The Grounds of the Christian Faith, Book 1 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Of the Chaldean History.
The contest of Antiquity among Heathen Nations, and the ways of deciding it. Of the Chaldean Astrology, and the foundation of Iudicial Astrology. Of the Zabii, their Founder, who they were, no other then the old Chaldees. Of Berosus and his History. An account of the fabulous Dynastyes of Berosus and Manetho. From the Translation of the Scripture history into Greek in the time of Ptolomy. Of that translation and the time of it. Of Demetrius Phalereus. Scaligers arguments answered. Manetho writ after the Septuagint, proved against Kircher; his arguments answered. Of Rabbinical and Arabick Authors, and their little credit in matter of history. The time of Berosus enquired into, his writing co-temporary with Philadelphus.
THe next whom our Enquiry leads us to, are the Chaldeans, a Nation of great and undoubted Antiquity, Sect. 1.being in probability the first formed into a National Government after the Flood, and therefore the more capable of having these Arts and Sciences flourish among them, which might preserve the memory of eldest times to the view of posterity. And yet even among these who enjoyed all the advantages of ease, quiet, and a flourishing Empire, we find no undoubted or credible records preserved, but the same vanity as among the Aegyptians, in arrogating antiquity to themselves beyond all proportion of reason or satisfaction from their own history, to fill up that vast measure of time with, which makes it most probable what Diodorus observes of them, that in things pertaining to their arts they …. l. 3.made use of Lunar years of 30 days; so they had need, when Tully tells us that they boasted of observations of the Stars for 470000 years, which after Diodorus his computation, and … ….the vulgar account of years from the beginning of the world, will fall near upon, if not before the Creation. It had been impossible for them to have been so extravagant in their accounts of themselves, had they but preserved the history of their Nation in any certain records. For want of which, the tradition of the eldest times, varying in the several families after their dispersion, and being gradually corrupted by the policy of their Leaders, and those corruptions readily embraced by the predominancy of self-love in the several Nations, thence arose those vain and eager contests between the Chaldaeans, Scythians, Aegyptians, and Aethiopians, concerning the antiquity of their several Nations: which may be seen in Diodorus, and others: by which it most evidently appears that they had no certain history of their own Nations: for none of them insist upon any records, but only upon several probabilities from the nature of their Country, and the Climates they lived under. Neither need Psammeticus have been put to that ridiculous way of deciding the controversie by his two infants bred up without any converse with men, concluding the language they spake would manifest the great antiquity of the Nation it belonged to: Whereas it is more then probable they had spoken none at all, had they not learned the inarticulate voice of the goats they had more converse with then men. The making use of such ways to decide this controversie doth not only argue the great weakness of those times as to natural knowledge; but the absolute defect and insufficiency of them, as to the giving any certain account of the state of ancient times.
Of which the Chaldaeans had advantages above all other Sect. 2.Heathen Nations, not only living in a setled Country, but in or near that very place where the grand Ancestors of the world had their chief abode and residence. Whereby we see how unfaithful a thing tradition is, and how soon it is corrupted or fails, where it hath no sure records to bottom its self upon. But indeed it is the less wonder that there should be a confusion of histories, where there had been before of tongues; and that such whose design and memory God had blasted before, should afterwards forget their own original. But as if the Chaldaeans had retained something still of their old aspiring mind to reach up to heaven, the only thing they were eminent for, and which they were careful in preserving of, was some Astronomical observations, which Tully tells us they had a great conveniency for, by the reason of the plain and even situation of their Country; whereby they might have a larger prospect of the heavenly bodies, then those who lived in mountainous Countries could have. And yet even for this (which they were so famous for, that the name Chaldaeans passed for Astrologers in the Roman Empire) we have no very great reason to admire their excellency in it, considering how soon their skill in Astronomy dwindled into that which by a great Catachresis is called judicial Astrology. The original of which is most evident among them, as all other Heathen Nations, to have been from the Divinity which they attributed to the Stars; in which yet they were far more rational then those who now admire that Art: For, granting their hypothesis, that the Stars were Gods, it was but reasonable they should determine contingent effects; but it is far from being so with them who take away the foundation of all those celestial houses, and yet attribute the same effects to them, which they did, who believed a Divinity in them. The Chaldaeans, as Diodorus relates, set 30 Stars under the Planets; these they called foreign; others they had as Princes over these, i: 2. Bibliosh.which they called foreign; the former were as the privy Counsellors, and these the Princes over them, by whom in their courses they supposed the course of the year to be regulated. We see then what a near affinity there was between Astrology and the Divinity of the Stars, which makes Ptolomy call them Atheists who condemned Astrology, because thereby they destroyed the main of their Religion, setrab. l. 2.which was the worshipping the Stars for Gods. But it seems by Strabo, that one of the Sects of the Chaldaeans did so hold to Astronomy still, that they wholly rejected Genethlialogy, Geogr. l. 16which caused a great division among the Orchoëni and the Borsippeni, two Sects among them, so called from the places of their habitations.
