The Grounds of the Christian Faith, Book 1 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V. The general uncertainty of Heathen Chronology.
The want of credibility in Heathen History further proved from the uncertainty and confusion in their acco…ts of antient times; that discovered by the uncertain form of their years. An enquiry into the different forms of the Aegyptian years; the first of thirty dayes, the second of four Moneths; of both instances given in the Aegyptian history. Of the Chaldaean accounts, and the first Dynastyes mentioned by Berosus, how they may be reduced to probability. Of the Aegyptian Dynastyes. Of Manetho. Reasons of accounting them fabulous, because not attested by any credible authority, and rejected by the best Historians. The opinion of Scaliger and Vossius, concerning their being cotemporary, propounded and rejected with reasons against it. Of the antient division of Aegypt into Nomi or Provinces, and the number of them against Vossius and Kircher.
THe next thing to manifest how little there is of credibility in the account of antient times, reported by the Sect. 1.histories of heathen Nations, is, the uncertainty, confusion and ambiguity in the account which they give of those times. If we suppose them not at all defective as to their records, if yet we find the account given so perplexed, ambiguous, and confused, that we can find no certainty at all of the meaning of it, we have very little reason to entertain it with any certain assent unto it. Now this will be made evident by these things. 1. The uncertainty of their Chronology, whereon their whole account depends. 2. The multitude of impostures taken for antient histories. 3. The uncertain meaning of those characters wherein their antient histories were preserved. I begin with the great uncertainty of the Heathen Chronology, which will be manifested by two things; first the uncertain form of their years: secondly the want or uncertainty of their foreign, or certain fixed Epocha's from which to derive their account of antient times. First, the uncertain form of their years; this of its self is sufficient to destroy the credibility of their accounts of antiquity, if it be manifested that they had different forms of years in use among them; and it be uncertain to which to referr their accounts they give; for if years be sometimes Lunar, sometimes Solar, and sometimes but of thirty dayes, sometimes of four Moneths, sometimes of three hundred and sixty dayes, sometimes three hundred sixty five, sometimes four times three hundred sixty five in their tetraeteris, sometimes eight times in their octacteris, sometimes more, what certainty can we possibly have which of them to fix their accounts to. Especially when they only give them in general, and never tell us which of them they mean, which may make it shrewdly suspitious that their intent is only to impose on our understandings, and not to deal fairly and truly with us. We shall therefore so much explain the different form of their years, as thereby to shew what uncertainties we are left to by them: Where we meddle not with their Tropical and Astronomical years, but chiefly those which were in civil use among the several Nations we speak to. A year is nothing else but a System of dayes, and is therefore capable of as great variety, as dayes are in being joyned together; but usually there were some other lesser Systems of dayes then those which are called years, out of which the other doth result. Such is the foreign, or the week which as Ioseph Scaliger saith, was Do Emendat. Temp. 1. ….res omnibus Orient is populis ab ultima usque antiquitate usitata; a thing in continual use among the Eastern Nations, though it be but of late reception into the parts of Europe, and no elder then Christianity among them. Among the Romans was used an foreign, which was for the sake of the Nundinae returning every ninth day. The Mexicans as Scaliger tells us, reckon all by a foreign, a System of thirteen dayes. Next to these were their Moneths which were either Lunar or Solar. The Lunar were either from the Moons return to the same point of the Zodiack again, called foreign, which was less then twenty eight dayes; but this was of no use in civil computations; or else from one conjunction of the Moon with the Sun to another, which was called foreign; or else from the first phasis of the Moon, the second day after its coitus, called foreign and foreign; some as the Graecians reckoned their Lunar moneths from the coitus, as Scaliger proves out of Vitruvius; others from the phasis, as some Eastern Nations did; as the Iews began their observation of the New Moons from the first phasis or appearance of her after the coitus. The Solar moneths were either natural, such as were defined by the Suns passage from one sign of the Zodiack to another; or civil, whereby the moneths were equally divided into 30 dayes apiece, as in the Graecian and Aegyptian year.
