A
DISCOURSE
Concerning
SANCHONIATHON's
Phoenician Hiſtory.
By HENRY DODWELL, M. A.
and ſometimes Fellow of Trinity-Col-
ledge near Dublin in Ireland.
***
LONDON, Printed for Benjamin Tooke,
and are to be Sold by Walter Kettilby,
at the Bishop's-Head in St. Paul's-Church-
jard, MDCXCI.
THE
DS
31
CONTENTS.
THE
HE Occafion of this Difcourfe, §. I.
The Uſefulneſs, 6. II. The Credit .
of Sanchoniathon's Work depends either
on Porphyry, or Philo Byblius, §. III.
The Philofophers allowed a Liberty of Be-
neficial Falfehoods; and they who first
produced this Author were, in Intereft con-
cerned for him, §. IV. Theodoret and
Cyril of Alexandria quote him only at the
Second hand from Eufebius. Several grofs
mistakes of Cyril, S.V, VI. Sanchonia-
thon very little known before he was pro-
duced by Porphyry, §. VII, VIII. No rea-
fon why he might not have been known, even
before the time of Philo Byblius, if he had
been really genuine, §. IX. He might have
been taken notice of, not only as a Hiftorian,
but as a Philofopher, S. X. Concerning
his Means of Information. The Writings
of Taautus. The Antient way of preſerving
Antiquities by Infcriptions on Sacred
Pillars, fometimes abufed, and very fit for
the defigns of Deceivers, §. XI. This was
generally pretended to by those who Rival-
led each other for. Antiquity. The Pro-
A 2
phecy
N
D65
1691
THE CONTENTS.
phecy of Cham and the Pillars of Seth
contained the fame Doctrines with thofe
of Mercury, S. XII, XII'. Taautus the
Same with Mercury. The Ammonian
Philofophy the fame with the Egyptian,
§. XIV. It is improbable that Sanchonia-
thon could derive his Information from the
Books of Mercury, S. XV. Mercury no
Phoenician, §. XVI. The Pretences of
Philo Byblius for defence of his Author,
§. XV. It is not probable that the An-
tient Egyptians would have suffered Mer-
cury to have Revealed their Myfteries,
§. XVII. It is not probable that the E-
gyptian Mercury either would or could
have Revealed them, S. XIX. The Son
of Thabion, perhaps the Second Mercury
called Agathodæmon. He is fuppofed to be
the Author of the Modern Greek Writings
Fathered on Mercury (which if meant
by Sanchoniathon must be a certain Con-
viction of his Falfe-hood) perhaps first
published by Numenius, . XX. By Hie-
rom-baal Frieft of the God Jevo he meant
Gideon. Sanchoniathon could not mi-
ftake him for a Prieft. Bochart mistaken,
§. XXI. It is not Credible that Gideon
ever left any Memoirs behind him, §. XXII.
Sanchoniathons account of Jewiſh Affairs
could not have been taken from them,
(. XXIIE
THE CONTENTS:
§. XXIII. Intrinfick Arguments of juſt
Suſpicion against this Author. His arro-
gating to his own Country the Glory of all
Famous Perfons and Inventions, §. XXV.
Several Inftances hereof, §. XXV, XXV!,
XXVI, XXVI. An Account of the de.
fign of Philo Byblius in this Imposture.
He was difaffected to the Jews, and per-
haps fet on this design by occafion of Joſe-
phus's Bocks against Appion, §. XXIX.
Jofephus there infisted more particularly
on the Teftimonies of Phoenicians. Other
things that recommended the Jewiſh Scrip-
tures to the esteem of the Learned Hea.
thens of that Age. Several Eminent Jew-
iſh Writers who, by Myftical Expofitions,
brought their own Doctrines near the re-
ceived System of the Dogmatical Philo-
fophers, §. XXX. Heathen Oracles in
favour of the Jews owned for genuine by
the Heathens themselves. The good Cha-
racters of Abraham and Mofes in the re-
ceived Orphaicks. Jofeph and Mofes
taken for Egyptian Prieſts, §. XXX'. A
Set of Philofophers, feveral of them An-
tienter than Philo Byblius, who received
the Authority of Mofes as a Wife Legifla
tor and a Prophet, and mentioned him
with respect. Chalcidius a Heathen,
§. XXX. The Jewish Kosovíz taken
intg
A 3
THE
CONTENT S.
into the counterfeited Works of Hermes,
about the time of Philo Byblius, §. XXXIII.
How this might come to pass, §. XXXIV.
Philo Byblius's Partiality appears in his
making Sanchoniathon prefer his own City
Byblos before all the Cities of Phoenicia for
Antiquity, even before Beryrus it felf. Why
he makes his Sanchoniathon enquire into
the Archives of the particular Cities,
§. XXXV. He had, in this Work, a par-
ticular defign upon the Jews. Why he
makes his Sanchoniathon live in the time
of Abibalus, §. XXXVI. The time of
Sanchoniathon fixed, not by the Age of
Semiramis, but of Abibalus. His time,
by the Tyrian Records, either Equal, or
a little before the War of Troy, §. XXXVII.
Why he was to Father his Informations,
concerning Jewish Matters, on a Jew and
Prieft, §. XXXVIII. Why on a Priest
of the God Jevo, and on Gedeon particu
larly. How he might from his Name col
lect his being a Prieft. Hierombaal, 'Jy'
and vy, §. XXXIX. Why be was to be-
gin with a Koopoyvia. All Books concerning
mi Κοσμογενία.
Ægyptian Notions Fathered on Hermes.
The Faftion of Fathering all latter Inven-
tions of a Sect on the First Author of it,
especially in their Dialogues, §. XL. The
Ægyptian Philofophy followed by Sancho-
niathon
THE CONTENT S.
ว
niathon. How he fecured himself from
Sufpicion of mistake in Interpreting Mer-
cury. How the Greeks came to be mifta-
ken, §. XLI. How the Ægyptians.
Φωτισμός. Απόκρυφα γράμματα, S. XLII. How
Philo Byblius fecures his Sanchoniathon
from the Sufpicion of Fabling, and what
Fables he means, §. XLIII, XLIV. Tet he
forgot himself and Fathered a Scandalous
Fable upon him, §. XLV. The Name of
Sanchoniathon perhaps borrowed from the
Famous Egyptian Sonchis. The Atlan-
tick Theology probably the fame with that
of Mercury, §. XLVI. Recapitulation,
§. XLVII. The Scripture needs no Con-
firmation from Heathen Authors, §. XLVIII.
A 4
A
A
DISCOURSE,
Concerning
SANCHONIATHON's
Phoenician Hiftory.
§. I.
In Eufeb. Prep. Evang. I. 1.ch. 10.
H
AVING in the latter of theſe N. IX.
Letters intimated ſome ſuſpici-
on concerning the genuineness of Sanchoni-
athon, and confidering how generally
Learned men receive and quote him for
an Author of that Antiquity he pretends
to; as it will become me to purge my felf
from the fufpicion of Heterodoxy, fo I be-
lieve it will not be ingrateful to the inge-
nious inquifite Reader to underſtand what
may be faid concerning him. Which I
fhall do from fome Letters which pafled
between me and a Learned Friend con-
cerning him before the Publication of thefe Dr.The mas
Letters of Advice,and which,were in truth, low of
the Reaſons of my paffing that cenfure up- Magdalen
on him.
§. II. THE Credit of this Author does
the rather deſerve an accurate and impar-
tial Examination, becauſe of the great
ufe which is made of him in clearing feve-
ral
Smith Fel-
Colledge
in Oxford.
(2)
M
ral Hiftorical and Philofophical paſſages of
the Old Testament; and becauſe he is ge-
nerally taken for the Faithfulleft, and An-
tientest, and conſequently the moſt uſeful
Heathen Author that was extant within
the Memory of Learned Ages. Which
might make all who either have formerly,
or do ftill believe him fo, think nothing
too difficult to be confirmed by his Credit.
(*) Sə Theodores, Therap. II. Zay.
zwviddwv, ó x7 7 gowinay Sid-
ASHTOV ÇIXANDs, &c. And fo
his Tranflator. But I had rather
3
correct him from Eufebius whom
he Tranfcribes; who, in two
places where he has occation to
cite this fame puffage agrees
with himself, and yet differs from
Theod ret. So therefore he: zay
χωνιάνων, ὁ καὶ 7 Φοινίκων φι
îxandw.. Sc. Zvrayazar
ugyeģļas, keading emas
for anons; and oppoling
Sanchoniathon's writing in the
Phoenician to the Greek Tranila-
tion of him by Philo Byblius, and
referring as to what fol-
lows surajajur nj curves
καὶ συγγράψας
(*) His very Name was
obſerved to fignifie qi-
Aan which if it were
given him by his Con-
temporaries, muft needs
have been a great atte-
ſtation of his Integrity
from them who had beſt
reafon to know him.*As
for his Age, he is pre-
tended equal to Abiba-
us, to whom he is faid
to have Dedicated this
his Phenician History,
that Abibalus, I mean
who, by the Phenician
not to Sanchoniathon mentioned
hefore, Pr. Fu. 1. 10. X. 91. And
then there will appear no footfteps of any Etymology of his Name. Yet
Bochart gives a likelv Etimology for that purpofe, which, if it hold, will
fhew, at least, a defign of Philo Bytius in giving him that particular
Enfeb, Pr. Ev. 1, 10. 31. A. X. 9.485. Theodoret Therap.
Name.
11.
*
Records
(3)
XP Hirami, Ant.
vii'. 2. P. 259.
Ed. Gene. xiiº. c.
viii. 2. Cont. 4p-
pion. L. 1.Theoph.
Antioch. L. iii. ad
Vid. Foſeph. Ant.
Records,is fuppofed to be the Father of Hie-
romenus or Eiromus, conceived to be the
fame with Hiram, contemporary with
David and Solomon as appears, not only
from the Scriptures, but alfo from the fame
Phenician Records, on whofe credit, no
doubt, it is that Jofephus makes the
Eleventh year compleat,or Twelfth
begun of Hiram,to concur with the
Fourth of Solomon, wherein the App. 1.1.p. 1043.
Temple was built. For he had the
fum of thofe Records Collected to his hand
by Menander Ephefius and Dius
and Hieronymus Tyrius, and others,
without whofe affiftance he could
not have been fo particular in fix-
ing the certain year of Hiram.
The Learned Bochart would have this
Abibalus King of Berytus diftin& from
him who was King of Tyre, and Antienter.
But if the account hold which we fhall
afterwards give from the Phenician Re-
cords, to fhew him to have been Equal or
a little Ancienter than the War of Troy,
(exactly as this Abibalus the Father of Hi-
ram is placed by the who mention him)
it will then appear that no other was meant
than the Father of Hiram. That he is
called King of the Bertjans, was for no
other end but to fignifie that he was San-
Autolyc.
choniathon's
(4)
Pr.Eu.l.g.
II.
choniathon's Prince who was of Berytus,
exactly as Sanchoniathon himself is in Athe-
neus and Suidas made a Tyrian, becauſe his
Berytus was,in his time, under the Jurifdi-
&tion of Tyre,which is again another proba-
bility that his Abibalus was the fame with
the K. of tyre. Porphyry himſelf who firſt
produced this Sanchoniathon againſt the
Chriſtians, makes him equal to Semiramis,
who as he tells us in Eufebius's Preparation,
P. 31. B. was either before or equal to the Wars of
Chron. L. Trey; but heis confuted by Eufebius who
11. init. makes her Eight hundred and fifty years
Tertul, de earlier then that fame War. Her Huf
Pal. c. 2. band Ninus is generally, by Heathen Au-
& a Cerda, thors, made the utmoſt Period of all Hi-
Eu. Pr. ftories they were acquainted with, who
485, 486. yet kention many things Antienter than
Macrob. in that War of Tray. But this matter is ex-
fomn. crip cellently accounted for by the Learned
Oral. L. 1. and Judicious Sir John Marsham, who
Chron. fhews that Porphyry herein followed the
more likely account of Herodotus, though
xvii. p. Cteftas's larger account had the luck to
522. Edit. be more received. Dioces (the First
King of the Medes after their revolt from
the Affyrians according to Herodotus,)
began his Reign Olymp. 17. 4. according
to Eufebius. The whole time of the Affy
rians was Five hundred and Twenty years
Ev.x. 9.P
11. 19.
Can. Æ.
Sypt. Sec.
Lip.
Euf.
Chron.
Herado.
L. I C
ac-
(5.)
Præf.Dion.
Ba.
cording to Herodotus. If therefore we
reckon backward from that Fourth year
of the Seventeenth Olympiad, the time of
Semiramis who fucceeded her Husband
Ninus, will fall out much about the time
where Porphyry places it. Nor was Por
phyry alone, though he had indeed few
Companions, in following Herodotus.