And if we reckon the Zabii among the Chaldeans as Sect. 3.Maimonides seems to do, we have a further evidence of the Planetary Deities so much in request among the Chaldeans; More Nevoch. p. 3. c. 29.for, the description he gives of them is to this purpose, that they had no other gods but the Stars to whom they made statues and images, to the Sun golden, to the Moon silver, and so to the rest of the Planets of the mettals dedicated to them. Those images derived an influence from the Stars to which they were erected, which had thence a faculty of foretelling future things; which is an exact description of the foreign or Talismans V. Scaliger. cp. ad Casaub & cp. Gallic. Selden. de Diis Syris. l. 1. c. 2. Salmas. de An. Climac. p. 578.so much in request among the heathens; such as the Palladium of Troy is supposed by learned men to have been. These Talismans are by the Iews called Davids bucklers, and are much of the same nature with the antient Teraphi…, both being accurately made according to the positions of the heavens; only the one were to foretell future things, the other for the driving away some calamity. Concerning these Zabii Maimonides tells us, that the understanding their rites would give a great deal of light to several passages of Scripture which now lye in obscurity: but little is supposed to be yet further known of them then what Scaliger hath said, that they were the more Eastern Chaldeans, which he fetcheth from the signification of the word; several of their books are extant saith Scaliger, among the Arabians, but none of them are yet discovered to the European world. Salmasius thinks these Zabii were the Chaldeans inhabiting Mesopotamia, to which it is very consonant which Maimonides saith, that Abraham had his education among them. Said Batricides cited by Mr. Selden, attributes the original of their De jure nat. & gent. l. 2. c. 7religion to the time of Nahor, and to Zaradchath the Persian as the Author of it, who is conceived to be the same with Zoroaster, who in all probability is the same with the Zertoost of the Persecs, a Sect of the antient Persians living now among the Banyans in the Indyes. These give a more full and exact account concerning the original, birth, education, and Enthusiasmes, or Revelations of their Zertoost then any we meet with in any Greek historians; three books they tell us of which Zertoost received by Revelation, or rather one book, consisting of three several tracts, whereof the first was concerning judicial Astrology, which they call Astoodeger; the second concerning Physick or the knowledge of natural things; the third was called Zertoost from the bringer of it containing their religious rites; the first was committed to the Iesopps or Magies, the second to Physicians, the third to the Darooes or Church-men, wherein are contained the several precepts of their Law; we have likewise the rites and customs of these Persees in their worship of fire, with many other particular rites of theirs published sometime since by one Mr. Lord, who was a long time resident among them at Surrat; by which we may not only understand much of the religion of the antient Persians, but if I mistake not, somewhat of the Zabii too. My reasons are, because the antient Zaradcha or Zoroaster is by Said Batricides made the Author of the Zabii as we have seen already, who was undoubtedly the founder of the Persian worship, or rather a promoter of it among the Persians; For Ammianus Marcellinus tells us that he was instructed in the rites of the Hist. l. 23.Chaldeans which he added to the Persian rites; besides, their agreement in the chief point of Idolatry, the worship of the Sun, and consequently the foreign or Symbol of the Sun, the eternal fire, is evident; which as far as we can learn, was the great and most early Idolatry of the Eastern Countries; and further we finde God in Leviticus 26. 