Page images
PDF
EPUB

III.

able to give inquisitive minds as to the main Znréμevov, or CHAP. matter enquired after, may partly appear by what hath been said of Manetho already, and by what shall be spoken of his Dynasties afterwards.

the

Syn. i. c. 9.

But all this will not persuade Kircher; for, whatever Scaliger, nay, what Manetho himself saith to the contrary, he with the confidence and learning of a Jesuit affirms, that this Manetho is older than Alexander the Great. For these are his words: Frequens apud priscos historicos Oedip. Dynastiarum Egyptiacarum fit mentio, quarum tamen Egypt.to.i. alium authorem non habemus nisi Manethonem Sebennytam, Sacerdotem Ægyptium, quem ante tempora Alexandri, quicquid dicat Scaliger, in Ægypto floruisse comperio. Certainly some more than ordinary evidence may be expected after so confident an affirmation; but whatever that person be in other undertakings, he is as unhappy a person in philology, as any that have pretended so much acquaintance with it. One would think he that had been twenty years, as he tells us himself, courting the Egyptian mysteries for compassing his Oedipus, should have found some better arguments to prove an assertion of this nature, than merely the testimony of Josephus, Hebrew book Juchasin, and some Arabic writers; not one of all which do mention the thing they are brought for, viz. that Manetho was older than Alexander. All the business is, they quote him as an ancient writer; but what then? The author of the book Juchasin, was Abraham Zachuth, a Jew of Salamanca, who writ in the year of our Lord 1505; and this book was first printed at Constantinople, 1556. Might not this man, then, well mention Manetho as an ancient writer, if he flourished above 1600 years before him, in the time of Ptolemæus Philadelphus? And what if some Arabic writers mention him? Are they of so great antiquity and credit themselves, that it is an evidenee Manetho lived in Alexander's time to be praised by them? It would be well if Kircher, and other learned men, who think the world is grown to so great stupidity as to believe every thing to be a jewel which is far fetched, would first assert and vindicate the antiquity and fidelity of their Arabic authors, such as Gelaldinus, Abenephi, and many others, before they expect we should part with our more authentic records of history, for those fabulous relations which they are so full fraught withal. Were it here any part of my present business, it were an easy matter so to lay open the ignorance, falsity, and fabulousness of those Arabians, whom

I.

Origen. c.

Cels. 1. ii.

BOOK that author relies so much upon, that he could not be freed from a design to impose upon the world; who makes use of their testimony in matters of ancient times, without a caveat. I know none fit to believe these Arabic writers as to these things, but those who have faith enough to concoct the Rabbins in matter of history; of whom Origen saith, Πάντα μὲν τῶν Ιεδαίων τῶν νῦν μῦθοι καὶ Apoi, who are, as Grotius truly saith, pessimi historiæ magistri; nam ex quo patria expulsi sunt, omnis apud illos Annot. in historia crassis erroribus et fabulis est inquinata, quibus et Matth. proinde nihil credendum est, nisi aliunde testes accesserint. xxiv. 24. And Is. Casaubon passeth this sharp, but due censure, Exercit. ad upon them, Rabbinis, ubi de lingua Hebraica agitur et Baron. xvi. vocis alicujus proprietate, vel aliquo Talmudico instituto

p. 60. Grotius

Casaub.

s. 8.

Emend.

