« AnteriorContinuar »
for the interest of their sect and of the society that employed them, to give a dark picture of Connecticut fanaticism, and sometimes to set off their subjective ideas of the actual state of things, by references to the still more dreadful times before the charter.
These ancient and still current misrepresentations, Professor Kingsley's Discourse is well calculated to correct. While the well-known character of the author secures for it a respectful attention in all quarters, its own clear, cool statements carry conviction with them. Never was there a community which could trace its beginning to names more worthy of perpetual veneration than Theophilus Eaton and John Davenport. Never has any community owed to its founders a greater debt of gratitude, than this community owes to the two men who gave it being, and stamped upon it, ineffaceably, not their names, but the impress of their wisdom and their virtues. The beautiful city, with its streets and squares, with its churches, schools and university, is itself their monument. Whether New England renders them due honors or not, we say, accommodating to our use one of the quaint lines which Davenport probably caused to be inscribed over the grave of Eaton,
These names forget New Haven never must.
ART. XI.-ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY.—THE BIBLE.-MANETHO.
THE PTOLEMAIC CANON.
In the June number of this Journal, for 1837, we attempted to rescue the fragments of the Universal History of Egypt, by Manetho, from the suspicion and contempt which had been thrown upon them;—to restore the true reading of his text, which is disfigured and mutilated as it now stands, in all his copyists ;-and to show, that when so restored, it harmonizes to an astonishing degree with the chronology of the Bible. In the course of the article, (Vol. 9, p. 198, n.) we took occasion to say, in a note, that the whole of the first fifteen of the Egyptian dynasties, as set down by Manetho, are entirely fabulous. We now propose to show, that Manetho himself considered that portion of his history fabulous, that he has in effect so described it, and that when corrected and restored, his chronology harmonizes, to a still greater extent, with the scriptural chronology,
than we even intimated in that article. We have added, also, to the ancient chronologies to be compared with Manetho and the Bible, the ancient Assyrian chronology, as preserved in the Ptolemaic Canon. We have done this, on account of the close agreement of its dates with those under consideration ; and because the course we have pointed out, seems to bid fair to open a door for A HARMONY OF ALL THE ANCIENT CHRONOLOGIES. If this can be done, (of which there now seems no reasonable doubt,) it will furnish an external argument in favor of the truth of the history of the Bible, which has no parallel in any other work. Our reasons for supposing, that Manetho intended to divide his history into the fabulous and historical portions, are five-fold.
1. We infer this from the dynasties themselves. The Old Chronicle, which is generally believed to be a synopsis of Manetho,* gives to the reign of Sol, 30,000 years; to SATURN and other gods, 3,984 years; to the DEMI-GODS, 217 years; and then fifteen generations of men, after the commencement of the Cynic cycle,—(the Egyptian, astronomical, and historical cycle of 1460 astronomical, or 1461 common years,) 443 years. The bare statement of the facts, in reference to this early period,-of 34,201 years—is sufficient to prove it entirely fabulous. And as to the 443 years of the Cynic cycle, it can at most be reckoned of no higher authority than traditionary. Now the whole extent of time, from the beginning of the reign of Sol, to the destruction of the Empire by Ochus of Persia, was only 36,525 years. Deducting the fabulous portion of the Egyptian history, to wit 34,644, from 36,525 years, and we shall have only 1,881 years, for the extent of the historical period.
2. We draw the same inference from the account which Manetho gives of the materials from which he compiled his history. In a letter addressed to Ptolemy Philadelphus, at whose command the work was composed, he says :—“I shall lay before you what I have gathered from the sacred books, written by Hermes Trismegistus, our forefather.† But this letter seems to have reference only to the first portion of his work. That
* Scaliger, Euseb. Chron. p. 6; Prideaux, Con. Par. 1, b.7, vol. 2, p. 131 (3 vols. 8vo. N. Y. 1823,) seem to have no doubt of this fact. But Shuckford, Con. b. 10, Vol. 2, p. 131, (2 Vols. 8vo. Phil. 1824,) supposes the first part of the Old Chronicle to have been drawn from other sources. But that Manetho himself, distinguished his history into fabulous as well as historic, to which Shuckford in effect objects, is clear from what is said by Castor, who professes to copy from Manetho. Cory, An. Frag. p. 91, (Lond. 8vo. 1832.) + Syncellus, p. 40, Par. Ed. Scal. Euseb. p. 6. Vol. X.
he gave a further account of the sources of his history, we 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 engraven in the sacred dialect and hieroglyphic characters, upon the columns set up in the Seriadic land, by Thoth, the first Hermes; and after the deluge, translated from the sacred dialect in hieroglyphic characters, into the Greek tongue."* This it will be borne in mind, is not the language of Manetho, but a summary of his language, made by Eusebius; and evidently contains a confused statement, of two distinct and independent facts. The first part of the above quotation, declares, that Manetho himself copied his history from hieroglyphic inscriptions on columns, 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 “deluge,” 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 detailed 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, burnt their cities, demolished their temples, and cruelly oppressed the inhabitants.”+ Now we learn from Herodotus, that the columns or pillars, containing historical inscriptions, were mostly set up in the Egyptian temples :I 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 dynasties. These facts authorize the conclusion, that before this period, all Egyptian history must be entirely traditionary, and mostly fabulous.
Syncellus, p. 40. Scal. Euseb.
6. † Jos. Adv. Ap., B. I, pp. 457–8. (4to, Boston, 1823.) | B. II, c. 143.
4. The same conclusion is sustained by the labors of those engaged in the study of hieroglyphics. From their researches it appears, that there is not now in existence any monument of older date than the eighteenth dynasty, and, that no legend has been found, tending to illustrate the history of the sixteenth, or any preceding dynasty. It also appears, that the temples of the eighteenth dynasty, contain mutilated fragments of former 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 conclusive.
5. This conclusion is also rendered probable, by the existence of a similar division in other ancient histories. Thus Varro, as we learn from Censorinus,t divided time into three parts; that before the former deluge, which he called fabulous ;—from the former deluge to the building of Rome, which he called 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 traditionary, 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
* Wiseman's Lectures, pp. 267–9. (Bvo, Andover, 1837.) 1 De Natali Die. c. 21. Cory, An. Frag. p. 324.
Medhurst's China, pp. 15–18, and Appendix.
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. 1x.) we proved by a comparison of the biblical and Egyptian histories (1.) that the Ecodus 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 2 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 Artaxerxes.
To enable our readers to make comparisons with greater readiness, and to furnish them with a basis of a chronological table, which 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 text, to the sum total 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 ihe text as it now stands is five hundred and ninety iwo. We prefer the latter sum; (1.) because