30. threatning to destroy their foreign their Images of the Sun, some render it; but most probably by that word is meant the foreign the hearths where they kept their perpetual fire, for those are foreign from foreign which is used both for the Sun and Fire. V. Voss. …dol l. 2 c. 9.Now hence it appears that this Idolatry was in use among the Nations about Palaestine; else there had been no need of so severe a threatning against it, and therefore most probably the rites of the Zabii (which must help us to explain the reasons of some particular positive precepts in the Levitical Law relating to Idolatry) are the same with the rites of the Chaldeans and Persians, who all agreed in this worship of the Sun and Fire; which may be yet more probable from what Maimonides saith of them, that Gens Zabaea erat gens quae implevit totum orbem; it could not be then any obscure Nation, but such as had the largest spread in the Eastern Countries, which could be no other then the antient Chaldeans from whom the Persians derived their worship. It may not seen altogether improbable that Balaam the famous Southsayer was one of these Zabii, especially if according to Salmasius his judgement they inhabited Mesopotamia; for Balaams Country seems to be there: for it is said, Numb. 22. 5. that he dwelt in Pethor by the river, i. e. saith the Chal…ee Paraphrast, in Peor of Syria by Euphrates, which in Scripture is called the river, Esay 8. 7. But from this great obscurity as to the history of so ancient and so large a people as these Zabii are supposed to be, we have a further evidence to our purpose of the defectiveness and insufficiency of the Eastern histories as to the giving any full account of themselves and their own original.
We are to…d indeed by some, that Nabonasser did burn Sect. 4.and destroy all the antient records of the Chaldeans which they had diligently preserved amongst them before, on purpose to raise the greater reputation to himself, and blot out the memory of his usurpation, by burning the records of all their own antient Kings. Which is a conceit I suppose hath no other ground then that the famous Aera so much celebrated by Astronomers and others, did bear the name of Nabonasser. Which (if we should be so greedy of all empty conjectures which tend to our purpose as to take them for truths) would be a very strong evidence of the falshood and vanity of the Chaldeans in their great pretences to antiquity. But as the case stands in reference to their history we finde more evidence from Scripture to assert their just antiquity, then ever they are able to produce out of any undoubted records of their own. Which yet hath been endeavoured by an Author both of some credit and antiquity, the true Berosus, not the counterfeit of Annius, whose vizard we shall have occasion to pull off afterwards. This Berosus was as Iosephus and Tatianus assure us, a Priest of Belus and a Babylonian C. App. l. …. c. Graecor.born, but afterwards flourished in the isle of Co, and was the first who brought the Chaldean Astrology in request among the Greeks; in honour to whose name and memory, the Athenians (who were never backward in applauding those who brought them the greatest news, especially i suitable to their former superstition) erected a statue for him with a guilded tongue. A good emblem of his history which made a fair and specious shew, but was not that within, which it pretended to be: especially where he pretends to give an account of the most antient times, and reckons up his two Dynastyes before the time of Belus: but of them afterwards. It cannot be denyed but some fragments of his history which have been preserved from ruine by the care and industry of Iosephus, Tatianus, Eusebius and others, have been very useful, not only for proving the truth of the history of Scripture to the heathens; but also for illustrating some passages concerning the Babylonian Empire: as making Nabopolasser the Father of Nebucadonosor, of which Scaliger hath fully Append. ad l. de Emend. Temp.spoken in his notes upon his fragments.
