« PreviousContinue »
luvian dynasties, extending down to B. C. 538, the first of which comprised eighty-six kings during the aforesaid period of 31.080 years. He simply styles this mythic;" yet when we consider how natural is the reckoning which makes the sarus 3600 days instead of years, - i. e., 10 years of 360 days each, - how simple and consistent with the rude and elementary knowledge of those early times, and how harmonious also with the facts of history as learned from other sources, we cannot but wonder that eminent scholars should have disregarded it, and preferred theories so much more complicated instead. Such preferences wholly mistake the character of those remote ages when knowledge, especially astronomical knowledge, was very simple, and embraced only the most obvious facts. At that time nothing was known of what in later times were called " lunar periods.” The whole meaning was on the surface, and not involved in a mass of recondite facts, which required an intricate calculation to discover, and an intricate theory to explain them.
Our conclusion, then, is this: that while the immense periods of Chaldean antediluvian reigns are not historical, neither are they wholly mythical. In this respect they differ from the corresponding periods of Egyptian chronology. They contain his
torical elements which have a twofold value — negative and positive. The negative is that, interpreted as they have now been, they contain nothing inconsistent with the Mosaic account of the creation. The very longest duration assigned to the antediluvian period may easily be brought within the 2256 years assigned to it in the Septuagint. The positive value is, that so far as they go, they confirm the sacred record. As in the latter, they assert that there was an antediluvian period. The ten generations of kings correspond with the line of ten patriarchs from Adam to Noah. The details of Chaldean tradition are but dim and distorted, but easily recognizable, copies of the events mentioned in the Scriptures. Chaldean and Jewish antiquities cover precisely the same ground. Moses and Berosus speak of the same times, and, in general, of the same facts; not, indeed, always with the same fullness, — some particulars being recorded by one and some by the other, - but the ground covered by each is the same, and the two narratives, instead of being set in antagonism, should be taken as mutually confirmatory.
The date of the earliest historical dynasty after the flood is thought to be established thus: The list. of astronomical observations, sent by Callisthenes to Aristotle, in the time of Alexander the Great, ex
tended backward in an uninterrupted series 1903 years, i. e., till B. C. 2234. This is supposed to have been at the beginning of the IIId dynasty of Berosus, which was Chaldean, and under which the worship of the heavenly bodies began. Previous to this, a Median dynasty, who were probably of the Turanian or Scythian race, had reigned 224 years, carrying up the monarchy to B. C. 2458. Still further back was the before-mentioned "mythic” dynasty of 86 kings, whose duration was said to have been 34,080 years, so that the earliest historical date is that of the beginning of the second dynasty, B. C. 2458* The existence, however, of this Median dynasty, much more its assigned duration, is very. uncertain, lying, as it does, in the very border land between fable and history, and with both, probably, in varying proportions, intermingling in it.
* Smith's History of the World, vol. i. p. 196.
THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY (continued).
III. THE HINDUS.
Importance of the Discovery of the Sanskrit. — View of the San
skrit Literature. — The VEDAS. – The UPAVEDAS. — The VEDANGAS. – The UPANGAS. — These contain no History. Severe Judgment upon the Sanskrit Literature by Missionaries. – Reason for this. - Comparison between the Hindus apd Greeks. — Origin of the Vedas. — Their Contents. Their Antiquity. — They contain Nothing inconsistent with the Bible Chronology.
The discovery of the Sanskrit language and literature may almost be said to have constituted an era in the world. As the discovery of the continent of India — for it may appropriately be termed such — by the Portuguese, at the close of the fifteenth-century, was an era in the history of commerce, so the introduction of its sacred language, and the treasures it contains, to the knowledge of Europeans, was an event of signal importance in the history of literature, philology, and ethnology. This event oc
curred about one hundred years ago, at which time the language began to be successfully unfolded by Sir William Jones and other Oriental scholars. At the present time, the Sanskrit literature has been pretty fully explored, though much remains to be done in reference to portions of it. Within the last ten years, several important works have been published upon it, and much discussion, active, if not violent, has been had both among European and American investigators.
I shall endeavor, first, to give a summary idea of the nature of the Sanskrit literature, and, secondly, inquire what it contains, as bearing upon the question of the antiquity of man on the earth.
I. The whole circle, of Hindu knowledge and science is divided into eighteen parts. The first four of these are the VEDAS proper, so called from ved, the law, which are named respectively the Rig-Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama-Veda, and the Atharva-Veda. These are regarded as having come immediately from God, and as containing the true knowledge of the Deity, of his religion, and of his worship. Each Veda consists of two parts, the first called Sanhita, comprising hymns, prayers, and ceremonies to be used in sacrifices and oblations; the second, Brahmana, describing the First Cause, and the creation of the world, also