He fhews that Appian did ſo too, and the Appian,
moft Judicious Dionyfius Halicarnaffeus, Halicarn.
and fofephus. And, which is more par- L.1. Philo
ticularly obfervable to our prefent pur- ap. Steph.
pofe, Philo Byblius alfo agrees with him
in placing Semiramis later then ufually,
whom he makes Two thoufand years later
than the Building of Babylon. Befides
the Authenticalness of the Records, from
whence he derived his Information, is ex-
tremely conſiderable (if it fhould prove
really what it is pretended) the Sacred
Writings of Taautus, that is Mercury,
(of whom there is fo mnch mention in Euf. Pr
thofe yet earlier Times, of which he wrote Ev.1. 9.
his Hitory) the 'Απόκρυφα Αμμονίων γράμματα. 31. D.
Euf. Pr. Ev. 1. 9. 32. B. the Troμvíμaтa of
Hierombaal Prieſt of the God Jevo. ib. p. 31.
the μ of their Cities, and the
'Avaysapal of their Temples, b. But as fo
great Recommendations of Fidelity, of
Antiquity, and fufficient means of Infor
mation
Philo By-
blius ap.
( 6 )
mation, muſt needs make him very useful
for the Discovery of many and momen-
tous Truths, if juftly challenged; fo, on
the contrary, muft they make his Autho-
rity very mischievous for feducing thofe,
who truft it, into numerous and danger-
ous Errors, if they fhould after all be
found Falfe and Groundless. Let us ſee
therefore, whether thefe challenges be as
just as they are ſpecious and plauſible
§. III. AND here I confider First, that
all thefe Arguments of his Credibility de-
pend, as to Us, either on the pure Tefti-
mony of Porphyry, who was the firft who
produced him with any great applaufe
and confidence, and who is therefore juft-
ly fufpicious, if not of wholly coyning
him, yet at leaſt of a partial favour to
him, and of the firft endeavours to justifie
and defend him after the neglects that had
been caft upon him fince the time that he
had firft been Publiſhed and Tranflated by
Philo Byblius, or elſe of Philo Byblius him-
felf, Atheneus is the only Author extant
that quoted him, that we know of, from
the time of Philo Byblins to Porphyry, fup.
Atben.Dei-Pofing that the Zorial, whofe Phenician
paof. L.3. Antiquities are quoted by him, and joyned
with Mochas another very Antient Phe-
nician Writer often taken notice of, were
the
(7)
the fame with our Sanchoniathon, as he is
commonly conceived to be, and I believe,
not improbably, though he in Athenaus
was a Tyrian, ours.a Berytian, a difference
not very difficultly reconcileable, as has
been ſhewn. If it should prove otherwife,
then Porphyry alone muft answer for both,
not only the pretended Sanchoniathon
himſelf, but the pretended Greek Tranfla-
tion alſo of him by Philo Byblins. But
to allow him all the favour that is reaſon-
able, and to grant that this Philo Byblius
is to be fufpected of the Original fraud,
becauſe of this more Antient citation of
him by Athenaus, which could have been
from none but Philo Byblius; yet Porphyry
muſt needs be looked on as the retriever
of a neglected, and therefore fufpicious
Author, who muft have been by that time
very Famous, if he had been thought
genuine, which is very confiderable for
my preſent purpoſe.
S. IV. FOR I confider further, that as
the Principles both of the Pytha
goraans and Platonifts (who were
both of them admired by Porphyry
allowed the Lawfulneſs of Medici-
nal falfehoods,as they called them
which was no doubt the Original
firſt of thoſe Mythological Stories
For the Pythagos
ræans,fee Tim. Locr.
the Platonifts, Pla-
περί φύσ. κόσμ. Fer
to himſelf de Rẹp.
L. 3. v. S. Hier-
ym. adv. Ruff. L..
with
(8)
with which they first beautified their
Dialogues, then of all thofe Forgeries
which were afterwards introduced by the
Monks, who from their firſt Inſtitution
were of a Philofophical Extraction and
Genius づ ​I fay befides thefe Principles
which may let us fee that it was poffible
he might deal difingenuoufly with us;
the occafion of his firft producing him,
and his deſign, were fuch as may make him
further fufpicious of ufing the utmoſt li-
berty of his Principles actually. For
it was purpofely to confront the
Antiquity of the Scriptures, and in
that very work which was defign-
ed to overthrow the Credit of
S. 36. Christianity. The like 1 fhall (*) here-
after obſerve concerning Philo Bybli-
See the words of
Porphyry in Ef.Pr.
Ev. 1.9.X.9.Theo-
doret Therap. 11.
*
·US.
§. V.BUT that I may not therefore con-
clude him guilty of a difingenuous Fact,
only becauſe it was agreeable, not only to
Principles, but his Defign, and Intereft;
Let us confider the thing it felf, and ſee
whether it be likely that either Sanchoni-
athon, or his Tranflator Philo Byblius,
were ever had in any efteem till Porphyry
vouched for them. If they were, how
comes it to pafs that none but Athenæus
fhould take notice of an Author fo ex;
treamly
(9)
II. III.
(b)
treamly valuable, if he had been genuine!
How comes it to pafs, that thofe few Chri-
stians that mention him afterwards ſhould
quote him only at the Second hand from
Eufebius, or at the uttermoft from Por-
phyry? Why had they not rather recourſe
to Philo Byblius himſelf, if he had been
common? And what imaginable reaſon
is there why he fhould not have been
Common, eſpecially in thoſe Eaſtern parts
fo near Phenicia, if he had been valued,
or thought genuine? Yet () Theodoret (^) Therap.
it ſeems had never feen him, but only in from Euf.
Eufebius. () St. Cyril of Alexandria Pr.Ev.x.9.
was fo far from quoting what he had oc- Cont.
Fulian.l.vi.
cafion to produce out of him from the
Original of Philo Byblius, as that his me-
mory, on which he ſeems to have quoted
him from Eufebius, betrayed him into fe-
veral and great miſtakes. He firſt pre-
tends to have had what he fays concern-
ing him from Clemens Alexandrinus's Stro-
mats. A plain fign he had not feen Philo
Byblius himſelf. Yet who can doubt but
that he alſo mistook Clemens Alexandrinus
for Eufebins? It is certain there is no
mention of Sanchoniathon or his Tranflator
in the Stromates of Clemens as we have
them extant at preſent. Was it therefore
in what is loft? There are but two Imper-
B
fections
( 10 )
fections in the whole Work, the beginning
of the First Book, and the Eighth. What
was wanting in the beginning of the First
Book, we know by what remains to
have been nothing but Introduction,
where he had yet no occafion of medling
with the Antiquity of Phenician Writers.
Strom. VI. Not in the Eighth Book, where by what
P. 617.A. he promiſes in the Sixth, we know he de-
figned to anſwer the Heathens concern-
ing the Coming of our Lord, that is, I fup-
pofe, concerning his coming fo lately, and
in fo mean appearance (which were the
Popular Objections of that Age) or elſe
concerning his Second coming to Judge
Perfecutors and Unbelievers, which ordi-
narily concluded their Controverfial Wri-
tings. So the Sacred Writers of the New
Testament frequently. So St. Cyprian's
Second Book of Teftimonies, ad Quirin.
which ſeems to have been the last of that
Work. So Irenæus in the laſt Chapters
adv. Hær. So Lectantius Lib. VII. Div;
Inft. Phil. Commodianus is more particu-
larly large on this Argument. But nei-
ther of thefe could afford him any occafi-
Cod. cxi. on of mentioning this Author. For none
can doubt but what now, and in Photius's
time, poffeffed the place of the Eighth
Book had no affinity with the Argument
of
(II)
of this Work. And yet neither is there
any mention of Sanchoniathon or his Tran-
flator. But to put the matter out of
doubt that this was only a miſtake of
St. Cyril, as I faid; where Clemens had in-
deed occafion to difpute the Queſtion of Stromat. į.
Antiquity between the Heathen and the
Sacred Writers, there he has not the leaſt
intimation of either of them; and the
very words quoted by St. Cyril are exactly Pr. Ev.l.ge
in Eufebius, but not as out of the Text of
Sanchoniathon, but the Preface of Philo
Byblius. Which he could not fo eafily
have confounded if he had uſed the Book
it felf; but might very probably in bor-
rowing them from Eufebius, who compri-
fes all he or Porphyry had collected both
out of the Text and the Preface, in the
fame Chapters immediately following
each other. Beſides Porphyry reckons but
Eight Books of Sanchoniathon de Abft. 11.
n. 56. but Euſebius Nine, reckoning it ſeems
the very Preface of Philo for a di-
ftinct Book. Which being quoted
for Sanchoniathon's by Cyril, fhews
that he follows the very
Eufebius, and therefore took what
he had from him.
very divifion of
Bechart conceives
the Phyfiology or
Tenginy to have
been a diftin&
Book from the H
ftory. But fee what
is faid hereafter.
§. VI. BUT what is it he pretends to tell
us from Clemens Alexandrinus? That
B 2
Sancho
( 12 )
Sanchoniathon's Book was Tranflated by
Jofephus. But who ever mentions ſuch a
Tranflation amongſt the Works of Joſe-
phus? How is it credible that he ſhould fo
far favour the cauſe of the Phenicians who
fo profeffedly maintains the greater Anti-
quity of the Scriptures against them inhis
Books againſt Appion? And who can re-
concile this pretended Teftimony from
Clemens with Porphyry, who certainly, if
any, converfed with the Original Tran-
flation? If he be to be credited, here are
again two great mistakes of St. Cyril, First
his miſtaking Philo Byblius for the famous
Alexandrian Philo the Jew; then his con-
founding that Philo with Jofephus who
was of the fame Nation. Which again
plainly fhew, that he quoted him by
memory, and at the Second hand.
§. VII. BUT befides that this filence, or
Second hand Quotations, even after the
time he was divulged and applauded by
Porphyry, are ſtrong fufpicions that he
was either not known, or not regarded,
(either of which are equally ferviceable
to my purpoſe ;) yet further, what ſhould
be the reaſon that fo ufeful and Antient
an Author ſhould be fo little known even
before the time of Porphyry? Was it be-
cauſe he was locked up in the Phenician
Tongue
(13)
Φίλων.
Tongue? But why ſhould he not at leaſt,
have been better known after the Greek
Tranſlation of him by Phile Byblius? Yet
even then fo little was he known that,
were it not for the forementioned Teſti-
mony of Athenæus, we might juſtly doubt
whether fuch a Tranflation was ever un-
dertaken by that Philo. Suidas menti- oce
ons this Philo, and reckons up others of diawr.
his Works, and fixes his time. He places
him near the Reign of Nero, and makes
him Threescore and Eighteen Years old,
at the Confulſhip of Severus Herennius in
Olymp. 220. Which if it be true muſt
fall at leaſt about the Reign of Trajan,
though no fuch Confulfhip appear in our
preſent Fact, poffibly becauſe he might
have been either a Suffectus, or expung-
ed out of the publick Fasti for fome
Crime. Nay, he exprefly makes him to
have written concerning the Reign of
Hadrian. And therefore, in all likely-
hood the broken number of the odd Clym-
piads above Two Hundred and Twenty is Scaligerțin
wanting in Suidas. But what ground.
Scaliger had to fix the Year of the 229 cuvaj@y!,
Olymp. I do not underſtand. Yet no
fuch Tranſlation appears in that Catalogue
of his Works, unleſs it were contained un-
der the "ama.
В3
§. VIII.
(14)
VIII. AND why fhould he never have
been mentioned by thofe antient Apolo-
gists for the Christian Religion who wrote
before Porphyry? They had a juft occafion
for it in that great Difpute concerning the
Antiquity of the Scriptures above all Hea-
then Authors. On this occafion they
drew up Catalogues of the Antienteſt
Heathen Authors they knew of, yet San.
choniathon, the moſt appofite Inftance of
them all, never being fo much as thought
of. Not by Justin Martyr in the time of
Antoninus Pius, though he was a Samari.
tan, and had thereby the opportunity to
have known the famous Writers of his
Neighbouring Phenicians, nay to have
underſtood them though they had not
been Tranſlated to his hand. Yet he knew
ť sú5-
of nothing Antient either amongst the
здания
gṣaμμa Greeks or the Barbarians. Which how
παλαιὸν, could he have faid if he had known any
Bag thing of this moſt Antient Sanchoniathon?
B4-5-
βάρων ση Not by Theophilus Antiochenus in the time
μαινον of Verus, with whom he ends his Chrono-
πράξ
gativ.logy, though he were nearer the Phæni-
Fu.Mart. cians than the Gracians, nay and had
P. 13. ſpecial occafion in mentioning the Phe-
Ad Auto- nician Antiquities. Not by Tatianus the
lyc.L.111. Scholar of St. Justin, and fo not long, if
Our
Ἑλλήνων
Paræn.
at all, after him, when he wrote his Ora-
tion
( 15 )
Fufeb.Eccl. Bift. IV*
that Crefcens had
endeavoured the
death of St. fuftin
(@gayμaTevens is
his Word) but he
has not the leaft
intimation that it
was in his power
to accomplish it.
What he fays was
only taken from
usins own words
Or.adv. Gras p.171.
in his Apology.
& ap. Eufeb. Pr. Ev.