Far be it from me to derogate any thing even from prophane histories, where they do not enterfere with the Sacred Sect. 5.history of Scripture; and it is certainly the best improvement of these to make them draw water to the Sanctuary, and to serve as smaller Stars to conduct us in our way, when we cannot enjoy the benefit of that greater light of Sacred history. But that which I impeach these prophane histories of, is only an insufficiency as to that account of antient times, wherein they are so far from giving light to Sacred records, that the design of setting of them up seems to be for casting a cloud upon them. Which may seem somewhat the more probable in that those monstrous accounts of the Aegyptian and Chaldean Dynastyes did never publickly appear in the world in the Greek tongue, till the time that our Sacred records were translated into Greek at Alexandria. For till that time when this authentick history of the world was drawn forth from its privacy and retirement, (being as it were lookt up before among the Israelites at Iudea) into the publick notice of the world about the time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus, these vain pretenders to antiquity thought not themselves so much concerned to stand up for the credit of their own Nations. For till that time the onedulous world not being acquainted with any certain report of the creation and propagation of the world, was apt to swallow any thing that was given forth by those who were had in so great esteem as the Chaldean and Aegyptian Priests were: Because it was supposed that those persons who were freed from other avocations, had more leasure to inquire into these things, and because of their mysterious hiding what they had from the vulgar, were presumed to have a great deal more then they had. But now when the Sun of righteousness was approaching this Horizon of the world, and in order to that the Sacred history like the day-star was to give the world notice of it, by which the former shadows and mists began to fly away, it concerned all those whose interest lay in the former ignorance of mankind, as much as they could to raise all their ignes fatui and whatever might tend to obscure that approaching light by invalidating the credit of that which came to bespeak its acceptance.
It is very observable to consider what gradations and steps there were in the world to the appearance of that grand light Sect. 6.which came down from heaven to direct us in our way thither; how the world not long before was awakened into a greater inquisitiveness then ever before, how knowledge grew into repute, and what methods divine providence used to give the inquisitive world a taste of Truth at present to stay their stomacks, and prepare them for that further discovery of it afterwards. In order to this that Nation of the Iews which was an inclosed garden before, was now thrown open, and many of the plants removed and set in forraign Countries, not only in Babylon (where even after their return were left three famous Schools of learning, Sora, Pombeditha, and Neharda) but in Aegypt too, where multitudes of them by Alexanders favour were setled at Alexandria, where they had opportunity to season those two great fountains, whence the current of knowledge ran into the rest of the world. And now it was not in Iewry only that God was known, but he whose name was great in Israel, did make way for the knowledge of himself among all the Nations of the earth. And that allwise God who directed the Magi by a star to Christ making use of their former skill in Astronomy to take notice of that star which came now on a peculiar errand to them to lead them to their Saviour (The great God condescending so far to mankind, as to take advantage of particular inclinations, and to accommodate himself to them, for which purpose it is very observable that he appeared in another way to the Wisemen then to the poor Shepherds) the same God made use of the curiosity and inquisitiveness after knowledge which was in Ptolomaeus Philadelphus … … …(which he is so much applauded for by Athenaeus and others) to bring to light the most advantageous knowleage which the world ever had before the coming of Christ in the slesh. And that great Library of his erecting at Alexandria did never deserve that title till it had lodged those Sacred records, and then it did far better then the old one of Osymanduas, of which Historians tells us this was the Inscription foreign. The shop of the souls Physick.