Having thus far seen of what the year consists, we now Sect. 2.proceed to shew that the ancient Nations did not observe one constant certain form of year among them, but had several in use, to which their accounts may be referred. And because the Aegyptians are supposed to have been best skilled as to the form of the year, according to that of Macrobius, Anni certus modus apud solos semper Aegyptios fuit. We shall particularly demonstrate the variety of Saturn. l. 1. c. 12.years in use among them; By which we shall see what great uncertainty there is in their accounts of their Dynastyes. For first it is evident that the time of 30 days was among the ancient Aegyptians accounted a year, for which we have the testimony of Plutarch in Numa. foreign; The Egyptians at first had a year consisting of one monethmonth, and after of four: And this, if we believe Alexander ab Alexandro, was the year most Gen. Die…. l 2. c…p …frequently in use among them. So Varro in Lactantius gives an account of the great age of some men in ancient times, who are supposed to have lived 1000 years; Ait enim apud Aegyptios pro annis menses haberi, ut non Solis per 12 signa De Origin. error. i, …. c. …circaitus faciat annum, sed Luna quae orbem illum signiferum 30 dierum spatio illustrat. It is then evident that this year of thirty days was in use among the Aegyptians; the only scruple is whether it was used in their sacred accounts or no; and that it was, we have a pregnant testimony in Plutarch, in the fore-cited place; speaking of the Aegyptians great pretence to antiquity, he gives this account of it; foreign. They reckon an infinite number of years in their accounts, …ecause they reckon their moneths in stead of years.
According to this computation, it will be no difficult matter to reduce the vast accounts of the Aegyptian antiquity to some proportion, and to reconcile their exorbitant Dynastyes with sobriety and truth, especially as to the account given of them by Diodorus Siculus; for so Diodorus gives in their accounts, that the Gods and Heroes reigned in Aegypt for Biblioth. l, 1.the space of near 18000 years, and the last of them was Orus the Son of Isis: From the reign of men in Aegypt he reckons about 9500 years to the time (if we admit of Iacob. Capellus his correction of foreign for foreign in Diodorus) with his entrance into Aegypt, which was in the 180 Olympiad. Now as the foresaid learned Author observes, Diodorus came into Aegypt A. M. 3940. V. C. 694. the mortal men then had reigned in Aegypt 9500 Hist. sacr. et Exot. A. M. 1682.years, which taking it for these Lunar years of 30 dayes, makes of Iulian years 780. the Heroes and Gods 18000 moneths, that is of Iulian years 1478; from these two summs together are gathered 2258 years, which being deducted from the year of the world 3940 falls in the year of the world 1682. about which time Misraim, who was the great historical O siris of Aegypt (so called by a light variation of his former name) might be well supposed to be born; for that was in the year of Noah 630. and so Orus might be born, who was the Son of Osiris, about the year of the world 1778. Between whose time and Alexander the great his Conquest of Aegypt, the Aegyptians, as the same Diodorus tells us, reckon little less then 23000 years: Now according to this computation of 30 days for a year, we may reconcile this to truth too; for from 1778 to 3667 of the world, which falls upon the 417 year of Nabonassar, there is an interval of 1889 years, which makes of these Lunar years of 30 days, saith Cappellus, 22996. and 15 days, which comes very near, if not altogether, up to the Aegyptian Computation: So when the Aegyptians according to Diodorus, make no less then 10000 years distance between their Hercules and Hercules Baeotius, the Son of Alcmena, it must be understood of these Lunar years; for granting what the Aegyptians say, that Hercules Baeotius lived but one generation before the Trojan war, and so his time to fall out about 2783. reckoning now backward from thence, and deducting from that year of the world 10000 moneths of 30 days, or Iulian years 831. and 130 days, the time of the Aegyptian Hercules will fall about the first year of the world, 1962. about which time we may well suppose him to live or die. And according to this computation we are to understand what the Aegyptians told Herodotus, that from their first King or Priest of Vulcan, till the time of Sethoes (in whose time Sennacherib attempted the Conquest of Aegypt) that there had been passed 341 Generations, and as many Kings and High-Priests, and 11340 years, reckoning three Generations to make up a Century. But now, if we understand this prodigious computation according to this form of years, we may suspect the Aegyptians of an intention to deceive Herodotus and the credulous Greeks, but yet not impeach them of direct falshood, it being thus reconcilable to truth. For according to this account 100 years makes 3000 days, and a Generation 1000. so many days the Kings or Priests of Vulcan may be allowed to reign; so 340 Generations of a 8000 days apiece, make up 340000 days, to which, if we add the 200 days which Sethos had now reigned upon Sennacheribs invasion, we have 340200 days, which makes up of these years of 30 days apeece 11340, which is the number assigned by Herodotus: Iacobus Cappellus thinks the Epocha from whence these years are to be reckoned, is from A. M. 2350. when Mephres began Hist. sac…. … Exotic. p. 198.to reign in Aegypt, from whence, if we number these 340200 days, or 11340 monethly years, which makes up of Iulian years 931. and 152 days, the number falls A. M. 3282. about which time in probability Sennacherib invaded Aegypt. Thus we see by making use of those Lunàr years, that it is possible to reconcile some of the Aegyptian extravagant accounts to some probability and consistency with truth; but however we owe very little thanks to the Aegyptians for it, who deliver these things in gross, without telling us which years they mean, and thereby evidence their intent to deceive all who have so little wit as to be deceived by them.