X. 2. p. 493.
tion againſt the Greeks (it does not ap
pear that St. Justin was then dead, though
I know how Tatianus is miſtaken
by Eufebius, who has alfo generally 16. He only fays
deceived the Learned who have
followed him) though he was an
Affyrian, and takes particular no
tice of the Antienteft Græcian and
Phenician Authors, and names all
the moſt Antient Phenicians that
he knew of, which were but Three,
Theodotus, Mochus and Hypficra-
tes. Not by Clemens as has already
who deduces his
been obferved, who deduces his
computation to the death of Com-
modus, though he alſo had occafi-
on, in difputing that fame Con-
troverfie concerning the Age of the moſt
Antient Heathen Writers. I think St.
Cyril's miſtake concerning him, has been
fufficiently difcovered and convicted.
Not by Tertullian in the times of Seve- Apolog.
rus and Caracalla, though he had alfo 19.
the like occafion given him in his Apology.
Not by Origen, though he refers to fofe-
phus againſt Appion, and Tatianus for a c.Celf.lib.
Collection of fuch Phenician Authors as 1.P.13,14.
had mentioned any thing concerning
Jewish Affairs; nay mentions Herennius
Philo who had written concerning the
В 4
Strom. I.
Fews,
C.
(16)
Jews, if this be the Philo to whom the
Tranflation of Sanchoniathon is afcribed
by Porphyry, as in all likelyhood he is the
Philo mentioned by Suidas, who had ſaid
of himſelf that his Sir-name was Herennius.
And the Title of Herennius Philo is given
him in the Infcription of a M. S. Work
of his on Ariftotles Metaphyficks, now in
the Library of the most accomplished and
truly Great Dr. Ifaac Voffius. And my
very Dear and very Learned Friend
Dr. Lloyd conceives that he might have
borrowed that Sir-name of. Herennius
from his Patron Herennius Severus the
Conful, which was uſually for Liberti to
* do in thoſe times; and
that the Conful was the
fame with him mentioned
in Pliny, Ep. Lib. iv. 28.
who there appears to have
*When they were made Liberti
they were not only made Ro-
mans, but taken into the Fa-
milies of their Patrons, as ap-
pears from the Infcriptions of
their Family Sepulchres, which
were generally conceived in
that Form, FILIIS ET FI
LIABUS, LIBERTIS
ET LIBERTABUS PO-
STERISQUE LORUM.
And then how proper was it
for them to receive the Gentile
name of their Patrons Family?
been a Lover of Learn-
ing, and himſelf a very
Learned Perfon. The
Times do very well agree;
and it is not otherwiſe
eafie to conceive how
Philo a Phenician ſhould
come by a Roman Name. And that he
was very intimate with that Cònſul ap-
pears both by his dating his own Age by
his
( 17 )
his Patrons Confulship and by his bringing
Hermippus his Country-man and Scholar
acquainted with him. Yet even on this SeeSuid.in
occafion, Origen makes no mention of his "Ep0
Sanchoniathon among thoſe
thofe Phoenician
Writers which he immediately refers to
as mentioning Jewish Affairs. How could
he have flipt fuch' an opportunity as this
was, of mentioning him, if he had known
him? Not even by Celfus himſelf, whom
Origen places under Hadrian, though he
muſt certainly have lived låter if he be
the fame to whom Lucian dedicated his
Pfeudomantis after the death of Marcus
Antoninus whom he calls sòs, nay muft
have written this very Work againſt the
Christians later than Hadrian, for () (ap.Orig.
Marcellina and (²) Marcion, both of them ..v.p.272
(2)ap.Orig,
mentioned by him, as they firſt broached L. vi. p.
their Herefies under Anicetus, ſo moſt pro- 326. & ubi
bably after the death of Hadrian. Philo fuprà.
was as his work mentioned by Origen
fhews him, fufficiently difaffected to the
Jews, fo that if he did Tranflate any fuch
work of Sanchoniathon, he would moſt
probably have deſigned it as Porphyry, to
confront the Antiquity of the Jews. And
how greedily would Celfus have feconded.
him if he had known of any fuch work
Publiſhed by him? Thus it appears that
this
L.v
( 18 )
naan L.11.
Appion.
L. I.
*
this Sanchoniathon was either generally
not known, or (which amounts to the
fame thing) generally neglected by all
forts of Authors, both Chriftians and Hea-
thens too, from the time of Philo Byblius
to Porphyry.
§. IX. BUT to afcend yet higher, what
fhould hinder him from being known
even before Philo Byblius, if he had been
what he is pretended? It is true, he could
neither have been known nor deſervedly
valued by the Greeks till he was Tranſla-
ted. But what imaginable caufe is there
why he was not Tranflated more Antient-
ly? The Phenician Records, and Hiftories
had been ſearched and tranflated and
Vid. Bo. divulged by Hieronymus Tyrius, Menan-
chart.Che- der Ephefius and Dius, Heftians and Phis
c. 17. Fo- loftratus and others; nay the very Origi-
Jepb. Ant. nal Records themſelves are quoted by Jo-
viii. 2. C. fephus, and the Original Copies of the
Epiftles between Solomon and Hiram are
ftill mentioned as extant in their Archives
Theoph. by the fame Jofephus and Theophilus Anti-
ochenus. How comes it to paſs they ſhould
Autolyc. all of them overlook this moſt confidera-
ble, moſt creditable Author? Why ſhould
they omit this moſt Antient account of
their moſt Antient Times, when the great
deſign of all theſe Enquiries feetns to have
Ant. L.
11. ad
been
( 19 )
been a General Difpute concerning the
moſt Antient Nations? Why did they not
Tranflate him then? Why did they not,
at leaft, take out of him, and vouch him
for their Authority? Had they done ſo,
why should not Jofephus have had re-
courſe to him, if not in his Phenician
Original, yet at least as to thoſe particu-
lars they had borrowed from him? Why
does he never mention him either in his
Antiquities, or his Books against Appion,
efpecially in thofe things which he relates
concerning Abraham, which he was parti- Ant. 1. 8.
cularly careful to confirm by the beft Te
ftimonies he knew of.
§. X. Sanchoniathon had been uſeful
even to thoſe who had enquired only for
their Hiftories. But confider we him fur-
ther as a Philoſopher;for fuch the Writers of
the criar and efpecially of the Kosμoyerías
whereof much of Sanchoniathon's Work
confifted, were then reputed, that being
the ufual Mystical way whereby they
concealed the fecrets of their Natural
Philofophy. So alfo Suidas ayarid Dav.
Σαγχωνιάπων.
Τύριο Φιλόσοφο. Indeed the θεολογία feems
to have been the fame with the Κοσμογενίε.
For what Eufebius had called the roya
of the Phenicians Pr. Ev. I. 9. that he calls
their Koquela c. 10. To which he adds the
Zaoyoriz
( 20 )
Zovia alfo for compleating it. For both
theſe were pretended to be taken from the
Kooμoyería of Taautus. Yet even fo, there
were ſeveral fair occafions of diſcovering,
and Tranflating him, Antienter than Philo.
For their Antienteft Philofophers had been
alfo enquired into long before Philo.
What was Pythagoras's defign in Travelling
amongſt them? Was it only to fee their
Countries and their Faſhions? Was it not
rather to acquaint himſelf with their Phi-
Famblich. lofophical Improvements? And would he,
de vita Py- who is fo much celebrated for his Conver-
thag.
fation with the Phenician Prophets, the
Poſterity of Mochus, not rather have em-
ployed his time in inquiring after this
equally, if not more, Antient both Hifta-
rian and Philofopher Sanchoniathon ? After
the Macedonian Conquefts had opened an
accefs for the Greek Philofophers to the
Phænician Archives; they then Tranſlated
as many as were valued by them. Theo-
dotus and Hypficrates and Mochus
were Tranflated by Afitus or Cha-
tus as Tatianus tells us; and the
fame concerning Mochus and many
others
others appear from Strabo. How
comes Sanchoniathon, if there had
then been any fuch Author extant,
to have eſcaped their diligence?
Orat. adv. Grac.
i a fragment of
the Oration, as
quoted by Eeb.Pr.
Chetus. But Alitus
Ev. X. 11. But Bc-
chart corrects it Le-
us, and rightly
Geogr. Lib. xvi.
<. XI. He
(21)
§. XI. HE pretends to have had his
Information from the Writings of Taan-
tus, from the Mystical Books of the Am-
monians, and the Toμvμ or Memoires
of Jerombaal the Prieft of the God Jevo,
the roμμar of the particular Cities and
the 'Avayçapai of their Temples. Things
very confiderable indeed, if they had been
truly pretended to. But let us fee whe-
ther there be any reafon to believe them
on his credit. It was indeed a very An-
tient way of preſerving knowledge to in-
ſcribe what they would preferve in Pillars
to be kept in the Temples cf their moſt
Eminent Gods, the better to be fecured
from Weather and the Violence of Pro-
phane hands. Thus they did with their
Laws, with their Leagues and Covenants,
with their Hiftories, and their Arts and
Sciences. Inftances might have been gi-
ven of all theſe forts, if I had thought it
neceffary. Particularly, for Hiftories there
was that of Euemerus from the Infcriptions
in the Temple of Jupiter Triphylius ;
for Arts, thofe from whence Calli-
sthenes gave Aristotle an account
of the Eclipfes obferved by the
Chaldeans, thoſe of the fame Baby.
lonians referred to by Epigenes, Be-
rofus and Critodemus, and the Fa-
vid. Plutarch de
Ifid. & Oürid. La-
&ant. Div. Inft.
L. II.
Ap. Simpl.in Arift.
de Calo. L. 11.
Plin. Nat. Hift.
vii. 56.
Com. 16.
mous
( 22 )
ous Pillars of Seth mentioned by Jofe-
phus. Out of fuch Pillars as thefe no
doubt the Publiſher of Sanchoniathon
would have us believe his Hiſtory to have
been gathered. Nor was it unufual for
Plutarch. Deceivers to impofe on the World on the
de Ifid. & credit of fuch Pillars. Enemerus now
Ofirid. P.
360.
mentioned was looked on by Antiquity
as a Famous inftance of it. For it was
certainly the eafieft way for broaching
Falfe-hoods. Theſe were Monuments
which could be produced on the fudden
concerning the moſt remote Antiquities
without the atteſtation of Antient Wri-
tings, becauſe themſelves were fuppofed
to be Originals of the times they pretend-
ed to give account of; were fuppofed
remote from Vulgar Knowledge or under-
Standing, being either kept in the Adyta,
or locked up in fome abfolute unknown
Character, which none but the Learned
and the Priests could underſtand; were
contrived in Flieroglyphicks or fuch ambi-
guous notes as were capable of what In-
terpretation thoſe deſigning Perſons who
produced them were pleafed to put upon
them; depended generally on Oral Tra-
dition, than which there is not a more
unfaithful Conveyer of Monuments to Po-
sterity; depended wholly on the credit of
the
( 23 )
the Priests, being withal generally inte-
reſſed in the things thus preferved, making
for the credit of their falfe Religion, or
the credit of their Nation, for Antiquity,
or rare Inventions; were to be found and
examined only in one place (not like Books
every where) nor even there it felf with-
out the Leave and Directions of fuch in-
tereffed Priests. Upon this account their
very humoured Stories with which it was
faſhionable in thoſe times to adorn their
Dialogues, were grounded on the credit
of fuch pretended Infcriptions. So Cebes's
Table, and the Samothracian Infcriptions
referred to by Axiochus, and thoſe con-
cerning the Atlantides in Timens.
P. 303.
§. XII. AND thus it was generally in
the difingenuous dealings of thoſe Nati
ons, which upon the appearing of the
Jewish Scriptures in the common Tongue,
began to rival them, and one another for
Antiquity. Thus the Babylonians in De- Clem Alex.
mocritus preferved their Moral Difcourfes Strom. 1.
in the Pillars of Acicarus. Thus Xifu-
thrus in Berofus is faid to have preferved
the Chaldean Inventions Ingraven in
Plates from the Deluge. Thus Manetho
pretended to have gathered his new Dy p.6.
nafties from the like Pillars of Mercury.
So Cham is pretended to have preferved Coll. Viil.
Eufeb. Gr.
Caffian.
his 21.
(24)
lexandrin.
Plutarch.
Ofirid.
his inventions in Judicial Aftrology by the
like invention of Ingraving them in
Plates, which Plates they ufually faſtned
to Pillars; from whence I am apt to think
Clem, A- that the Gnofticks might take occafion to
Strom. VI. forge that Prophecy which was among
p. 642. A. them obtruded in thofe times under his
Name. And as Egyptian Notions were
the Principal ingredient in moſt of thoſe
Antient Herefies that were comprehended
under the common Name of Gnoſticks ;
fo I am apt to think that Chemi the Anti-
de Ifid. & ent Name of Egypt gave them occafion to
father what they pleafed on a Scripture-
Patriarch of a Name that had fome affi-
nity to it, befides that the Scripture it felf
calls Ægypt fo often the Land of Ham, ſo
that the Infcriptions of Cham and Mercury
were probably the very fame. The like I
Apell. c. 3. alſo conceive concerning the Pillars of
Plutarch. Seth aforementioned from Jofephus. Nor
de Ifid. & is the miſtake fo difficult as may be ima-
dius, in gined. It is very well known that the
Pla.Tima. Dog-ftar was by the Egyptians called
(1) Sothis; That the revolution of their
Porphyr. great year was accordingly from it called
de antr. Sothiaca (2) Periodus, becaufe the Dog-
(2) Clem. Star then returned exactly to the very
Alexand. fame place where he had been before;
That their great year was therefore called
(1) Horus
Of.Chalci-
um malè
σολεχή
Nymphar.