But this being a matter of so much concernment in order to our better understanding the original of these vast accounts Sect. 7.of time among the Chaldaeans and Aegyptians, and a subject not yet touched by any, we shall a little further improve the probability of it, by taking a more particular account of the time when the Scriptures were first translated, and the occasion might thereby be given to these Aegyptians & Chaldaeans to produce their fabulous account into the view of the world. Whether the Scriptures had been ever before translated into the Greek language, (though it be asserted by some antient writers of the Church,) is very questionable, chiefly upon this account, that a sufficient reason cannot be assigned of undertaking a new translation at Alexandria if there had been any extant before. Especially if all those circumstances of that translation be true which are commonly received and delivered down to us with almost an unanimous consent of the persons who had greater advantages of knowing the certainty of such things, then we can have at this great distance of time. And therefore certainly every petty conjecture of some modern though learned men, ought not to bear sway against so unanimous a tradition in a matter of fact, which cannot be capable of being proved but by the testimony of former ages. And it is somewhat strange that the single testimony of one Hermippus in Diogenes Laertius (whose age and authority is somewhat Vit. Demetrii.doubtful) concerning only one particular referring to Demetrius Phalcrous, should be thought of force enough among persons of judgement as well as learning, to infringe the credibility of the whole story delivered with so much consent, not only by Christian, but Iewish writers; the testimony of one of which (every whit as considerable as Apud E… seb. praep. Evangcl… l. 13.Hermippus) viz. Aristobulus Iudaeus a Peripatetical Philosopher in an Epistle to Ptolomy Philometor doth plainly assert that which was so much questioned, concerning Demetrius Phalereus.
But whatever the truth of all the particular circumstances Sect. 8.be, which I here enquire not after, nor the authority of that Aristeus from whom the story is received, nor whether this translation was made by Iews sent out of Iudea, or by Iews residing at Alexandria, it sufficeth for our purpose that this translation was made before either the Chaldaean Dynasties of B…rosus, or the Aegyptian of Manetho were published to the World. In order to which it is necessary to shew in what time this translation was effected; and herein that channel of tradition which conveyes the truth of the thing in one certain course, runs not with so even a stream concerning the exact time of it; all indeed agree that it was about the time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus, but in what years of his raign, is very dubious. Ioseph Scaliger who hath troubled Animad. ad Num. Euseb. 1734. 5the waters so much concerning the particular circumstances of this translation, yet fully agrees that it was done in the time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus; only he contends with Africanus that it should be done in the 132. Olympiad which is in the 33. year of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus; but Eusebius and Ierom place it in the very beginning of his raign, which I think is far more probable, and that in the time when Ptolomaeus Philadelphus raigned with his Father Ptolomaeus Lagi: for so it is most certain he did for two years before his Fathers death. By which means the great difficulty of Scaliger concerning Demetrius Phalereus is quite taken off; for Hermippus speaks nothing of Demetrius his being out of favour with Philadelphus, during his Fathers V. Scaliger. ib. Theo-crit. Scho… ad Idyll. 17 Justin. l. 16 Eusch. …hr.life, but that upon his fathers death, he was banished by him, and dyed in his banishment; so that Demetrius might have the oversight of the Library at Alexandria and be the main instrument of promoting this translation, and yet those things be after true which Hermippus speaks, viz. when Ptolomaeus Lagi or Soter was now dead. For it stands not to reason that during his Fathers life Philadelphus should discover his displeasure against Demetrius, it being conceived upon the advice given to his Father for preserring the sons of Arsinoe to the Crown before the son of Berenice. Most likely therefore it is that this translation might be begun by the means of Demetrius Phalereus in the time of Philadelphus his raigning with his Father, but it may be not finished till after the death of Soter when Philadelphus raigned alone. And by this now we can perfectly reconcile that difference which is among the Fathers concerning the time when this translation was made. For Irenaeus attributes it to the time of Ptolomaeus Lagi. Clemens Alexandrinus questions whether in the time of Lagi or Philadelphus; the rest of the Chorus carry it for Philadelphus; but the words of Anatolius in Eusebius cast it fully for both; for there speaking of Aristobulus, he saith he was one of the seventy who interpreted the Scriptures Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 26.to Ptolomaeus Philadelphus and his Father, and dedicated his Commentaries upon the Law to both those Kings. Haec sane omnem scrupulum eximunt, saith Vossius upon producing this testimony, this puts it out of all doubt; and to the same De hist. G…cc. l. 1. cap 12. Pag. 380. Sect. 9.purpose speaks the learned Iesuite Petavius in his notes on Epiphanius.