The next kind and form of the Aegyptian year, was that which consisted of four equal moneths, amounting to Sect 3.120 days; the use of this kind of year among them is attested by Plutarch in the fore-cited place, and by Diodorus, L. 1.who gives an account of this kind of year among the Aegyptians. Solinus seems to mention this as the only year Polyhist. c. 3. De Civit. Dei. l. 12. c. 10.in request among the Aegyptians: and so S. Austin. Perhibentur Aegyptii quondam tam breves annos habuisse ut quaternis mensibus finirentur. This renders then the Aegyptians accounts yet more uncertain, and only leaves us to guess with the greatest probability of reason what form of year was meant by them in their Computations. So when Diodorus speaks so much in favour of the old Aegyptian Kings and Laws, and produceth this from the Aegyptian Priests, as the best evidence of the excellent temper of L. 1. Biblioth.their Government, that they had Kings of their own Nation for the space of 4700 years, till the time of Cambyses his inroad into Aegypt, which was in the third year of the 63 Olympiad. Now besides the apparent contradiction of these accounts to the other already explained, if we take them in gross, as the Aegyptians give them, it is evident this can be no otherwise true, then by taking these accounts in that form of years now mentioned by us. For these 4700 years, taking them for 120 dayes apiece, make up of Iulian years 1544. which being deducted from the year of the world 3475. which was the time when Cambyses invaded Aegypt, the remainder is A. M. 1931. about which time we may fix the death of Orus, from whom their proper Kings commenced. And of these years Vossius tells us we are to understand what they report of the long lives of De Idolat. l. 1. c. 28.their ancient Kings, when they attribute to each of them the space of 300 years, as when they attribute a 1000 and more to their eldest Kings, we are to understand them of simple Lunar years of 30 days, by which these Gigantick measures of the term of their lives, may without the help of Procrustes be cut short according to the proportion of mens ordinary age in those eldest times. So when Diodorus reckons from the death of Proteus to his own time A. M. 3940. 3400 years, it must be understood of these years of four equal moneths; for so those 3400 years make up of Iulian years 1117. which being deduced from 3940. the remainder is 2823. about which year of the world Proteus may be supposed to live, which was about the time of the Iudges in Israel.
Neither was this only the Aegyptians way, but in probability Sect. 4.the antient Chaldeans observed the same, which may be a ground likewise of those unmeasurable accounts among them in their first Dynastyes, as is evident in the fragments of Abydenus and Apollodorus out of Berosus, where the times of their first Kings are reckoned not by years but foreign, and foreign; now according to them every foreign contained 3600. years, foreign 600. foreign 60. Now who can imagine that Alorus and the ten Kings from him to Xisuthrus should raign 120. Sari as their computation is, which reckoning for every Saros 3600. years makes up 432000. years? A very fair sum for the Chaldean Dynastyes before the time of Xisuthrus by whom in probability Noah was by them understood. There have been only two wayes thought on of dealing with these computations; either rejecting them as wholly fabulous, and founded on no evidence or records of history, as we have seen already; only they might retain (being so near the place of the settlement of Noah and his posterity after the flood) the memory not only of the flood (of which it is evident they had several remainders preserved in their traditions) but likewise of the ages of men preceding the flood, wherein they were right reckoning from Alorus the first to Xisuthrus, i. e. from Adam to Noah ten Generations; but as to the names of those ten persons and the times they lived in, being wholly ignorant through the unfaithfulness of tradition, they took their liberty not only of coining names, but of setting what age to them they pleased themselves. And to this purpose Scaliger observes that some of their first Kings are reckoned Not. in Gr. Euseb. p. 406.before the flood, which saith he, is denyed by Georgius Syncellus without any shew of reason: Thus far then we may admit of the Chaldeans Dynastyes as to some part of the tradition, but rejecting their names and computations as fabulous. The other way of explaining these Dynastyes, is by the several wayes of computation among them; For the learned Monks, Panodorus, and Anianus, understand those vast sums, not of years, but dayes, and so make a Saros to contain 120. months of 30. dayes a piece, which saith Scaliger, make ten Chaldee years, and a Nirus 20. equal months, and a Sosos two: according to which computation, the 100 Sari make but 1200. years. But this computation of theirs is rejected by Georgius Syncellus, because he supposeth Eusebius so well versed in these things, that he would never have set them down for years, if the Chaldaeans had not understood them so, and therefore he would not trouble himself in reducing Fables to true History, as he expresseth it, whose words are at large produced by Scaliger in the fore-cited place; and it will appear more necessary to reject those Chaldaean computations, if we take the sums of their years in the sense which Salmasius gives of them in the preface to his book De annis Climactericis (from whom Pyrerius the Author of the Praeadamites) hath borrowed most of his arguments as to these things.) According to him then, every foreign contained no less then 6000. years, as the Toman among the Persians contained 10000. but because that learned man hath only given us his reperi Scriptum, without any certain foundation for so large an account of those sums, we shall take them in as favourable a sense as we can. In order to which a very learned man of our own hath found a third interpretation of the foreign in the Chaldee accounts, from a correction of Suidas by the M. S. in the Vatican Library, according to which he thus D. Pearson on the Creed. p. 115. 1. …dit.reads the words. foreign. and so the sense, saith he, is clear foreign according to th… Chaldee account comprehends 222. months, which come to …ighteen years and sixth months; therefore 120. foreign make 2220. years, and therefore, (he adds) for foreign. I read, leaving out the last foreign. Now according to this sense of 120. Sari to comprehend the sum of 2220. years, it will be no difficult matter to reduce the fragment of Berosus concerning the ten Kings before the flood reigning 120. Sari, to some degree of probability, As to which I shall only suppose these two things. First, that the ancient Chaldeans had preserved among them some tradition of the number of the chief persons before the flood; for we find them exactly agreeing with the Scriptures as to the number, though differing as to the names of them, which may be seen in the fragments of Africanus preserved in Eusebius his Greek Chronica. Secondly, that Berosus from Pag. 5.whom Apollodorus and Alexander Polyhistor deliver these computations, might as to the account of the times of those persons follow the translation of the Septuagint. For I have already made it evident that Berosus did not publish his History till after the Septuagint was abroad; now according to the computation of the Septuagint of the ages before the flood, these 120. Sari of the ten Kings will not much disagtee from it. For these make 2220. years of these ten persons, and the Septuagint in all make 2242. so that if in stead of foreign in Suidas, we only read it foreign we have the exact computation of the Septuagint in these 120. Sari; but of this let the learned judge.
We now to come to the Aegyptian Dynastyes of Manetho, Sect. 5.as to wch I doubt we must be fain to take the same course that Eusebius did with the Chaldean, foreign, not to trouble our selves overmuch in seeking to reconcile Fables to truth. Great pains is taken by some very learned men to reduce the disorderly Dynastyes of Manetho to some probable account; but I must confess upon an impartial examination of them, that I think they have striven if not to make an Ethiopian white, yet an Aegyptian to speak truth concerning his own Country, which are almost of an equal impossibility. Ioseph Scaliger who first in this latter age of the world p…oduced them into the light out of Georgius Syncellus, hath a more favourable opinion of them, then of the Aegyptian History, of Herodotus, Diodorus and others, but upon what account I cannot imagine. Is it because four Dynastyes according to his own computation exceed the creation of the world according to the true account? for which he is fain to make use of his Tempus prolepticum and Iulian period, which reacheth 764. years beyond the age of the world, and was invented by him from the multiplication of the great Cycle into the indiction, i. e. of 532. into 15. Or is it