Strom. I.
P. 335. C.
xwvix di
( 25 )
Kv nos or Canicularis, as Cenforinus tells
us, becauſe it began exactly on the firſt De die
day of that Month on which the Dog-ftar hat. c. 18.
rofe, which was the gyptian Thoth.
Who fees not that the whole contrivance
of that Year was exactly fitted to the
courſe of that Star? And that therefore
Thoth was reckoned for the firſt Month
in the Year becaufe the Dogftar rofe in
it? If therefore its Name were given it
with any defign, it feems to have been
therefore called Thoth becauſe their Sothis
rofe in it, and therefore that thoſe two
Names are indeed defigned for the fame.
Nor is the change of S and Th either dif-
ficult or unuſual in thofe Tongues, as
might have been fhewn by multitudes of
Examples if I had leifure.
L. I.C.II
6. XIII. BUT whether the Name of
Thoth and Sothis were Originally the
fame or not; yet it feems clear that the
Notions of Mercury were inſcribed to
Sothis. So Minetho's Sacred History (in Lactant.
the fame Senfe no doubt, that Ennius's Div. Inft.
Tranſlation of Exemerus's Hiſtory, pre-
tended alſo from Sacred Pillars was alfo
called Sacred) is called the Big☺ Σwdews in
Eufeb. ib. And, which yet comes more
fully home to what I am now. proving,
the very Name is ufed in this matter
from
€
(26)
P. 6.
(1) So Con-
churis is
reckoned
γομένο Κύ
As
Tw Mare.
Dw. Syncell.
(1)
from Petofiris an Egyptian Writer, by
In loc Euf. Vettius Valens, Antiochenus in Scaliger and
Chr.Græc. others, and that in the Mafculine Gender.
But this whole matter will be yet plainer
if we remember that the defign of Manetho
was to fit his Chronology to that Sothiac
Period. We fee it accordingly prevailed
in the xvi. in moft of the later Ægyptian Chronologies,
Dynafty which pretended to any more than ordi-
Κυνικό λε nary Exactness. So the Destruction of
Troy is noted in Clem. (2) Alexandrinus,
molt probably from an Egyptian Author.
So were the years of Nabonaffar in Ptolomies
P. 103. C. Canon, and the Babylonian Eclipfes fitted
(2) Tom.I. to the fame Canicular year by (3) Hippar-
chus. Now this Sothiac Period was pur-
pofely invented to give a full and exact
account of the Suns courfe, till he was to
rife exactly in the fame place of the Zo-
diac where he had rifen before. For pro-
ceeding on this Hypothesis that the true
Solar Year confifted of 365 days and this
Fourth was not intercalated every Fourth
Year, as in the Julian account, but per-
mitted to run on (purpoſely that their
Feftivities might pafs through the whole
Year) till thofe Fourth parts of a Day
made up a whole Year, which they did in
1461. Egyptian, equivalent to 1460.
Fulian Years. That this was purpoſely
(3) Ptol.
L.iv.c.ult.
P. 104.
I
defigned
(27)
>
ded. natio
18.
Τύ
Areghozias Madn-
απ' Αστρολογίας Μαθη
ματικῶν ἔνια μιγνύντες Τι-
0:00 HAZ-
~
defigned to fignifie the Courfe of the
Sun, appears from their calling the whole
Period by the Name of (*) Annus Hands, (*) Cenfor
and & OE EVIQUòs, as the Name of es fim-
ply taken, fignifies the Sun in Antient
Authors. But the Sun, whoſe Courſe
this was, was called Typhon, as Typhon was
alfo called Seth, as Plutarch (* Oils Tols çuornois
Οἱ τοῖς δὲ τοῖς φυσικοῖς
(*) affures us. Accordingly
as molt of the Egyptian
Names of Perfons and Pla-cara
ces were taken from their
Gods, fo we have ftill foot-
fteps of this Gods name in
the Names of Sethron, Se-
thos, Sethofis, &c. And then
it cannot be thought
ftrange, that as his whole
Book is denominated from
his Chronological Period, fo
that Period it felf fhould
be afcribed to the Egyptian
Seth, and confquently the
Pillars alfo from which theſe
were taken. It may be another account
may be given of this matter, that by the:
Pillars of Seth may be meant only their
belonging to Egypt. So it appears that
the fame King who was called Egyptus by
the Greeks, was by the Egyptians them-
C 2
felves
nov xoomov. Plutarch. de Ifd.
& ofirid. p.367.C.And a little
after: And Tugeva dei
Αιγύπτιοι καλέσιν, ὅπερ ὅτι
καταδυναςεύον ἢ καταβια
Sueror. Where we have the
fignification of Seth in the
Egyptian Tongue, and the rea-
fon why the Sun and Typhon
were called fo. Again,Tò Σn&
αὐτὸν Τυφώνα καλέσι φράζει
μὲν τὸ καταδυνασεῖον καὶ και
Taßia Cóμevov. p. 371.B.Again
. Η Τυρών (ώσπερ είρη)
3 Tupan een))
p. 376. A.
accounts
.
( 28 )
!
felves called Sethos, and as it ſeems from
thence concluded by Manetho to have
been the fame with him whom the Greeks
called Ægyptus the Brother of Danaus,
(who neither was himſelf known to the
Ægyptians, by the name of Danaus but Ar-
mais) becauſe Sethos in the Egyptian
Tongue, fignified the fame thing as
Ægyptus in the Greek. Now the Name
of Egypt was derived from the Name of
Ægyptus, by which he was known to
the Greeks, and therefore proportiona-
bly the Name of Sethos muft have de-
rived the like denomination of Sethos to
Theoph.An- his Country. So Theophilus Antiochenus
tioch. L. from Manetho: "Ayu ÿ ÿ zweg inλúen änò
III. ad το βασιλέως Σπος τὸ γὰρ ΣΕ ΘΩΣ φασὶν "ΑΙΓΥΠ-
TO. Which, being once admitted,
will open a further way of expounding
Ant. 1.3. Jofephus's y Zueidd, which muſt be recon-
ciled with the place where the Mercurial
Pillars were placed by Manetho, and is
by him called Encadian And to derive
this yet higher, the ufual occafion thefe
emulous Nations took for challenging
the glorious Actions or Perfons of each
others to themſelves, was when them-
felves alſo had Actions or Perfons of the
fame Name. Now Heliopolis in Egypt was
Famous for thofe Mercurial Writings.
Autolyc.
And
(29)
Chanaan
And therefore they who were ambitious
of challenging them to themſelves, were
to take occafion of doing fo from a Helio-
polis of their own. Accordingly the
Chaldeans, for their Xifutkrus pitched
on Heliopolis in Sippara, and the Phenis Bochart.
cians had their Heliopolis at Mount Liba- L. 11.c.2.
nu, a Sacred place, and particularly
Famous for their Baitulia. And when
they had, on this pretence, claimed Mer-
cury as their own, the change was very
obvious, from Σned to Evezd, for
them who were willing from thence to
conclude, that theſe Mercurial Pillars
were to be expected only in Syria, where
their Heliopolis was placed. The very
Analogy of Grammar is fufficient to fhew
that it was a willful and defigned variation.
Even had indeed been Greek, but
2 Even though in the Dative Cafe,
ſeems to have been a change from Eveiding,
as that alſo from End, on the defign
now mentioned. And there is ftill a foot-
ſtep of Enedin as the Antienteft Reading
in fofephus, that Euftathius reads it Enïgedd,
Hexaem. And this very Origination of
this Word is a strong Prefumption that
Συριαδική rather than Συγγική (as fome
Learned Perfons would have it from
Ammian) is indeed an Antient Reading
C 3
in
(30)
Marcellin.
Ammian in Jofephus. That I may not now menti-
1.22.Val. On the Antient Tranflation of Joſephus by
in loc. Sir Caffiodore, and as many of the Antients
Fobe Mar- as followed either that or the Greek near
fhim.Chro.
Can.Sec. 1. thofe times, who generally take it for Syria
P. 39. Ed. on the account now mentioned. I confefs
Lipf.
I cannot eaſily diſtruſt Ammian in what
he fays concerning thofe Syringes, where
thofe Sacred Hieroglyphical Infcriptions
were, which were defigned to be pre-
ferved from a deluge, becauſe he pretends
to write vifa pleraque, what he had feen
b. p.413. with his own Eyes. I confefs I am apt to
think that thefe Syringes, were the places
defigned for the fo much celebrated
Pillars of Mercury, though thefe Infcripti-
ons were in Vaults under ground (thofe
were properly Syringes) and in Walls
rather than Pillars (though I know how
largely the Notion of shat may be under-
ftood) becauſe I cannot think they had
them in two places, for that fame reaſon of
preferving them from the Deluge. Yet the
Country where they were, might have
been called Seriadica, and that it was fa,
we have, before Jofephus, the more Anti-
ent Teſtimony of Manetho. Befides it is
confiderable, that the Doctrine of the
two Deſtructions of the World, one by
Fire, another by Water, which is pre-
tended
( 31 )
ea habuit
ti.
tended as the occafion of erecting thefe
two Pillars, is originally Ægyptian. And Vid. Platon
they, no doubt on pretence of fuch in Tim.qui
Pillars, boafted themſelves alone to have ab Egyp
preferved their Hiftories, through the
feveral Deluges and Conflagrations. And
from this confounding the Babylonian and
Ægyptian accounts, which followed upon
their ſeveral reſpective Emulations, I fup-
poſe it was, that thefe Inventers of the
Fable of Seth, were fo particular ia telling
us the very materials of thofe Pillars. The
Ægyptian Syringes were, as it appears
from Ammian cut out of a Quarrɛy, and
therefore were of folid ftone. But the Ammiın,
Babylonian mentioned by Epigenes were L. xxiii.
Coctilibus Laterculis, for which that place
was Famous. Theſe two ſo well fitting Ap. Plin.
the defign of preſerving them from the N. H. vii.
Conflagration and the Deluge, made them,
who were willing to confound things for
Interefts of their own, to be as I ſaid ſo
very particular, not confidering that by
the account given in Plato's Timans, the
Ægyptians had another pretence of pre-
ferving their own Infcriptions from the
Conflagration as well as from the Deluge.
§. XIV. SO alſo, for the Writings from
whence our Sanchoniathon is pretended to
have collected his Hiftory, there ſeems
C 4
little
56.
(32)
Byblins
fays fo ex-
32. A.
little doubt but they were alfo defigned
for the fame with thofe of Mercury; as
alfo that the Subject of thefe Writings,
were taken from thofe Plates and Pillars
now mentioned. Philo Byblins himself
exprefly fays, that Sanchoniathon en-
quired very carefully into the Notions of
Taautus; That Taantus, to whom they
(*) Philo were afcribed, was no other than (*) Mer.
cury, will, I believe, need no proof. And
prefly in thefe Mystical Books of the Ammonians
Eufeb. Pr. being joyned with them, makes it yet
Ev. 1.9. P. more probable. For even among our
prefent Counterfeits under the Name of
Mercury, we have an Epifile of Afclepius
to Ammon, concerning the Concealment
of their Philofophical Mysteries, with fc-
veral other Fragments of the like addrefs
in Stobaus Eclog. Phyf. by which we fee
that thoſe unfaithful dealers with Hermes,
did both joyn this Ammon with him
whom they make a King in Libya (very
probably with fome relation to the Fa-
mous Libyan Oracle of Jupiter Ammon)
and withal, made the fame Ammon a
very zealous Patron of thofe Philofophical
Mysteries. So that this holds exact cor-
refpondence with thofe other Cheats, and
looks as if it belonged to the fame Forge.
Unleſs poſſibly we may refer it to that
more
( 33 )
P. 213.
more Antient Conjunction of Thoth and
Thomuz, and the God of the Ægyptian
Thebes, called Ammon in Plato himfelf, In Phædr.
whence it comes to pass that the Ægypti
an Thebes has, in the Prophets, the Name
of No-Ammon, as it was uſual, and, as Di-
odorus obferves moft proper to the Ægyp-
tians, to denominate their Cities from
their Deities. It may be this may be the
reaſon why the Name of Ammon is ſo uſu-
ally made ufe of in the accounts of the
Egyptian Philofophy, becauſe the Name
it felf feems an off fpring of Ham, afcri-
bed in the Scripture to the Land of Ægypt
it felf, fo that the Ammonian Philofophy.
is no more than a Colony of the Ægyptian.