Having thus far cleared the time when the Translation of the Scriptures into Greck was made, we shall find our conjecture much strengthened, by comparing this with the age of the fore-mentioned Historians, Manetho and Berosus. Manetho we have already made appear to have lived in the time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus, and that, saith Vossius, after the death of Soter. It is evident from what remains of him in Eusebius his Chronica, that he not only flourished in the time of Philadelphus, but writ his history at the special command of Philadelphus, as manifestly appears by the remaining Epistle of Manetho to him, still extant in Eusebius. This command of Philadelphus might very Chr. Gr. p. 6probably be occasioned upon the view of that account, which the Holy Scriptures, being then translated into Greek, did give of the world, and the propagation of mankind; upon which, we cannot imagine but so inquisitive a person as Philadelphus was, would be very earnest to have his curiosity satisfied, as to what the Aegyptian Priests (who had boasted so much of antiquity) could produce to confront with the Scriptures. Whereupon the task was undertaken by this Manetho, High-Priest of Heliopolis, whereby those things which the Aegyptian Priests had to that time kept secret in their Cloysters, were now divulged and exposed to the judgement of the learned world; but what satisfaction they were able to give inquisitive minds, as to the main foreign, or matter enquired after, may partly appear by what hath been said of Manetho already, and by what shall be spoken of his Dynastyes afterwards.
But all this will not perswade Kircher; for, whatever Scaliger, nay, what Manetho himself says to the coutrary, he, with the confidence and learning of a Iesuite, affirms, that this Manetho is elder then Alexander the great. For these are his words, Frequens apud priscos historicos Dynaestiarum Aegyptiacarum fit mentio, quarum tamen alium Oedip. Aegypt. To. 1. Synag. 1. 6. 9.authorem non habemus nisi Manethonem Sebennytam, Sacerdotem Aegyptium, quem ante tempor a Alexandri, quicquid dicat Scaliger, in Aegypto floruisse comperio. Certainly some more then 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 Aegyptian Mysteries for compassing his Oedipus, should have found some better arguments to prove an assertion of this nature, then meerly the testimony of Iosephus, the Hebrew book Iuchasin, and some Arabick Writers, not one of all which do mention the thing they are brought for, viz. that Manetho was elder then Alexander. All the business is, they quote him as an ancient Writer; but what then? The Author of the Book Iuchasim was Abraham Zacuth a Iew of Salamancha, who writ in the year of our Lord 1502. 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 Ptolomaeus Philadelphus? And what if some Arabick Writers mention him? are they of so great antiquity and credit themselves, that it is an evidence Manetho lived in Alexanders time to be praised by them? It would be well if Kircber, and other learned men, who think the world is grown to so great stupidity, as to believe every thing to be a Iewel which is far fetched, would first assert and vindicate the antiquity and fidelity of their Arabick Authors, such as Gelaldinus, Abenephi, and many others, before they expect we should part with our more authentick Records of History for those fabulous relations which they are so full fraught withall. Were it here any part of my present business, it were an easie matter so to lay open the ignorance, falsity, and fabulousness of those Arabians whom 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 Arabick Writers as to these things, but those who have faith enough to concoct the Rabbins in matter of History. Of whom Origen saith, foreign. Who are, as Grotius truly …. Celsum l. 2. A…not. in Mat. 24 24saith, pessimi historiae Magistri; nam ex quo patria expulsi sunt, omnis apud illos historia crassis erroribus & fabulis est inquinata, quibus & proinde nihil credendum est, nisi aliunde testes accederunt. And as Is. Caubason passeth this sharp, but due censure upon them, Rabbinis ubi de Lingna Exercit. ad. …aron. 16. …. 