because for sooth Man…tho hath digested all into better order and reckoned up the several Dynastyes which lay consused in other authors? but this only shews him a more cunning impostor who saw the former accounts given by others would not serve the turn, and therefore pretends to more exactness and diligence, that he might more easily deceive his readers. But setting aside those things which have been said already concerning Manetho, I have these things which make me reject his Dynastyes as fabulous: first, the vast difference between Manetho his accounts and all others who have written the Aegyptian History in the order and names of his Dynastyes. Where do we ever read of the several Dynastyes of the Thinites, Memphites, Suites, Diospolitans and many others but in himself? It is very strange that neither Herodotus, nor Eratosthenes, nor Diodorus, who have all written a succession of the Egyptian Kings, should neither by their own industry, nor by all the interest they had in Egypt, get any knowledge of these methodically digested Dynastyes. Besides, had there been any historical certainty in these Dynastyes of Manetho, whence comes it to pass that they should be so silently passed over by those who were Egyptian Priests themselves and undertook to write the History of Egypt? Such were Chaeremon who was an foreign a sacred scribe, and Ptolomaeus Mendesius who was an Egyptian Priest, as Eusebius tells us, and comprehended the history of Egypt in three books. Now had this History been so authentical as is pretended, whence come so many and great contradictions between them, in so much that Iosephus saith, If that which they report were true, it were impossible they should so much differ; but they …. App. l. 1.labour in the invention of lyes, and write neither agreeably to the truth nor to one another. So that it is next to a miracle almost to see how prodigiously fond of these Dynastyes Kircher is, and what pains he hath taken to no purpose about them; scio multos esse, …aith he, qui hujusmodi Dynastias meras nugas & commenta putant; very true; but why Ocdip. Egy. To. 1. Syn…. 1. c 9.is not he of the same mind too? he confesseth himself to have been so once; but since he had conversed more with the Oriental traditions, he hath found them not to be so fabulous as many make them. It seems then the Basis of the Aegyptian Dynastyes as well before the flood as after, must lye in this Oriental tradition; a thing, which some, to shew their great skill in those Eastern languages, are grown very fond of. But as far as I can yet see, they sail to Ophir not for gold, but Peacocks; and the next Legend the world hath should be called Legenda Orientalis. For can any thing be more irrational, absurd and fabulous, then those Arabick traditions which that author scrapes as much for, as Aesops Cock did on the Dunghill? but there is no jewell to be found among them: Unless we should take those 15. hard names of men for such which by the Arabick writers are said to have succeeded each other in Egypt before the flood, viz. Nacraus, Nathras, Mesram, Henoah, Arjak, Hasilim, Husal, Tatrasan, Sarkak, Schaluk, Surith, (who they say built the Pyramids) Hugith, Manaus, Aphrus, Malinus, Abn Ama Pharaun, in whose time they say the flood came. But should we be so little befriended by reason as to grant all this, what advantage will this be to Manetho who speaks not of Kings but whole Dynastyes? so that it still appears these Dynastyes are fabulous not being attested by any credible witnesses. Secondly, All those who profess to follow Manetho, differ strangely from one another, as Iosephus, Africanus, Eusebius, George the Syncellus of the patriarchs of Tarasius; and Scaliger who hath taken so much pains in digesting of them, yet he is condemned by others since; and Isaac Vossius gives a particular caution to his reader, In his De aetat. M…di. cap. 10.Dynastiis compingendis nequaquam esse sequendum ordinem & calculum Scaligeri. What should be the reason of this diversity, but that they thought them not so authentick▪ but they might cut off, alter and transpose as they saw occasion? which is most plain and evident in Eusebius, who makes no difficulty of …utting of one whole Dynasty, and dividing another into two, only to reconcile the distance between Thuoris the Egyptian King, and Tentamus the Assyrian Emperour, and the destruction of Troy, and therefore leaves out 4. Assyrian Kings and a whole Dynasty of the Egyptians to make a Synchronisme between those three.
