Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

It is obvious, therefore, that the separation was not made here between the mythical and historical periods of the first dynasty. We should probably have found it in the later series of kings, had their names been transmitted. Polyhistor did enumerate them all, but Christian epitomists had not time! We might be tempted to suppose that the former of these names was Nimrod (Nebrôd, in the Septuagint). But the Christian chronographers, and still less Josephus, would certainly not have failed to mention it; and they were acquainted with the work of Berosus. It would have been the greatest triumph to them, inasmuch as it would have furnished the most ancient confirmation of Scripture, in respect to Asiatic histories, from their own native chronicles. But nobody throws out a hint even to that effect.

When we find in Syncellus the words, "Euechius, who was also called Nimrod;" or in Cedrenus, "Nimrod is also called Euechius;" this simply means that the later Christian chronographers did not find him among the historical kings. Both, indeed, are said to be the first kings of Babylon, the one in the Bible (which, however, does not say that he was a Babylonian), the other by the Babylonians. They are the same king, but under different names! Rawlinson's discoveries would seem to have established the fact that Nimri was a Scythian (Turanian) race, which made incursions and conquests in Southern Babylonia. Nimrod, therefore, probably belonged to that race. In the Book of the Origines it will be seen what is the consequence of this, and it will also be noticed in the historical arrangement of the languages. The whole story in the Bible, and the position which has been assigned to it, becomes thus for the first time intelligible.

At all events the name of Nimrod was not one of those of the kings of the first Chaldee dynasty. There is, however, another way of explaining the commencement

of the historical and chronological date of Babylon, by supposing that the historical period is represented by the excess of the sum total over the number of complete sari.

Now, in the first place, 9 complete

[blocks in formation]

1,680 years.

If the whole period were mythical (which, however, after what has been said above, is historically untenable), what was the use of having fractions? The earlier, purely mythical, calculation about the Origines of mankind, before and after the Flood, consists of 120 complete sari. The 1680 lunar years, however, are very nearly equivalent to 1550 Julian years.

The year 1550 before Zoroaster would, therefore, be the date of the commencement of the era; and as the reign of that Median conqueror began in the year 2234 B. C., the chronological and historical age of Babylon would commence in the year 3784 B. C., that is, exactly 200 years after the creation of Adam, according to the ordinary interpretation of the numbers in the Hebrew

text.

But, what is a much more important point for the most ancient people-history, the first year of Menes, according to our tables, is coincident with the hundred and sixty-first year of the Babylonian era. Nimrod's conquests of Semitic Asia, or at least of Mesopotamia, in the widest sense, were consequently made in the earliest part of the first dynasty, or else in the unchronological, though historical, foretime of Babylon. At all events, the tradition in the Book of Genesis is verified, that Babel is older than Assur and Nineveh. Ninus and the supremacy of the Assyrians date from the year 2511 of the Babylonian era, coeval with the 2350th after

Menes. Assyria doubtless possessed its own archaic annals (in part, also, strictly historical) prior to Ninus; but, judging by the Greek accounts, which were ostensibly derived from Assyrian sources, it possessed no ancient chronology. Herodotus, who had paid especial attention to Assyrian history, and whose chronological datum for the commencement of the Ninus dynasty is so happily verified, could not ascertain any Assyrian dates prior to Ninus, or any names but that of Belus (Bel), their primeval ancestor, and Hercules, his progenitor.198

198 An acute young scholar, Herr von Gutschmid of Dresden, in an article in the Rheinische Museum, viii. p. 252. seq., has attempted a new mode of completing the dates of the duration of the third dynasty. Like Niebuhr, he starts from the number 1903 of Callisthenes; but, instead of making use of it to determine the first year of the second Median dynasty, he applies it to the third, which he supposes to be Chaldean. According to him it commenced 2234 B. C., and its eleven kings reigned 258 years; for it is necessary to supply that number in order to get to the year 2234. He thinks it an argument in favour of his calculation, that according to it the first Chaldean dynasty of 86 kings began to reign exactly 36,000 years before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. If this were so, Berosus would have dressed up his whole history in two cyclical numbers—the antediluvian portion in one 432,000 years, i. e. 120 sari, the modern portion down to the natural close of the conquest of Babylon, in one of 36,000 years, or 10 sari. From which the following synopsis results :

Ten Antediluvian Chaldean kings, 432,000 years.
After the Flood:

I. Dynasty of 86 Chaldean kings - 34,080 years.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

I think that our explanation of these computations is more satis

factory.

PART VI.

THE AGE OF ZOROASTER, THE BACTRIAN,

AND

THE HISTORICAL NOTICES IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF

THE VENDIDÂD.

« VorigeDoorgaan »