And theſe 'Amonguça reduala, thefe Myfti-
cal Writings were moft properly afcribed
to this God, whofe very Name, as Ma
netho expounds it, fignified in the Egyp- Ap. Flu
tian Tongue, zò nengvµµérov x) 7 ngúfer. How tarch. de
much more proper an Etymology is this, Ofirid.
than that which Bochart gives elſewhere
from the Hebrew, where his Intereft for De Phan,
Sanchoniathon, obliges him to make theſe Col 11.
Ammonian Writings Phænician?
6. XV. But to examine now the Cre-
dibility of his pretence to theſe Means; it
is firſt confiderable that, feeing theſe Re-
Ford's were Egyptians, it is not eafie to ex-
plain
If. &
17.
( 34 )
plain how Sanchoniathon himſelf, a Man
of another Nation, could have access to
them. The difficulty Pythagoras found
notwithstanding the powerful recommen-
dation of Polycrates to Amafis who was
his Hofpes, fhews how averfe they were
to communicate their Myfteries to Fo-
reigners. But it was not at all to be ex-
pected by Perfons uncircumcifed, as the
Phenicians were undoubtedly in the pre-
Porphyr.de tended Age of Sanchoniathon. But fup-
vit.Pythag. pofing he had Conquered the difficulties
Not, Hol- of accefs, and fubmitted, as Pythagoras
ften. feems to have done, to Circumcifion; yet
p.183.vid.
the Myftical Books of the Ammonians,
and much more the Myftical Hierogly-
phicks of the Egyptians (of which kind
the Sacred Inferiptions of their Pillars ge-
nerally were) depended ftill on a higher
degree of good will and fidelity of the
Priests for their Explication. And who
can undertake that they would, after all,
deal Faithfully with him? Eſpecially if
they had fufpected the leaft defign in him
of committing them to Writing, and di-
vulging them to Pofterity? And after all,
what judicious Perfon would not rather
enquire for this Information Originally
from the Egyptians themſelves? Who
would not rather have trufted their prefent
fenfe
(35)
fenſe in which they were agreed, even in
later times, than fuch Second-hand Relati-
ons concerning the fenſe of their Ancestors?
And then, what will become of this fo
much applauded Teftimony of Sanchonia-
thon, if Phænician matters muſt not be
expected from him, as they could not
from fuch means of Information; and if
the Teftimony even of the later Ægypti-
ans must be preferred before him? I am
very well aware that the whole credit of
this Author depends on the contrary fup-
pofition, that both theſe Pillars of Taan-
tus, and Apocryphal Books of the Ammoni-
ans, were in Phenicia, and concerned
Phænician Affairs, and in the Phenician
Tongue or Characters, that a Native Phe-
nician might be frefumed fitteſt to under-
ſtand them.
§. XVI. THIS will indeed, and will
alone, make him fo credible as he is
thought to be. And it is plainly fuppo-
fed in the Author himſelf, who makes
Hermes a Native Phænician, and to be ApudEufe.
made King of Egypt by one that was. Pr. Ev. 1.
10. p. 36.
And this feems the most likely account A. 39. B.
how the Pillars of Seth (which I faid
ſeem to be the fame with thoſe of Mer-
cury) came to be placed by Jofephus in
Syria, that he had met them placed there
by
(36)
by fome who were thus in Intereft, con-
cerned to place them ſo, to juſtifie their
other Factions. Befides rй Ened in
Manetho was cafily corrupted into Evezn
in Jofephus, by them who were wil-
ling to have it fo, as has already
been obferved. And the Egyptian Name
of Seth, fo exactly agreeing with the He-
brew Name, was a likely occafion of miſtake,
and an Argument too, for them who had
rather have him believed to be a Hebrew
than an Ægyptian. But then againſt this
I oppofe all the contrary, both Teftimonies
and Arguments that might be produced
to prove that Hermes was a Native Ægyp-
tian, and that Ægypt was never ſo ſubdu-
ed by the Phenicians as to receive, nor
Phenicia in fuch a ftrong and flourishing
condition, as to give them a King of their
own Nation. That is as many Teſtino-
nies, as there are or have been Ægyptian
Writers, not only after, but before the
publiſhing of this prétended Sanchonia-
thon; as many of them, at leaft, as men-
tion fuch a Perſon as Hermes, as many of
them as wrote before theſe Diſputes of
Antiquity of Nations were ſtarted, as well
as they who wrote afterwards, to abet
parties now made, and to drive on de-
ſigns by this time already formed to their
hand.
( 37 )
Deor. L.
Gent.L.iv.
hand. The higheſt account of all the De Nat.
Mercuries in Cicero's time, that was given III.
by them who had then the curiofity to
enquire into the Gods of the fame Name,
amounted not to above five, and among
them no mention of any one that was a
Phænician, a fign none fuch was ſo much
as challenged by them, till this pretended
Sancheniathon. The fame account is fol-
lowed by others afterwards, by Ampelius
and Arnobius, a fign that even then this Arnob.adv.
fictitious Phænician was not of that credit,
as to be thought worthy to encreaſe the
received Number. And theſe were ſuffi-
cient to be oppofed to the true Sanchonia-
thon himſelf. The Original Writings of
Taautus, and the Mystical Books of the
Ammonians muſt have been theirs, and
could have been Interpreted by none but
them, if we will allow any thing to the
concurrent Teſtimonies of diſintereſſed An-
tiquity. But how much more than fuffi-
cient are they to over-fway the Vouchers
for him, and for all thoſe things alſo which
recommend him as fo very creditable?
How much Antienter? How much freer
from defign? That I may not now def
cend to Perfonal Compariſons.
§. XVII. BUT (poffibly to avoid the
difficulty to be fuppofed in underſtanding
Writings
( 38 )
Sanchon.
Writings of this Nature;) it is fuppofed
that Taantus either found or made all things
clear; that he Originally wrote them fo
whatever he wrote upon his own know-
ledge; that he made them fo, where he
did not, as in his diſcovery of thefe Myfti-
cal Books of the Ammonians, from fome
apud Euf.
Pr.Ev.l. 9. Monuments of their own, concealed in
P. 32. B. their Adyta, and of difficult accefs, but
yet procured and divulged by him; that
he unriddled the Tales and Allegories,
wherein they had been Originally con-
cealed. But that the later Priests again
retrived their Mythologies and Arts of
concealment. That as for the Mercurial
Ap. Eul. Books themſelves the Son of Thabion was
ib.p.39.C. the first who turned them into Allegory,
from whom they came to the Greeks.
Ib.p.40.B. That many Generations afterwards Sur-
mubelus, the God (I ſuppoſe ſo Sir-named
like Antiochus, and Diodorus Cronus
the Philofopher, from Saturn, and Pior
the Egyptian from Apollo, that I may in-
ftance alfo in private Perfons who were
Sir-named from Gods, not only denomi-
natively,) and Thuro a Woman Sir-named
Chufarthis, explained thofe Allegories.
That by this means they might come clear
to Sanchoniathon from Writings, without
Perfonal Difcoveries of the Priests, which
was
( 39 )
was not to be expected. This feems con-
trived, as if it were on purpoſe to defend
the Credit of theſe Informations.
§. XVIII. BUT how many things are
here ſuppoſed no way confiftent with the
Notions of thoſe times? We fee it is ac-
knowledged that the Arts of concealment
of Myfteries, had been taken up and uſed
before, becauſe Taantus is faid to have un-
riddled thoſe of the Ammonians. And
who know not how great a Piaculum it
was thought to divulge Myfteries? How
particularly Superftitious the Antients
were that way, as appears from the Fa-
bles of Phineus and Prometheus ? And
(concrning the Egyptians) from their
Worſhip of Harpocrates? How it was Ca-
pital for the Perfon who endeavoured it,
and how they would no doubt have fup-
preſſed ſuch Publications of their Myſteries
if it lay in their power to do fo? How
then could Sanchoniathon come by them
who lived fo many Ages after? Was
it becauſe they could not fupprefs all Copies
of what had once eſcaped them at first,
eſpecially not fuch as were in the Hands of
the Phenicians, who were not obnoxious
to their Jurifdiction? But would they, at
leaſt, have paid that Honour to the Me-
mory of a Perfon guilty of a Crime then
reputed
(40)
Strom. vi..
Lib. 111.
reputed fo very impious as to make him a
God? Would they not rather have crect-
ed Pillars to his difgrace (from whence
came afterwards the popular notion of
SMAITSVEN) than borrowed all their Sacred
Rites and Inventions from his Books or
Pillars? Would they have afcribed all
their Solemnities of Religion (as it appears
they did from Clemens Alexandrinus) to
ſuch a Prophaner of their Secrets, to fo
impious a violator of their received Re-
ligion?
§. XIX. AND who indeed was more
unlikely to have fuch an accufation laid to
his charge, than he that was reputed the
Firſt Inſtitutor of their Religion, the firſt
Impoſer of that Sacred filence which they
took for fo neceflary a Duty of all that
Surarum would pretend to be Religious? Why
literarum fhould they afcribe their Hieroglyphicks
peritos fa- and their Sacred Characters to him, if they
cit. Jul.
Firmic. had not thought that he had invented
Mathef. them purpofely for this concealment? But
c. 8. confider him even as the Inventor only of
Eufeb. Pr. their Letters (an Invention exprefly afcri-
Ev.1.10.p. bed to him by this pretended Sanchonia-
thon himself) and they cannot fhew it
poffible for him to make that diſcovery he
is pretended to have made from the very
Writings of the Ammonians. For all
36. A.
other
(41)
other Sacred ways but Letters, were of
fo æquivocal fignification, as nothing
could be gathered from them without
the Oral Traditions of their Priests. And
therefore he could not have made fo
great Diſcoveries by Books, if himſelf
were the first inventor of Letters.
§. XX. BUT who is this Son of Tha-
bion, who is faid to have turned them
back into Allegories, and from whom they
came at laſt to the Greeks? I fuppofe Aga-
thodemon, or the Second Mercury the
Father of Tat, who is faid by Manetko to
have tranflated the Books of the faid
Elder Mercury into Greek, but yet
Tegμμaow leggy Rupnis, that is in the Sacred Ap. Eufeb.
Ægyptian Letter, contradiftinct
from G.p. 6.Ed.
that which was of common ufe, poſſibly
that though the words were, yet the Cha-
racters might not be understood by the
Greeks without the Priests affiſtance,
which he alſo ſecured by placing them in
the Adyta. All theſe things feem exactly
to agree with the prefent Fragments of
the Mercurial Writings in Greek, where
the Elder Mercury is blamed by Ammon
for divulging their Mysteries; where the
Second Mercury is he who generally ſpeaks
in his own Perton, the Elder is fpoken of
in the Third, and Tat is mentioned as his
Son, and the Musteur àmnençuμuéver is fo of
D
ten
Scaliger.
(42)
ten mentioned, where the very Pillars
are mentioned, and that they were to be
divulged to Pofterity from thofe Pillars,
as appears from a Fragment of them ex-
Stob. Ec- tant in Stobaus. Yet it does not appear
log, Phyf. that Manetho publiſhed that Text of thoſe
Mercurial Books he pretends to have uſed
out of the Sacred Egyptian, into the
common Greek Character. That he might
forbear to do as a Priest. Poffibly Nu-
menius might have contributed hereunto,
who is therefore charged by his own
Heathen Brethren for divulging Mysteries.
Macrob. in Whoever did ſo, ſeems allo to have en-
fomn. Sci- larged thofe of Manetko, with other
pon. L.I. things he took for Mercurial, as will ap-
C. 2.
pear hereafter. However thefe very al-
lufions to theſe Greek Mercurials, are fuf-
ficient to convict this pretended Sanchoni-
athon of falsehood, in the opinion of ſuch
as believe the Mercurials themfelves to be
Forgeries, and Forgeries much later than
the time that Sanchoniathon pretends to.
However, if they were again involved by
this Second Hermes, how comes Sanchonia-
thon to have underſtood them? But if this
Surmubelus and Thuro had extricated them
before the time of Sanchoniathon, how
comes Orpheus (who must have been Elder
or contemporary with him, if he flouriſhed
at, or a little before, the War of Troy,
and
( 43 )
and who is generally fuppofed to have bor-
rowed his Notions from the Egyptians)
not to have understood them free from
Allegories, as well as this pretended San-
choniathon? But to proceed.
NA
§. XXI. HE is pretended alfo to have
borrowed his Informations from Hierom-
baal the Priest of the God Jevo. There
is little reafon to doubt but that he meant
Gideon, who was by his Father Foah
Sir-named Jerubbaal. The putting of H Fud.vi.2.
before Hebrew Words beginning with I
(that is, putting Alpirations where in the
Original, the 7 is Confonant) is fo com-
mon, that I believe none will doubt of it.
Inftances are very obvious, as in Hiere-
mias, Hierufalem, Hiericho, &c. And the
MS. Greek is as eafie to have been mi-
ſtaken for a , which is their Mark for
6. which is an ordinary occafion of miſtake
in multitudes of MSS. Efpecially in the
lefs skillful Publishers of Printed Books
from MSS. and this Name is at this pre-
fent Written erdbaal, with an o in the
Vulgar Latin Text, Judg. vi. 32. And
almoſt as little reafon is there to doubt,
but that the Name Jevo, is only a Greek
imitation of the Tetagrammaton, the Jehovah
middle and final Afpirations being utter-
ly unexpreffible in the Greek Tongue. But
D 2.
neither
(44)
27.
neither is this account of his Information,
any thing more creditable than the others.
How could Gideon be a Prieft, who was
Fud. viii. of the Tribe of Manaffeh? Was it on ac-
count of the Ephod which Gideon made ?
But where is there the leaft intimation that
he wrote it himself? Nay, when he is faid to
have placed it in his own City of Ephra,
it feems to imply, that it was placed there
for another's wearing. And how comes
it to pass, that the Scripture fhould pafs
it over in filence, that is fo punctual in
taking notice of Violations of the Priest-
hood, in matters of leffer confequence in
Jeroboam and others? But how could
Sanchoniathon have been guilty of `fuch
a miſtake, in ſo freſh a memory of Gide-
on, in fo near a Neighbourhood of the
Fews, in a matter wherein then the mean-
eft of them could have informed him,
(fo careful they were then to keep up the
memory of their Tribes) if he had been
fo diligent in procuring Information, as is
Oiva pretended? Suppofe he had been fo neg-
auto-ligent himself; yet, how could King
Tasai & Abibalus, to whom he is faid to have De-
Verba Por.
Días dicated his Book? How could all his
plyrii af. contemporary Enquirers after Truth, from
Eufeb. Pr. all whom, he is pretended to have re-
Ev.1.9.3.1.ceived commendations, be yet all fo mi-
A
ftaken
( 45 )
ſtaken in a thing of fo eafie Information ?
Yet to make this fancy concerning Gide-
on's Priesthood look more likely, the ex-
cellent Bochart conceives that the Baal Ph. Col.
II. 17.
Judg. viii.
27.
Berith, with whom the Ifraelites com- Judg. viii.
mitted Idolatry after the death of Gideon, 33.
muſt have been the God of Berytus, San-
choniathon's own City. But it feems moſt
likely, that this Baal Berith was the God
(not the Goddess) to whom Gideon's
Ephod was Confecrated, at his own City
Ephra. That Ephod is faid to have been
afnare to Him and his Family. And ac-
cordingly this Baal Berith's Temple, fur- Judg.iv.4.
nifhed the Sichemites with Arms in their
Confpiracy with Abimelech, which proved
the ruin of the greateſt part of Gideon's
Family. If fo, then there was no ground
to make this Baal Berith the fame with
Jao, to whom Philo Byblius would have
us believe that Gideon was Prieft. How-
ever, there is no probability that Berith
(if it muſt needs be the name of a place)
could be the fame with Berytus. This
Berith; where the Sichemites dwelt was in
all likelyhood under the Dominion of the
Ifraelites, but Berytus was in Phenicia,
and was in Sanchoniathon's time (if we
may believe Philo Byblius) under a di-
ftinct King from Ifrael. Befides the dif
ferent
4
D 3
( 46 )
II, 12.
το
ferent ways of writing theſe word in the
Hebrew, gives little occafion for fuch a
miftake. The Phenician Eerytus was fo
called as Stephanus tells us, rather from
της διὰ τὸ ἔνυδρον, βὶς γὰρ τὸ φρέαρ πας αὐτοῖς.
And it is obfervable, that Stephanus feems
to have taken what he had concerning
theſe Phenician places, from Philo Byblins
himfelf, as might have been fhewn in fe-
veral Inftances, and is on another occafi-
Phan. Col. on confefled by Bochart himſelf. If this
were taken from him alfo, then it will at
leaft follow, that this affinity between the
Names of Berith and Berytus, could have
been no occafion of miſtake to Philo By-
blius. Which as to our prefent purpofe,
is of much greater confequence, than
what that fame Learned Perfon obferves
from Nonnus, who takes Berytus for Beroe,
the Daughter of Venus and Adonis. This
therefore, looks like one of thofe ill-
meant Blunders, which thofe Modern
Greeks were ordinarily guilty of in the
Jewish Hiſtory, who pretended, no doubt
from the like Records, to give other ac-
counts of them, than their own writings
had done of themſelves, only with a de-
fign to afperfe their Nation. Thus Mafes
Suid. Me- is made a Woman, called Mofo by Alex-
où. Fc-
. ap. - ander Polyhiftor. Mofes and Jofeph are
feph. c.Ap.
1. 1057.
joyned
( 47 )
joyned together as contemporaries in Che
remon.
xxxvi. 2.
MB.
Put Mofes is the Son of Jofeph Fuft. Hift.
in Trogus Pompeius, Epitomiz'd by Justin.
Many more Inſtances might have been gi-
ven, if it had been neceffary. Nor will
the Anfwer of Bechart ſerve to excufe him
here. 17 may indeed alone fignifie a
Prince as well as a Priest. But when it is
joined with the God, to whom he is faid
to have been Priest,that were alone fuffici-
ent to determine the fignification, from
any ambiguity of which it might other-
wife have been capable. But befides I
fhall (*) hereafter have occafion to fhew (*)§. 33.
his deſign in making him a Priest, for re-
commending what he was to deliver on
his Teftimony.
§. XXII. BUT poffibly his pretended
Memoires of Gideon, might have given
him the Title of Priest, and Sanchonia-
thon a Stranger, a likely occalion of fuch
a mistake. If they did fo, then this it
felf had been a fufficient Argument, that
they could not have been Gideon's. And
then, what credit muſt that part of his
Hiſtory be of, which relyes on fo uncre-
ditable Informations? And indeed, how
unlikely is it, that Gideon fhould have
left fuch Memoires behind him? In all
likelyhood, what had come from him,
would
D 4
( 48 )
would have been accounted Prophetical;
at leaſt, if it had been undoubted, would
have been made fo by the atteftation of
the Sanhedrim, who were by God himſelf
eſtabliſhed for the Authentical Judges of
Prophets. Which is the most defenfible
way for afferting the Divinity of the Ano-
nymous Authors of the Old Testament.
And if fo, what probability had there
been of their miscarriage? Nay, fuppofing
them only Human, and of no higher re-
pute among the Jews; yet, who can
think they would have neglected fo pre..
cious a Monument of their Antiquity,
from fo fure a hand as Gideon's? But there
is not the leaft Memory of fuch a Work
among the Jews, not in their Canonical
Hiftories; not in the multitudes even of
Counterfeits, that were Antient, or were
ever received, even among the Hellenifts,
of which we have any account, either in
their Antient Stichometrie, or in any Anti-
ent Quotations; not fo much as in any
Quotation of thofe Canonical Writers that
lived near thoſe times, and quote ſeveral
extant then, which have fince mifcarried,
as the Book of Jafher, of the Wars of the
Lor &c. Not even in the Book of
Judges, where his Teftimony had been
moſt uſeful for continuing the Jewish
Hiſtory,
(49)
Hiſtory, from the death of Joshua, to his
own time. Can we think they would
thus generally have neglected him, if they
had known him, or thought him Genu-
ine? Can we think the Phenicians would
have valued him, if his own Country-men
had fo neglected him?
§. XXIII. Certainly, if he ever had any
fuch Memoires, or made ufe of them any
where, it must have been, moft probably,
where, he gives account of Jewish matters.
But his accounts concerning them, are fo
full of mistakes, of miſtakes fo incon
fiftent even with Jewish Intereft, as could
not, with any probability, have been oc-
cafioned by any Jewish Teftimonies;
much less by fo grave an unexceptiona-
ble a Teſtimony as that of Gideon. I
have had occafion to mention one inſtance
already, that of his making Gideon a
Priest. And fuch generally are the reſt
of his accounts of Jewish affairs, as far as
we can judge of them, by the few Frag-
ments preferved to us by Porphyry. He
makes Abraham a Native Phænician, and By the
the fame with the Greek Saturn, who be- Name of
ſtowed Attica on Minerva. What Jew
What Jem Saturn ap.
would have rob'd his Nation of their Ev.l. 10.
Father Abraham they fo much boasted of, P. 36. C.
would have derived them from the Uncir- P. 38. Di
cumcised
Euf. Pr.
( 50 )
cumcifed Philistines, fo much abhorred
and deſpiſed by them? Would have
diſhonoured Abraham himself, fo far as
to have made him a Heathen Deity, a
thing ſo detefted by the Jews? He makes
him actually Sacrifice his Son. It is plain
what Intereſt obliged him to fay fo, viz.
that he might hereby give an account of
that Antient, but Inhuman Cuſtom, of
Sacrificing their own Children to him,
under the name of Saturn or Moloch. For
this was generally the defign of the Hea
then Mysteries, to commemorate fome
memorable Action of their Deity. Thus
the pleaſure that Ceres took in the ob-
ſcene behaviour of Baubo, was comme-
morated in the Eleufinian Myfteries. And
the like delight that Hercules took in the
Plow-man's Curfes, when he was eating
his Plow-Oxen, was alſo remembred with
the like Curfes ſtill repeated in the Solem-
nities of the Worship of Hercules. But
what ground could he have in doing fo,
from the Old Teftament? He might in-
deed from the later Mystical Expofitions
of the Helleniſts, who fpeak of it as done,
becauſe it was reckoned to him as done in
the Divine acceptance, Gen. xxii. 16.
Therefore St. Paul fays he Offered bim,
Heb. xi. 17. adding withal, that he re-
ceived
(51)
ceived him from Death in a Figure, v. 19.
And the expreffion of having actually of
fered him, is alfo ufed by St. Clemens in his Clem. ad
Epifle to the Corinthians. If it were Corinth.
hence that he derived his miſtake, that Ep.1.9.10.
will alfo prove him Counterfeited about
the time he was first produced. He gives
allo different accounts of the reafon why
Abraham fhould have offered his Son.
Sometimes, κινδύνων ἐκ πολέμε μεγίσων κατειλη- Ρ. 40. 1.
P. D.
φότων ἢ χώραν. Tometimes again, λοιμε γενομέν. Ρ. 38. D.
I know not whether any occa
fion of the former account, might have
been taken from 2 Kings iii. 27. Am.
i. 16. where the King of Moab being
preffed by diſtreſs of War, offer'd a First-
born Son; but not his own, but the King
of Edoms. But there is no pretence of
either in Abraham's cafe from any fewish
Records, nor confequently could he have
theſe different Informations from the Me-
moires of Gideon, unless we can fuppoſe
them, not only different from all the Au
thentick Records of his Nation, but from
themſelves alfo, theſe things being the
Principal in this Author, that concern
the Jews, and yet, being fo impoffible to
have been taken from any Memoires of
Gideon, make me verily fufpect, that the
Forger of this Author himfelf, as he did
not
(52)
not uſe, ſo neither did he know of any
fuch Memoires, either truly or preten-
dedly paffing under the Name of Gideon,
at leaſt, not owned for fuch among the
Jews. Which as it is a clear conviction
of his defigned difingenuity in a matter
not excufable by any pretence of Igno-
rance; fo it will render him juftly liable
to a fufpicion of a like difingenuity in his
other fair pretences, though we had not
the like evidence of conviction of them.
At leaſt no fuch pretences to means of In-
formation muſt be trufted on his word,
and there is no better pretended for
them.
§. XXIV. BUT, to let the Informations
alone, the work it felf affords Intrinfick
Arguments enough of juſt fufpition. A
great occafion of the Forgeries of thoſe
times, was the Emulation of feveral Nati-
ons, for glory of Inventions and Anti-
quity. Hence it came to pass, that of all
glorious Inventions, and of all Famous
Perfons, fo very different and inconfiftent
accounts are given by the Hiftorians of
the feveral Rival Nations, each of them
challenging them for their own.
fuch a multitude of Jupiters, Hercules's
Efculapius's, Diana's, &c. nay, and of
Homers too, different not only in Nati-
Hence
on,
( 53 )
on, but in Age too, yet pretending gene-
rally to the glory of the fame Actions.
It muſt needs be, that of fo inconfiftent
reports concerning the fame Perfon, all
but one muſt have been not miſtakes,
but defigned Forgeries. Which I there-
fore note to fhew that, as it was not unu-
fual, ſo neither was it new, to Forge on
fuch occafions. Yet they pretended ge-
nerally to honeft means of Information.
Now this pretended Sanchoniathon, is full
of this vanity of arrogating ufeful Inven-
tions and Perfons to his own Phenicia.
Which, as they will prove him later than
theſe Æmulations of feveral Nations about
Antiquity, much later than the time pre-
tended for the true Sanchoniathon; fo
they will expoſe him to all the Teftimonies
and Arguments that may be produced for
the feveral Nations againſt him in all, or
any
of the reſpective Particulars. If he
can be difproved or charged with indirect
dealing in any one particular, that will be
fufficient to weaken his credit in all the
reſt. Let us come therefore to the par-
ticulars.
XXV.THUS he aſcribes the Invention of
Iron, to the Phenician Xpuae, in all like- Ap.Euleb.
lihood, the fame with Xetode in Hefiod, Pr. Ev. 1.
whom he makes the Famous Vulcan; where- 10. P. 35.
as
C.
(54)
281. 287.
Str. I.