But yet there hath been something very fairly offered to the world to clear the truth, if not Manetho, in order to his Sect 6.Dynastyes, viz. that the subtle Egyptian to inhance the antiquity of his own Country, did take implicite years for solid, and place those in a succession which were cotemporary one with another; This indeed is a very compendious way to advance a great sum of years with a very little charge: Wherein he hath done saith Cappellus, as if a Spaniard in the Indies should glory of the antiquity of the Dynastyes of Hist. Sacr. et exot. A. M. 3308.Spain, and should attribute to the Earles of Barcinona 337. years, to the King of Arragon 498. to the King of Portugal 418. to the King of Leo 545. of Castile 800. years, and yet all these Dynastyes rise from the years of our Lord 717. when the Saracens first entred Spain. There are very few Nations, but will go near to vie antiquity with the Egyptians, if they may thus be allowed to reckon successively all those petty royalties which antiently were in most Nations; as might be particularly instanced in most great Empires, that they gradually rise from the subduing and incorporating of those petty royalties into which the several Nations were cantonized before. And there seems to be very strong ground of suspition that some such thing was designed by Manetho from the 32. Dynasty which is of the Diospolitan Thebans; for this Dynasty is said to begin from the tenth year of the 15. Dynasty of the Phaenician Pastours in the time of Saites; now which is most observable, he that begins this Dynasty, is of the very same name with him who begins the very first Dynasty of Manetho, who is Menes, and so likewise his son Athothis is the same in both: Which hath made many think because Menes is reckoned first, not only in both these, but in Diodorus, Eratosthenes and others, that this Menes was he who first began the Kingdom of Egypt, after whose time it was divided into several Dynastyes. Which makes Scaliger say, illa vet ustissima regna fuerunt instar latrociniorum, ubi vis non lex aut successio aut suffragia Canon. …sag. l. 3.populi reges in solio regni collocabant. This opinion of the coexistence of these Dynastyes is much embraced by Vossius Gerard. Vos. Idol. l. 1. c. 28. Is. Vos. de aet. Mundi. c. 10.both Father and Son, and by the Father made use of to justifie Scaliger from calumniatours, who made as though Scaliger did in effect overthrow the authority of the Scriptures by mentioning with some applause the Dynastyes of Manetho.
But to this opinion how plausible soever it seems, I offer these exceptions. First, As to that Menes who is supposed Sect. 7.to be the first founder of the Aegyptian Kingdom, after whose death it is supposed that Aegypt was divided into all these Dynastyes, I demand therefore who this Menes was; was he the same with him whom the Scripture calls Misraim who was the first Planter of Egypt? this is not probable, for in all probability his name must be sought among the Gods and not the mortals that raigned. If we suppose him to be any other after him, it will be hard giving an account how he came to have the whole power of Egypt in his hands, and so soon after him it should be divided. For Kingdoms are ofttimes made up of those petty royalties before; but it will be very hard finding instances of one persons enjoying the whole power, and so many Dynastyes to arise after his decease, and to continue coexistent in peace and full power so long as these several Dynastyes are supposed to do. Besides, is it not very strange that no Historian should mention such a former distribution of several principalities so antiently in Egypt? But that which to me utterly overthrows the coexistence of these Dynastyes in Egypt, is, by comparing with them what we finde in Scripture of greatest antiquity concerning the Kingdom of Egypt; which I cannot but wonder that none of these learned men should take notice of. When the Egyptian Kingdom was first founded, is not here a place to enquire; but it is evident that in Abrahams time, there was a Pharaoh King of Egypt (whom Gen. 12. ….Archbishop Usher thinks to have been Apophis) not Abimelech the first King of Egypt, as Constantinus Manasses reports in his Annals (by a ridiculous mistake of the King of Gerar for the King of Egypt.) This Pharaoh was then certainly King of all the Land of Egypt, which still in Scripture is called the Land of Misraim from the first planter of it; and this was of very great antiquity; and therefore Funccius (though improbably) thinks this Pharaoh to have been Osiris, and Rivet thinks Misraim might have been alive till that time; here then we find no Dynastyes coexisting, but one Kingdom under one King. If we descend somewhat lower, to the times of Iacob and Ioseph, the evidence is so undoubted of Aegypts being an entire Kingdom under one King, that he may have just cause to suspect the …yes either of his body or his mind that distrusts it. For what more evident then that Pharaoh who preferred Ioseph, was King of all the Land of Aegypt? Were not the seven years of famine over all the Land of Aegypt? Gen. 41. 55. Was not Joseph set by Pharaoh over all the Land of Aegypt? Gen. 41. 41, 43, 45. And did not Joseph go over all the Land of Aegypt to gather corn? Gen. 41. 46. Nay did not he buy all the Land of Aegypt for Pharaoh? Gen. 47. 20. Can there possibly be given any fuller evidence of an entire Kingdom, then these are that Egypt was such then? Afterwards we read of one King after another in Egypt for the space of nigh two hundred years, during the children of Israels slavery in Egypt; and was not he think we, King over all Egypt, in whose time the children of Israel went out thence? And in all the following history of Scripture, is there not mention made of Aegypt still as an entire Kingdom, and of one King over it? Where then is there any place for these co-temporary Dynastyes in Aegypt? Nowhere that I know of, but in the sancies of some learned men.
