Page images
PDF
EPUB

scribes in Diospolis, and translated from Egyptian into Greek, ended here, having begun at the 2900th year of the world, — 124 years after the confusion of tongues, — and terminating at this 3975th (3976th) year of the world. But the names of the fifty-three other Theban kings after these, I think it needless to give here, since they are nothing to my purpose, as, indeed, is true of those already given.”

According to this eminent authority, therefore, the entire Egyptian monarchy extended through only ninety-one reigns, instead of the several hundred claimed for it by Manetho. It is true that Bunsen denies that the fifty-three unnamed kings reached down to the close of the empire, and insists that they belong to what he calls the " Middle Kingdom,” extending from the XIIth to the XVIIIth dynasty. In this, however, he stands alone, so far as I am aware. He concedes, however, that the thirty-eight reigns cover the first twelve dynasties; and there is decisive evidence from the monuments, as we shall presently see, that the XVIIIth dynasty immediately succeeded the XIIth, the intermediate ones either not existing at all, or being scattered in fragments, contemporaneous with those preceding or following. In this view the so-called Middle Kingdom wholly disappears. The fifty-three unnamed kings of Eratosthenes, then, probably covered the remainder of the monarchy from the beginning of the XVIIIth dynasty, which may be the reason why Syncellus deemed it unnecessary to name them, as they agreed substantially with Manetho's lists (in Eusebius). At any rate, the fact is admitted by Lepsius,* one of the greatest Egyptologers, and can not well be disputed.

This period, according to Africanus, was 1377 years, which, added to the 1076 of the preceding thirty-eight reigns, makes the entire duration of the monarchy 2453 years, and, dating back from Alexander, B. C. 340, carries the age of Menes to B. C. 2793, or 362 years after the flood, which sufficiently harmonizes with the Scripture chronology.f

(c.) Our next authority on the point before us is Josephus, the eminent Jewish historian, who, for the elegance and vigor of his style, has been named the Greek Livy. His work, entitled " Against Apion,” is a vindication of the antiquity of his nation from

* He points out the important fact that, according to Syncellus, there were just fifty-three kings from Amosis I., who expelled the Shepherds, to Amosis II., the contemporary of Cambyses.

+ Buusen himself places the beginning of the XVIIIth dynasty at B. C. 1633, which all admit to be near the truth. Thus, instead of carrying up the era of Menes, as he does, to B. C. 3623, or 3059, we bring it down by the list of Eratosthenes to (1633 + 1076) B. C. 2709. See Appendix, G.

the charge that it had not been mentioned by Greek historians. In this work he refers to Manetho by name, and gives, professedly verbatim, long extracts from him.* In comparing these with what we have of that author, we find very little resemblance between them. Of the narrative portion cited by Josephus there is absolutely nothing. His list of kings, twenty-five in all, begins with the XVth dynasty of Africanus, and ends with the early part of the XXth — a period to which Manetho assigns ninety-eight kings. In Eusebius it begins with the XVIIth dynasty, and includes a period of but nineteen kings. The whole duration of these reigns in Josephus is 492 years, in Africanus 1216, in Eusebius 451. Nothing more, surely, is needed to show how utterly unworthy of confidence are the lists of Manetho. There is no reason to believe that Josephus did not give, literally, his extracts, as he pro- . fessed to do, or that his works, which have been otherwise so well preserved, have been corrupted. He evidently had what he regarded as the original work before him. We see not how to avoid the conclusion, that Africanus and Eusebius, or Syncellus, who reported them, used some abridgment or epitome made by some other person, either a bungling transcriber, a willful falsifier, or an impos.

* See Appendix, H.

tor, who put forth his own work under the stolen name of Manetho.

(d.) The lists before us are not sustained by the evidence furnished by the monuments. We have no space to exhibit this fact in detail, and must he content with some general statements. The first is, that but a small portion of the names given by Manetho can be identified. Of the 554 in Africanus, or 367 in Eusebius, occurring in the first seventeen dynasties, Bunsen, with his utmost ingenuity, does not pretend to have identified more than 110, Lepsius about as many, Poole only 76, etc. No trace whatever is found of dynasties VII., VIII., IX., X., XIII., XIV., XV. Euseb., XVI., XVII. Afric. A period of Egyptian history, midway in its splendid career of art and arms, as long as the interval from Alfred the Great to Victoria, has left not a single fact or monument, nor even a grave, to attest its existence. Even Bunsen admits that it is improbable and unexampled that a foreign people (the socalled " Shepherds ") should maintain themselves in Egypt for nine, or even five centuries, and have lived so like barbarians that not a single monument of theirs can be pointed out.” “But this,” adds Canon Trevor,* " is far from stating the entire marvel. Not only is no Hyksos monument remaining,

* Ancient Egypt, p. 262.

mar

nu

the charge that it had not been mentioned by Greek historians. In this work he refers to Manetho by name, and gives, professedly verbatim, long extracts from him.* In comparing these with what we have of that author, we find very little resemblance between them. Of the narrative portion cited by Josephus there is absolutely nothing. His list of kings, twenty-five in all, begins with the XVth dynasty of Africanus, and ends with the early part of the XXth — a period to which Manetho assigns ninety-eight kings. In Eusebius it begins with the XVIIth dynasty, and includes a period of but nineteen kings. The whole duration of these reigns in Josephus is 492 years, in Africanus 1216, in Eusebius 451. Nothing more, sure!y, is needed to show how utterly unworthy of confidence are the lists of Manetho. There is no reason to believe that Josephus did not give, literally, his extracts, as he professed to do, or that his works, which have been otherwise so well preserved, have been corrupted. He evidently had what he regarded as the original work before him. W e not how to avoid the conclusion. _ nus ind Eusebius, or Syncellus

d me abridgment or

ne on, either a

or an impos

[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »