that he staid there twelve years, (Neh. 5:14,) and returned to Shushan in the 32d year of the same king, (Neh. 13:6,) immediately after the completion of the walls of Jerusalem. Consequently, the completion of the walls of Jerusalem, corresponds with the 32d Year of Artarerres.

To enable our readers to make comparisons with greater readiness, and to furnish them with a basis of a chronological table, wliich shall harmonize all the authentic monuments of ancient chronology, we give below a Canon of the Judges of Israel and Kings of Judah, based on the literal reading of the present Hebrew Bible ;* a Canon of the Kings of Egypt, accord

* We have in no instance deviated from this, unless preferring the sum of the years occupied by the Judges, as obtained by footing the several items given by the iext, to the sum ioial given in 1 K. 6:1, should be so considered. The difference is, it is said in 1 K. 6:1, that it was four hundred and eighty years from the Exodus to the building of the temple ; whereas the footing of the text as it now biands is five hundred and ninety two. We prefer the latier sum; (1.) because

ing to the restored text of Manetho ;* and a canon of the Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman kings, according to the Ptolemaic Canon, as preserved and continued by Theon, down to the end of the second Sothic Cycle, which terminated A. D. 138 of the common era, or A. D. 135 of the true era. To the

first of these we add the year from the Exodus: to the second, 23 of leth 1 the year of the Egyptian empire ; to the third, the year of the

era of Nabonassar ; and to all the corresponding years B. C.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


B. C.

car, curtes 3. that the end erents sean ed in the US temple was the

correspond tin, another

Death of Moses, Ex. 7:7, Deut. 34 :7,
Joshua and elders,
First Servitude, in Mesopotamia, Judg. 3:8,

Othniel, 3:11,
Second Servitude, to Moab, 3 : 14,
Ehud, 3:30,
Third Servitude, to Moab, 4:3,

Deborah and Barak, 5:31,
Fourth Servitude, to Midian, 6:
Gideon, 8: 28,
Abimelech, 9:22,
Tola, 10:2,
Jair, 10:3,
Fifth Servitude, to Philistines, 10:8,
Jeptha, 12:7,
Ibzan, 12:9,
Elon, 12:11,
Abdon, 12:14,
Sixth Servitude, to Philistines, 13:1,

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

1620 1530 1563 1555 1515 1497 1417 1397 1357 1350 1310 1307 1284 1262 1244 1238 1231 1221 1213 1173



[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

the chronology of St. Paul, Acts xiii, gives to the wanderings in the wilderness, forty years, to the judges four hundred and fifty years, to Saul forty, to David forty, and to Solomon four years; that is, five hundred and seventy years from the Exodus, to the building of the temple, exclusive of the time which Samuel judged Israel after the death of Eli, before the accession of Saul, which is generally reckoned twenty or twenty two years ; making the whole period five hundred and ninety two years. (2.) The chropology which Josephus followed gave five bundred and ninety two years. (Ant. 8:3. 1.) (3.) The Jews in China, who separated from their brethren in the first century of the christian era also read five hundred and ninety two years. Jahn, Heb. Com. c. 4. 933. N. 1; on authority of Michaelis, Alt. Orient. Bibl. Th. V. No. 71, S. 81, ete.

* The correction, or restoration of the text of Manetho, was made in Vol. 9, pp. 198–210. The principle of correction was deduced from the history and present state of the text of Manetho, and consisted in comparing all the copies of his lists of kings, as preserved in the various historians, and assuming the highest number of years given to the reign of each king, as the probable oriGINAL number of Manetho.

| This number is no where definitely settled in Scripture. The best chronologists assign to it 17 years.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

B. C.



[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Eli, 1 Sam. 4:18,
Saul, Acts 13:21,
David, 1 Kings 2:11,
Solomon, 11:42,
Rehoboam, 14:21,
Abijain, 15:2,
Asa, 15:10,
Jehoshaphat, 22:42,
Jehoram, 2 Kings 8:17,
Ahaziah, 8:26,
Athaliah, 11:3,
Joash, 12:1,
Amaziah, 14:2,
Azariah, 15:2,
Jotham, 15:33,
Ahas, 16:2,
Hezekiah, 18:2,
Mannasseh, 21:1,
Ammon, 21:19,
Josiah, 22:1,
Jehoakim, 23:36,
Zedekiah, 24:18,

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

728 768 797 808 860 876 892 921 976 978 1009 1020 1031

29 55

2 31 11 11

699 644 612 611



[blocks in formation]



[ocr errors]

No names are given by Manetho in this dynasty,

1 but its extent is limited by dates in the Cynic Cycle to 257 years,

257 SEVENTEENTH DYNASTY, 284, (alone 160.) 1. Salatis,

19 276 2. Beon,

320 3. Pachman,


381 4. Staan,

50 431

2062 2018 1957 1907

[ocr errors][merged small]

* The same may be said here, as in the preceding note.

+ The interregnum is rejected by Calmet, but retained by Usher and Hales. But the principles upon which we proceed, that of taking the chronology of the Bible according 10 the literal reading of the text, compels us to admit it. The proof is made out thus:-Jehoash of Israel, reigned sirten years, (2 K. 13: 10.) Amaziah of Judah began to reign in the 2d year of Jehoash, and reigned twenty nine years, (2 K. 14:1, 2.); that is, fifteen years alier the death of Jehoash, (2 K. 14 : 16.) Jehoash was succeeded by Jereboam, who was cotemporary with Amaziah fifteen years. Amaziah was slain by conspirators, and was subsequently succeeded by his son Azariah, in the 27th year of Jeroboam, (2 K. 15:1.); that is, eleven years after his father's death.

« AnteriorContinuar »