Hefiod. as the Scripture attributes the fame to
Theolog. Tubal Cain, and the Grecians, to the Idai
Dactyli, not long before the Wars of
Cl. Al. Troy. For there we find that all the Arms
In Apull. of the Heroes, both offenfive and defenfive,
Argonnut. were of Brass, as appears by Homer, and
L. I. V. is obferved by the Scholiast, on Apolloni-
us Rhodius and Paufanias, which are
Laconic.p. great fufpicions that the Invention of Iron
430.1196.
Pau an.
84.
in L. xvii.
P. 32. D.
was late,becauſe it had not as yet reached
thofe Parts. But it is indeed ftrange, that
Vulcan fhould bere be taken for a Phæni-
Herodot, cian, who is by the Egyptians, reported
Eufeb. to have been the notorious Original of
Græc. Mi- the firft Generation of their Deified
neiho p. 6,
7. Ammian Kings 3 The defign of which Deifying
Mercellin. being obferved by this Philo himfelf, to
in Infcrip. have been the bonour of fome profitable
Apud Euf. Invention for Human Life, will make it
Pr.Ev. 1.9. likewife probable, that he was alſo taken
Cicer. de for the Inventor of Fire and Iron. There
Nat. Deor. were indeed ſeveral Vulcans obferved by
the Antients, but not above Four, and
Arnob.L.4. among them none that appears to have
Ap. Euf. been thought Phenician. Thus alfo he
makes Magus the Son of the AA and
Titanes, which were accounted bad Da-
mons. Who fees not here an inftance of
that ordinary vanity of the Gracians, of
turning the Name of the Sect into a pro-
L. 111.Cl
Alex.Prot.
Pr. Ev. 1.
10. P. 35.
D.
J
per
(( 55
55 )
per Name of a Man, and thence pretend-
ing to give an account of their firſt Inſtitu-
tion? Who fees not a plain deſign to rob
the Chaldeans of the Magi, and to make
them a Phenician Invention? Which let
him believe, who can find in his heart to
do fo. I need not to obferve, that the
whole Sect of the Magi, if they were firſt
Inſtituted by the Chaldean Zoroastres,
(who feems to have lived near the time of
Pythagoras, and is faid by fome to have
converfed with him) they muſt have
been Inſtituted long after the time of our
pretended Sanchoniathon, and therefore
could not have been taken notice of by
him. As for the Badrian Zoroaftres, I
doubt the very pretending to him was
only fuch another defign of robbing the
Chaldeans of him. Diodorus calls him L. 11. Bibl.
Oxyartes, and that was, it may be, his ex Ctefia.
true Name. I might alſo obſerve, that
when he makes this Magus the Son of
忉
​thoſe bad Damons, he evidently alludes
to the bad fenfe of the Name of Magus,
which was yet very much later than the
Inſtitution of the Sect it felf. it takes it in a
§. XXVI. HE alſo makes the Diofcuri, bad sense
not only Phenicians, but the fame alfo
with the Corybantes and Curetes. It is ib.p.36.
Ap. Eufeb.
evident he could not underſtand the
}
Caftores,
(56)
Theog.
v. 347.
Caftores, who were not only later than
Sanchoniathon, but than thoſe Curetes and
Corybantes alfo. The moſt candid ſenſe
that can be put upon it, is by the name
Diofcuri to underſtand, not the Sons, but
the Nurses of Jupiter. So indeed the
word new is uſed in Hefiod for Nurfing.
And fo the Curetes or Corybantes, are in
Truth, faid to have Nurfed him in the
Antrum Idæum. But then, the word be-
ing Greek, could not have been known
to the Phenician Sanchoniathon ; and
what word muſt have anſwered it in his
Original Phænician, is not eaſie to gueſs.
Nor do I know why Philo ſhould uſe it in
Ap. Fufeb. fo unufual a Notion, which yet he elfe-
b. p. 37. where uſes for them abfolutely, without
the explicatory Addition of the Titles of
Curetes or Corybantes. And is not this a
plain defign upon the Cretan Jupiter, to
make him, as well as his Nurfes Origi-
nally Phænician? But this may poffibly
be thought excufable as an Interpolation
of the Tranflator, who muſt at leaſt, have
been the Author of that Greek word.
it feems evident, not only from this, but
Greek words, Aayovs. the mention of feveral other
Δαγών ὡς ὅτι
Eirwy, P. 36. becauſe Zeus Greek words, and of the
Σίτων,
de Tei, p.27. Ougavòs, Greek Nation, nay, of the
KejvⒸ, Esμns, &c. &.p.39.
where he quotes Hefiod,&c. very Alexandrians, that he
did
For
( 57 )
did ufe the liberty, rather of a Paraphraft,
than of a faithful accurate Tranflator.
But then, how fhall we be able to diſtin-
guish between his Interpolations, and the
Text of his pretended Sanchoniathon. It
feems alfo ſtrange, that thefe Corybantes or
Cabiri, or Samothraces, which, by. the
Græcians_account of them, feem to have
been the fame, and to have accompanied
the Mater Deorum out of Phrygia into
Crete, fhould here be made immediately
Phenicians, though I am apt to believe
indeed that their Myfteries had fome Ori- Bochart. de
ginally-Phænician Ingredients. But it is
yet more ftrange, how they ſhould have
found Crete inhabited, where they muſt
have Narfed, or at least, received Jupiter,
if themſelves had been the first Inventors
of Ships, as is here pretended, unlefs pof p. 36.
fibly they made ufe of thofe hard ſhifts, A.
which are here alfo mentioned, as invent-
ed before. Which yet is hardly credible
of fo great a Multitude as might be
thought fufficient to People the whole
Iland.
Phen. Co
ion. 1.12.
P.
§. XXVII. Other inftances there are of
the like Vanity and Affectation in this Au-
thor. Some I have had occaſion to touch (1) Ap.
at formerly. Who can endure to fee Euf. Pr.
(1) Abraham, to fee the famous Ægypti-
E
Ev.1.10. Pa
38. D. &
an p. 40. C..
( 58 )
39. B.
Ib. D.
(2) 1b. P. an (2) Hermes, made Original Phenici-
36. A. P. ans? This alone, one would think, were
fufficient to overthrow thofe great_Elo-
gies that are given him for his Faith-
1b.p.38.A. fulneſs and Diligence, but this is not all.
Jupiter Belus, the famous Founder of
the Affyrian Monarchy, Typhon the Bro-
ther of the famous Egyptian Ofiris,
muſt alſo be made Originally Phanici-
ans; than which what can be more cer
tainly falſe, if any thing be certain in the
Antient Affyrian or Egyptian Histories?
So muſt alſo Adodus the Father of Ben-
hadad King of Syria in the Scripture, and
in Trogus Pompeius, and worshipped by
Melenians. the Syrians for a God. So muft fcu-
Meffen. p. lapius, whofe Sons were Peloponnefians,
113.Corin. and on that account prefent at the War
p. 68. & of Troy; beſides that himſelf is reported
to have been the Son of Arsinoe the
Daughter of Leucippus a Meffenian. So
muſt alſo Minerva, if fhe had Attica be-
ſtowed on her by the Phenician Saturn.
But when were the Phenicians ſo famous
for their Conqueſts, as to have ſo great
and remote Dominions as Egypt, Affyria
and Attica at their difpofal? What wri-
ter, even of their own, however partial
to his own Country, did fo much as pre-
tend it before our pretended Sanchonia-
Paufan. in
alibi.
thon?
(59)
*) For ſhe is made the
Daughter of Saturn,
P. 36. D. But Efculapius
is made the Son of Sy.
duc, the Brother of Mi-
for, whofe Son Mercury
is faid to have been
Counsellor to Saturn as
foon as he was come to
Man's Eftate, p. 36. D.
And the Pofterity of the
thon? But it is a ſtrange miſtake in Chro-
nology (in which it feems to have been
a ſpecial Providence of God for their
Diſcovery, that Counterfeiters have gene-
rally been unskillful) that fhe fhould be
made contemporary, or rather
later (*) than Æfculapius, as
will appear by our Authors
computation; whereas Efcu-
lapins flouriſhed, as I faid be.
fore, but little before the War
of Troy, but Minerva ftrove
with Neptune, for the Domini-
on of Attica in the time of Ce-
crops Diphyes, forne hundreds
of Years before. There were in-
deed ſeveral Minerve and Ef
culapii pretended by them, who
had the curiofity to enquire in-
to them, in order to the expo-
fing them. But this very pretence of a
Multitude, was later than the times of
Æmulation, and yet none of thoſe Mul-
titudes pretended to have been Phenicians.
The paffage of Damafcius concerning a Danaf.vit.
Phenician Afculapins, feems plainly dr. ap.
tranſcribed from Philo Byblius, and there- Phot. Cod,
fore ought not to be taken for a diſtinct 1073.
Authority.
Æf
Dioſcuri are made con-
temporary with Saturn,
P. 37.B. Which Dieſcuri
themſelves were Sons
of Syduc, and confe-
quently Brethren to f
Æf-
culapius. See p. 36. A.
cexlii. P.
E 2
§. XXVIII.
(60)
b. p. 38.
D.
§. XXVIII. AND why fhould Abra-
ham, if he were the Phenician Saturn,
Circumcife himſelf, as this Author alfo
pretends, when it is fo well known, that
the Antient Phænicians were fo averfe to
it, that a long time after Abraham's death,
they are ſtill ſtigmatized by the name of
the uncircumcifed Philistines? But the
defign is plain. He had a mind to chal-
lenge a Perſon of fuch Note for his Coun-
try-man; and becauſe the Story of Abra-
ham's making a Covenant with God by
Circumcifion, was one of the moſt memo-
rable paffages of that Great Man's Life,
therefore he thought it fit to affert it to
their Saturn. And it may be the rather,
becauſe by this time, when this work was
Counterfeited, the Phenicians themſelves
feem alfo to have received Circumcifion
from the Egyptians. Who knows but
that fuch Tales as thefe might have been
the reaſon why Abraham was worſhipped
Eufeb. de at Mamre, for fome confiderable time be-
vit. Con- fore Conftantine who first forbad it, with
53. Sozo- Idols and Sacrifices; by Gentiles as well
men. Eccl. as Chriftians; by Phænicians as well as
Hift. 11.4. thoſe of Palestine and Arabia? That Hu-
man Sacrifices were not among thofe as
they are particularized by Sozomen,
(though they were otherwife the pro-
ftant. 111.
*
pereft
( 61 )
Nat. Hift.
XXX. C. 1.
de Abft.
pereſt for the Phenician Saturn) there
was very good reaſon, becauſe they had
been, long before that time, forbidden
by Roman Laws. The First Roman Law
against them was at Rome, An. 21. C. 657.
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus and P. Licinius
Craffus being (1) Confuls. After that it (12) Plin.
was particularly forbidden the Druids by
(2) Tiberius, at laft forbidden every
where by the Emperor (3) Hadrian. (3) Porphy.
Beſides that by the account Philo Biblyus 11.56.
himſelf, as well as other Writers of Phoe-
nician Affairs, give concerning them; theſe
Human Sacrifices, by the Rules of the
Phoenicians themſelves, feem not to have
been ordinary, but only referved for ſome
very great diſtreſs, as an expiation to that
angry Demon,
Damon. But all theſe inſtances do
abundantly fhew how extreamly partial
this Author was, in adorning his own
Nation with the spoils of others. Which
is not reconcileable either with the Vera-
city or Antiquity of the true Sanchonia-
thon. Nor will any fuppofable miſtakes
of Philo in tranflating him, ferve to bring
him off in ſo grofs and defigned inftances
concerning his Neighbours and the Famous
Perfons now mentioned. For they
concern Things, not Words and Ex-
preffions; Things very notorious,
E 3
not
only
(62.)
only of Probabie or Conjectural Evi-
dence.
§. XXIX. I cannot therefore but think
this Author Counterfeited purpoſely with
a defign of confronting the Antiquity of
the Scripture. But who was the Impostor,
whether Philo Byblius or Porphyry, that
I confefs I cannot eafily determine. I
confefs I ſhould rather charge it on Por-
phyry, the abufing of the Name of Philo,
as well as that of Sanchoniathon, were it
not for that only Teftimony of Athenæus,
and I have given my reaſons why I ſhould
otherwiſe have thought it improbable that
Philo was the Author of that Tranflation.
But becauſe I cannot tell what to fay to
that expreſs Quotation of Athenæus be-
fore the time of Porphyry, I doubt Philo
will not cafily be difcharged of it. For
by his Exceptions against the Teſtimony
of Hecatans for what he had Written in
Evvnen- favour of the Jews, That either his work
muſt have been counterfeited; or if ge-
nuine, that he himſelf muſt have been
I carried away by the plauſibility of the
Jewish pretences: It appears that he was
Pbilo ap. engaged in that Difpute concerning the
Orig. cont. Antiquity of the fews,and engaged against
Ceifl. P. the Jews, and therefore was a Perfon fuf-
13. ficiently intereffed to fet on fuch a difin-
Saloes π-
Davó 7113
genuous
(63)
genuous defign as far as his Principles
would give him leave. And I have al-
ready fhewn how far Platonical Principles
did fo. If I may venture to gueſs in a
matter that affords no better Arguments
than gueſſes, 1 fhould fufpect that Jofe-
phus's Books againſt Appien were the oc-
cafion of engaging Philo on this Subject.