Temp. 1. vi.

merito a Christianis tribui non parum ; ubi vero à verbis venitur ad res, aut ad historiam, vel rerum antiquarum veteris populi explicationem, nisi falli et decipi volumus, nihil admodum esse illis fidei habendum. Sexcentis argumentis hoc facile probarem, si id nunc agerem. And in reference to their ancient rites, as well as history, Joseph Scaliger Scaliger de hath given this verdict of them, Manifesta est Judæorum inscitia, qui cum usu veterum rituum etiam eorum cognitionem amiserunt, ut multa quæ ad eorum sacra et historiam pertinent, longe melius nos teneamus quam ipsi. The same which these very learned persons say of Rabbinical, may with as much truth be said of these Arabic writers, in matters of ancient history, which I have here inserted, to shew the reason why I have thought the testimony of either of these two sorts of persons so inconsiderable in the matter of our future discourse; which being historical, and that of the greatest antiquity, little relief is to be expected from either of them in order thereto. But to return to Kircher. It is freely granted that Josephus, an author of credit and age sufficient to give his opinion in this case, doth very frequently cite Manetho in his Egyptian history, particularly in his learned books against Appion; but where he doth give the least intimation of Manetho being older than Alexander, I am yet to seek. But Kircher will not yet leave the matter so, but undertakes to give an account of the mistake; which is, that there were two Manethos besides, and both Egyptians, mentioned by Suidas; one a Mendesian, who writ of the preparation of the Egyptian Küpi, a kind of perfume used by the Egyptian priests. The other a Diospolitan, who writ some physiological and astronomical treatises; whose works, he hears, are preserved in the Duke of Florence's

III.

library; and this was he, saith he, who lived in the times CHAP. of Augustus, whom many, by the equivocation of the name, have confounded with the ancient writer of the Egyptian Dynasties. Is it possible so learned a Jesuit should discover so little judgment in so few words? For, first, who ever asserted the writer of the Dynasties to have lived in the time of Augustus? Yet, secondly, if that Manetho, whom Suidas there speaks of, lived in Augustus's time, according to Kircher, then it must necessarily follow that the compiler of the Dynasties did: for it is evident to any one that looks into Suidas, that he there speaks of the same Manetho; for these are his words: Μανεθῶς ἐκ Διοσπόλεως τῆς Αἰγύπτε, ἢ Σεβεννύτης, φυσιολογικά, &c. Can any thing be more plain, than that he here speaks of Manetho Sebennyta, who was the author of the Dynasties; though he might write other things besides, of which Suidas there speaks? But Kircher very wisely, in translating Suidas's words, leaves out Ze6evvúτns, which decides the controversy, and makes it clear that he speaks of the same Manetho of whom we have been discoursing. Thus it still appears that this Manetho is no older than the time of Ptolemæus Philadelphus; which was the thing to be proved.

X.

Now for Berosus, although the Chaldæans had occasion enough given them before this time to produce their antiquities by the Jews' converse with them in Babylon, yet we find this author the first who durst adventure them abroad, such as they were, in Greek. Now that this Berosus published his history after the time mentioned, I thus prove. Tatianus Assyrius tells us, that he writ the Chaldaic history in three books, and dedicated them to Antiochus, τῷ μετὰ Σέλευκον τρίτῳ, as it is read in the fragment of Tatianus, preserved in Eusebius; but it must Euseb. be acknowledged, that in the Paris edition of Tatianus, as Præp. well as the Basil, it is thus read, xar' 'Aλéžavipov yeyovas, c.11.p.493. Evang. 1. x. ̓Αλέξανδρον ̓Αντιόχῳ τῷ μετ' αὐτὸν τρίτῳ. Here it relates to the third from Alexander; in the other, to the third from Seleucus. Now if we reckon the third so as to take in the person from whom we reckon for the first, according to the reading in Eusebius, it falls to be Antiochus called OEDS; according to the other reading it falls to be Antiochus Soter; for Seleucus succeeded Alexander in the kingdom v. Scal. de of Syria; Antiochus Soter, Seleucus; Antiochus eos, Emend. Antiochus Soter. But according to either of these read-Temp. 1. v. ings, our purpose is sufficiently proved: for Antiochus Soter began to reign in Syria in the sixth year of Ptole

[merged small][ocr errors]

P. 392.

1. i. c. 13.