8.Hebraica agitur & vocis alicujus proprietate, vel aliquo Talmudico instituto, meritò à Christianis tribui non parum; nbi verò à verbis venitur ad res, aut ad historiam, vel rerum antiquarum veteris populi explicationem, nisi falli & decipi volumus, nihil admodum esse illis fidei habendum. Sexcentis argumentis hoc facilè probarem si id nunc agerem. And in reference to their ancient rites as well as history, Ioseph Scaliger hath given this verdict of them, Manifesta est Iudaeorum inscitia, qui cum usu veterum rituum, etiam corum De Emend. Temp. l. 6.cognitionem amiserunt, & multa quae ad eorum sacra & historiam pertinent, longè meliùs nos teneamus quam ipsi. The same which these very learned persons say of Rabbinical, may with as much truth be said of these Arabick 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 Iosephus, an Author of credit and age, sufficient to give his opinion in this case, doth very frequently cite Manetho in his Aegyptian History; particularly in his learned Books against Appion; but where he doth give the least intimation of Manetho being elder then 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 Manetho's besides, and both Aegyptians, mentioned by Suidas; one a Mendesian, who writ of the Preparation of the Aegyptian foreign, a kind of perfume used by the Aegyptian Priests. The other a Diospolitan, who writ some Physiological and Astronomical Treatises, whose works he hears are preserved in the Duke of Florenee his Librarie; and this was he (saith he) who lived in the times of Augustus, whom many by the aequivocation of the name have confounded with the ancient Writer of the Aegyptian Dynastyes. Is it possible so learned a Iesuite should discover so little judgement in so few words? For first, who ever asserted the Writer of the Dynastyes to have lived in the time of Augustus? Yet secondly, if that Manetho whom Suidas there speaks of, lived in Augustus his time, according to Kircher, then it must necessarily follow, that the Compiler of the Dynastyes 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: foreign, &c. Can any thing be more plain then that he here speaks of Manetho Sebennyta, who was the Author of the Dynastyes, though he might write other things besides, of which Suidas there speaks? But Kircher very wisely, in translating Suidas his words, leaves out foreign, which decides the controversie, 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 elder then the time of Ptolomy Philadelphus, which was the thing to be proved.
Now for Berosus, although the Chaldeans had occasion Sect. 10.enough given them before this time, to produce their antiquities by the Iews 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 Chaldaick history in three books, and dedicated them to Antiochus, foreign, as it is read in the fragment of Tatianus preserved in Eusebius; but it must be acknowledged that in the Paris Praep. Evang. l. 10. p. 289. ed. Rob. Steph.edition of Tatianus, as well as the Basil, it is thus read, foreign, 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 the person from whom we reckon in, for the first, according to the reading in Eusebius, it falls to be Antiochus called foreign according to the other reading it falls to be Antiochus Soter; for Seleucus succeeded Alexander in the Kingdom of Syria; Antiochus Soter, Seleucus; Antiochus foreign, Antiochus Soter. But according to either of these readings, …. …caliger the Emendat. Temp l. 5. p. 392.our purpose is sufficiently proved. For Antiochus Soter began to reign in Syria in the sixth year of Ptol. Philadelphus in Aegypt; Antiochus foreign succeeded him, in the 22. 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 foreign, we cannot but imagine that the report of the account of antient times in the Scriptures was sufficiently divulged before the publishing of this history of Berosus; and it may be Berosus might somewhat sooner then others understand all transactions at Alexandria, because the place of his chief residence, was where Ptolomy Philadelphus was born, which was in the Isle of Co. De hist. Graec. l. 1. c. 13. Plin. hist. nat. l. 7. c. 56.But Vossius goes another way to work to prove the time of Berosus, which is this. He quotes it out of Pliny that Berosus recorded the history of 480. years, which, saith he, must be reckoned from the aera of Nabonasser. Now this began in the second year of the 8. 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 22. of Ptol. Philadelphus, or very little before. Thus we have made it evident, that these two great historians are younger even then the translation of the Bible into Greck, 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 Chaldean history, as to the account of antient times: Which we shall conclude with the censure of Strabo a grave and judicious Author concerning the antiquities of the Persians, Medes, and Syrians, which, saith he, have not obtained any great credit in the world, Geogr. l. 11.foreign, 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 falshood by the most grave and judicious of heathen writers.