Indeed there is one place that seems to give some countenance Sect. 8.to this opinion; but it is in far later times then the first Dynastyes of Manetho are supposed to be in, which is in Isai. 19. 2. Where God, saith he, would set the Aegyptians against the Aegyptians, and they shall fight every one against his brother, City against City, and Kingdom against Kingdom. Where it seems that there were several Kingdoms then existent among the Aegyptians; but the Septuagint very well renders it foreign now foreign among the Aegyptians, as Epiphanius and others tell us, notes foreign, the precincts of every great City, such as our Counties are, and therefore Pliny renders foreign by praefecturae; these were the several Provinces of Aegypt, of which there were thirty six in Aegypt, ten in Thebais, ten in Delta, the other sixteen in the midland parts; so that by Kingdom against Kingdom, no more is meant then one Province being set against another. Isaac Vossius thinks the number of the antient Nomi was twelve, and that over every one of these was a peculiar King; and that this number may be gathered from the Dynastyes of Manetho, setting aside the Dynastyes of the Persians, Aethiopians, and Phaenicians: viz. the Thinites, Memphites, Elephantines, Heracleopolitans, Diospolitan Thebans, the lesser Diospolitans, Xoites, Tanites, Bubastites, Saites, Mendesians and Sebennytes: and so that Aegypt was antiently a Dodecarchy, as England in the Saxons times was a Heptarchy. But as it already appears, there could be antiently no such Dodecarchy in Aegypt; so it is likewise evident that this distribution of Aegypt into Nomi is a later thing, and by most writers is attributed to Sesoosis or Sesostris, whom Iosephus supposeth to be Sesac King of Aegypt, cotemporary with Rhehoboam. Vid. Boch. Geogr. p. 1. l. 4. c. 24. Oedip. Aegypt. To. 1. Syntag. 1. c. ….Indeed if we believe Gelaldinus the Arabick Historian cited by Kircher, the most antient distribution of Aegypt was into four parts. Misraim held one part to himself, and gave his son Copt another, Esmun a third, and Atrib a fourth part; which division the same Author affirms to have continued till the time of Ioseph, who made a new distribution of the whole Land: After him Sesestris divided the whole into thirty several Nomi; so Kircher will needs have it, that of the three several parts of Aegypt, each might have for some mystical signification its ten Nomi, of which every one had its distinct and peculiar God it worshipped, and a particular Palace in the Labyrinth, and a peculiar Sanhedrim or Court of Iustice belonging to it. But it evidently appears by that vain-glorious Oedipus, that it is a far easier matter to make new mysteries, then to interpret old ones, which as it might be easily discovered in the main foundations whereon that structure stands, so we have some evidence of it in our first entrance into it, in this part of Chorography of Aegypt. For from whence had he this exact division of Aegypt into thirty Nomi, t…n of which belonged to the upper Aegypt or Th…bais, ten to Delta or the lower Aegypt, and the ten remaining to the midland Countrey? Hath he this from Ptolomy, whose Scheme of the several Nomi he publisheth? Syntag. 1. c. 2. p. 7.No. Ptolomy and Pliny by his own confession afterwards add many other to these, as Omphile, Phanturites, Tinites, Phatnites, Ne…t, Heptanomos, &c. Hath he it from Strabo whose authority he cites for it? No such matter. For Strabo saith expresly that Thebais had ten Nomi, Delta ten, and the Geogr. l. 17.midland sixteen; only some are of opinion, saith he, that there were as many Nomi as Palaces in the Labyrinth, which were toward thirty; but yet the number is uncertain still. We see by this how ominous it is for an Oedipus to stumble at the threshold, and how easie a matter it is to interpret mysteries, if we may have the making of them. We see then no evidence at all for these cotemporary Dynastyes of Manetho; which yet if we should grant, would be a further argument of the uncertainly of Heathen Chronology, when among them implicite years are given out to the world for solid; so that which way soever Manetho his Dynastyes be taken, they will prove the thing in hand, whether we suppose them at least most part fabulous, or should grant he had taken those in succession to each other, which were co-existent with one another.