BOOK mæus Philadelphus in Egypt; Antiochus sòs succeeded I. him in the 22d year of Philadelphus: now the soonest that the history of Berosus could come forth, must be in the reign of Antiochus Soter; which, according to our accounts, is some competent time after the translation of the Scripture into Greek. But, if it were not till the time of Antiochus sòs, we cannot but imagine that the report of the account of ancient times in the Scriptures was sufficiently divulged before the publishing of this history of Berosus; and, it may be, Berosus might somewhat sooner than others understand all transactions at Alexandria, because the place of his chief residence was where Ptolemæus Philadelphus was born; which was in Vossius de the isle of Cos. But Vossius goes another way to work Hist. Græc. to prove the time of Berosus, which is this: he quotes it Plin. Hist. out of Pliny, that Berosus recorded the history of 480 Nat. 1. vii. years; which, saith he, must be reckoned from the era c. 57. Ed. of Nabonassar. Now this began in the second year of Hard. legit the 8th Olympiad; from which time if we reckon 480 years, it falls upon the latter end of Antiochus Soter; and so his history could not come out before the 22d of Ptolemæus Philadelphus, or very little before. Thus we have made it evident, that these two great historians are younger even than the translation of the Bible into Greek; by which it appears probable that they were provoked to publish their fabulous Dynasties to the world. And so much to shew the insufficiency of the Chaldæan history, as to the account of ancient times: which we shall conclude with the censure of Strabo, a grave and judicious author, concerning the antiquities of the Persians, Medes, Strab. 1. xi. and Syrians; which, saith he, have not obtained any great P. 349. Ed. credit in the world, διὰ τὴν τῶν συγγραφέων ἁπλότητα καὶ τὴν pinouudíav, because of the simplicity and fabulousness of their historians. From hence we see, then, that there is no great credibility in those histories, which are impeached of falsehood by the most grave and judicious of Heathen

490.

Casaub.

writers.

CHAP. IV.

The Defect of the Grecian History.

I. That manifested by three evident arguments of it. (1.) The
Fabulousness of the poetical age of Greece. The Antiquity of
Poetry. II. Of Orpheus and the ancient Poets. Whence the

poetical Fables borrowed. III. The Advancement of Poetry and
Idolatry together in Greece. IV. The different Censures of
Strabo and Eratosthenes, concerning the poetical Age of
Greece; and the Reasons of them. V. (2.) The oldest Histo-
rians of Greece are of suspected Credit. Of Damastes, Aristeus,
and others; VI. Of most of their oldest Historians we have no-
thing left but their Names; of others only the Subjects they
treated of, and some Fragments. VIII. (3.) Those that are
extant either confess their ignorance of eldest Times, or plainly
discover it. Of the first Sort are Thucydides and Plutarch.
IX. Several Evidences of the Grecians' Ignorance of the true
Original of Nations. X. Of Herodotus and his Mistakes.
XI. The Greeks' Ignorance in Geography discovered; and thence
their Insufficiency as to an Account of Ancient History.

IV.

I.

DESCEND we now to the history of Greece; to see CHAP. whether the metropolis of arts and learning can afford us any account of ancient times, that may be able to make us in the least question the account given of them in sacred Scriptures. We have already manifested the defect of Greece as to letters and ancient records; but yet it may be pretended that her historians, by the excellency of their wits, and searching abroad into other nations, might find a more certain account of ancient times, than other nations could obtain. There is nobody, who is any thing acquainted with the Grecian humour, but will say they were beholden to their wits for most of their histories; they being some of the earliest writers of romances in the world, if all fabulous narrations may bear that name. But laying aside at present all their poetic mythology, as it concerns their Gods, (which we may have occasion to enquire into afterwards,) we now examine only their credibility, where they pretend to be most historical. Yet how far they are from meriting belief even in these things, will appear to any that shall consider, first, that their most ancient writers were poetical, and apparently fabulous; secondly, that their eldest histotorians are of suspected credit even amongst themselves;

« PreviousContinue »