What fofephus had there produced in de-
fence of the Antiquity of the Jews, was
very probably the min alluded to by
Philo. I cannot think any other was
meant, becauſe Jofephus feems to have
been the first that engaged in that Dif
pute (he does not intimate in the leaft
that any had engaged in it before him)
and becauſe the time was fo fhort between
Jofephus and Philo, that there could hard-
ly be any new occafion for any one elſe
to undertake that cauſe that Jofephus had
fo very lately, and fo accurately defend-
ed. For Jofephus wrote his Books againſt
Appion immediately after his Antiquities
and his Life, in the Thirteenth Year of
Domitian, becauſe he dedicated theſe alfo
to the fame Epaphroditus, who was put to
death in the Year following; and Philo
feems to have written under Hadrian.
B. fides the fame of Jofephus, with all well-
wiſhers to Learning, and the Eminent ca-
E 4
Facities
i
ла
(64)
pacities he ferved in, both among his own
Country-men, and in the Courts of the
Vefpafians, added no doubt a greater Au-
thority to what came from him, and re-
commended it to the Reading of all cu-
rious Perſons, not now to mention the
Atteftations of the Emperors, and of
King Agrippa, and of other Learned Men,
Heathens as well as others, among whom
himſelf reckens Julius Archelaus and He-
C. App. 1. rod. And this very Teftimony of Heca-
taus, which it feems fo gravelled Philo,
had been produced, and infifted on, in
Cont. Ap- this very work by Jofephus. Which will
P. 1948. therefore make it very probable, that this
B. II. p. Work of Philo Byblies against the Jews,
was defigned in answer to Jofephus againſt
Appion.
1037. F.
1063. F.
Cont. App.
1.1. P.
1039. C.
-
§. XXX. WHICH being fuppofed, I
confider further that Jofephus in that fame
Work had principally infifted on the Te-
ftimonies of Phenicians and Ægyptians,
for proving the Antiquity of his own Na-
tion, as of thoſe who had beſt reaſon to
know them; but the Fhoenicians moſt of
C. Appio all, as being neareft. Accordingly he
1043. E. Appeals not only to their Writers that
Antiq. viii. were extant, but their written Records,
2. p. 258. their Aveypapai, which were preferved to
F.c. Appi-
n. 1. p. that very time. This could not chooſe
L. i. p.
1042, B.
but
(65)
•
but particularly move Philo Byblius as
being himſelf a Phenician, and who might
very well have known Jofephus himſelf,
if he were Threefcore and Eighteen years
old, at the Two hundred and twentieth
Olympiad, as has been obferved out of Sui-
das, though poffibly the odd Number of
the Olympiad, above Two hundred and
twenty, which is requifite to make him
live to Write concerning the Empire of
Hadrian, is wanting. I mention not Sca-
liger's 'Avaye«e» which tells us more parti-
cularly, not the Olympiad only, but alſo
the very year wherein he conceives him
to have Written, becauſe it is of no Au-
thority. But there was another thing
that added further to the reputation of
the Jews about that time. Their Effenes
had been in great reputation with as many
as had occafion to hear of them, as a very
Philofophical fort of Perfons. Pliny the Nat. Hift.
Elder had mentioned them with great re- V. 17. de
ſpect, as afterwards Porphyry did alfo.
But this concerned only their Philofophy
of living. There were alſo among them,
others who had written Books of Philofo-
phy, not only Ariftobulus the Peripatetick
in the time of Ptolomaus Philometor; not
only many others intimated, though not
named by Philo the Jew, and Jofephus,
if
Abftin. iv.
S. 11, &C.
( 66 )
Antiq. in
if he ever lived to finiſh that work of the
Præf. ad Sentiments of the Jews, fo often promiſed
fin. & Ant. by him, as I doubt, he did not. Theſe,
*1.9. & by Myfticizing the Kooyevía of Mofes to
alibi fæpe. a fenfe, not very diftant from that re-
ceived among the wiſeſt Philofophers, and
in a moſt elegant, rapturous, modiſh ſtile
(fuch was that of Philo particularly.)
They gained ſo much further on the good
opinion of the wife ones of that Age, as
to have their Nation, which had former-
ly been deſpiſed as Barbarous, now to paſs
among the Nations which were Famous
for Wiſdom. And the rather becauſe this
way of Myfticizing the Poets, for the
Greeks, into a Syfteme of Philofophy,
was already taken up by the Stoicks,
and the other Dogmatical Philofophers,
who were concerned for the defence of
the received Religions againſt the Atheists
and Epicureans, and Scepticks, who had
taken great advantage from thoſe Fables,
for expofing them. Who had withal,
been herein imitated by the Egyptians,
who had Allegorized Ifis and Ofiris, and
all their own moſt Antient Hiftories.
From whom the Alexandrian Jews feem
willing to differ as little as was poffible.
vit. Philof, Accordingly Laertius,, who wrote not
P. 3. B. long after, takes them into that Number;
Procem.ad
and
(67)
and endeavoured, as he was able, to give
ſome account of them, though on the ill Numen.ap.
Informations of Clearchus the Peripa- Cell. 1. p.
Orig. c.
tetick. So alfo Numenius before him.
P.
13. & Euf
7.
§. XXXI. BUT there were alfo other Pr.Ev. ix.
things that contributed hereunto about
the time of which I am ſpeaking. One
was the atteftation of fome Oracles re-
ceived among the Heathens themſelves,
which alſo commended them for that very
cauſe wherein they differed from the reſt
of Mankind. Such was that produced by
St. Juftin Martyr, not long after the time
of Philo, as given by a Heathen Deity to
a Heathen Enquirer: So he, 'Eequíve za's Tv Parnatic
(ὡς αὐτός φατε) τὸ πα ὑμῖν χρηςήριον, τίνας συνέβη Ρ. 12.
Θεοσεβής ανδράς γεγενῆθαί ποτε, ὅτω τὸ χρηςήριον
εἰρηκέναι φατέ
Μένοι Χαλδαίοι σοφίην λοχον ἠδ᾽ ἀρ Εβραίοι
Αυτογενητὸν ᾿Ανακτα σεβαζόμενοι Θεὸν αὐτὸν.
God might poffibly in this Cafe, make
the Devil fpeak againft his own Intereſt,
as he did in the cafe of Balaam. To the
ſame purpoſe we have other Oracles alſo
owned by Porphyry (very probably in
his Body of Philofophy Collected out of Pr. Ev. X.
Ap. Enſob,
Oracles,) whereof fome might have been 10.
Antienter than the time of Philo Byblius.
I am not concerned to Difpute what real
Credit theſe Oracles deferved, yet cer-
tainly
( 68 )
tainlythey could not chooſe but have been
very powerful recommendations to thoſe
Philofophers who did actually believe them
Divine, and that is all for which I am con.
cerned at preſent. To the fame purpoſe,
alfo I refer the advantageous Characters
of Abraham and Mofes, in the Orphaicks
first mentioned in theſe firſt times of Chri-
tianity. And as Orpheus had among the
Heathens the Reputation of a Sacred and
Inspired Perfon, ſo his word muſt have
been reverenced by them all, but parti-
cularly by the Ægyptians, and the Dif
ciples of Mercury, becaufe he was taken
for a great promoter of their Philofophy.
But there was yet a further reaſon that
might peculiarly recommend him to the
Egyptians. That is, that he was, by
fome Traditions, received by Perfons of
great Authority among themſelves, pre-
tended to have been a Sacred Perfon to
the Deity of Heliopolis. So Charemon, a
Ap. Fol:pb. "Tesogaμuarey's innfelf, makes Jofeph and
cont. Appi- Mofes alfo to have been Ægyptian Leposav.
on.L.I.P. μaris, in the fame Notion as the Jew; alfo
Manetho had their Sacred Scribes. And Manetho
ap.fofeph. a High Priest and Scribe, alſo had deli-
cont. Appi-
vered the the fame concerning Mofes, that
1053.A.& his Ægyptian name was Ofarfyph, and that
1054. A. he was called fo from Ofiris. So I read
1057. B.
on.L. 1. p.
1955. C.
ματείς,
απίρεως
(69)
ap. Euſeb.
Οσίρεως rather than Ὀρίσεως the God of
Heliopolis to whom he was Prieft. The
occafion of pretending this concerning
Jofeph, might poffibly be his Marrying
the Daughter of Potipherah Priest of On,
which by the Greek Interpreters and De- Demetrius
metrius, was rendred Ηλιόπολις. Con- Fr. Ev. ix.
cerning Mofes, poffibly it was his skill in 21.
all the Learning of the Egyptians,
which was (1) Sacred as well as
forts, which they might think he
never have got in fuch Perfection, if him- 66. B.
felf had not been a Sacred Perfon. It is Strom. 1.
no matter how far they were miſtaken in p. 343. C.
bekeving fo concerning him. Their actual
believing fo, is fufficient for my purpoſe,
to make them entertain a great reverence
for his Philofophy.
that (1) Philo.
other Fud. de.
vit. Mof.
could Lib. 1.P.
§. XXXII. ACCORDINGLY there was
about that time a Set of the Philofophers
themſelves, that began to take notice of
thofe Myftical Expofitions of the Law,
and to produce them with refpect as Au-
thorities, with honourable mention of
Mofes under the Titles of Legiflator and
Prophet. A name not unufual to them
among the other Orientals that were
Famous for Wiſdom, but particularly
uſed among the Phenicians and Ægypti-
ans, and very properly belonging to him
as
Clɛm. Al.
D.
( 70 )
L.III.adv.
Chriſtian.
as a Scribe or Priest of Heliopolis. Porphyry
ap. Euseb. that inveterate Enemy of Christianity,
Eccl. Hift. takes notice of them, as they who had led
vi. 19.
our Chriftian Origen the way in his Allego-
rical Expofitions. For fuch he reckons
Numenius, Cronius, Apollophanes, Longi-
nus, Moderatns, Nicomachus, Cheremon
and Cornutus. Theſe did not only fol-
low the way of Allegorizing, in turning
the Heathen Theogonies into Mystical
Senfes, as appears in the work ſtill ex-
tant of Cornutus, on that Subject. That
was not new. The Stoicks whom both
Cornutus and Charemon followed, had
begun that long before. They alſo fol-
lowed the Allegorizing Jews, in allowing
the Authority of Mofes, in quoting him
by the name of goes only, which I
think is not ufual with any but thofe Alle-
gorical Writers. Thus Numenius, with
whom it was very ordinary. Thus Lon-
13. iv. P. ginus in that only work which is extant
198, 199. of his, Пse "rs. And no doubt it would
have appeared concerning more of them,
if they had been extant. Nay thus even
afterwards (when the rancours of the
Philosophers themſelves againſt the Scri-
De antr. ptures were grown higher) Porphyry
Nymph. himſelf, and Chalcidius, who is therefore
P. 256. by fome lefs confidering Perfons miſtaken
Orig. c.
Celf. 1. P.
for
(71)
from
for a Chriftian, who yet pre-
fumes to confute (*) his Pro-
phet where he diffents
him, though he do it indeed,
as became the time he lived in,
when the Empire was Chriftian,
with civility and great refpect.
And the firſt of theſe which are
mentioned by Porphyry will, in
all likelihood, be earlier than
Philo Byblius. So will Apollo-
phanes, if he were the fame who
was meant by the Counterfeiter
of the Works now extant un-
(*) He reckons Mofes
among thoſe who make
matter to have a begin-
ning.P.372. Edit. Me-
urfi. But he afterwards
joynshimſelf with thofe
who make it Eternal
P.376. 41. 409.419,
&c. Befides his faying
concerning Mofes, di-
vina,ut ferunt, Inſpira
tione vegetatus, plainly
implies, that he did not
believe him fo infpirel
himself, but that he on-
ly delivered herein the
Senfe of others.
Athen. De
der the name of Dionyfius the Areopagite,
who is there made to obferve the Eclipfe
at our Saviours Death at Heliopolis in
Ægypt; and if that otherwife Learned
Impoftor have but obferved the due deco-
rum of time. Much more, if he were the
Stoick, mentioned by Athenæus, but un- ipnof. vii.
der the corrupt name of Aphanes, as con- 6. vid.Me-
temporary with Eratofthenes, and Fellow-ag. in La
Diſciple with him to Ariston Chius. And p. 186.
fome of his Companions in this paffage of
Porphyry were Stoicks, as Cornutus and
Cheremon. So will Numenius, if it were
to him that Apollonius Tyanaus wrote that
Difcourſe, whereof we have a Fragment
in Stobans. So will alfo Cronius for the Eclog,
ert. L. vii.
fame Phylic.
(72)
To him
Perfus
De Antr. fame reaſon, whom Porphyrius affures us
Nymph.
to have been 'Erap, a Friend and ac-
P. 253.
quaintance of Numenius. So was Anne-
us Cornutus certainly, and Cheremon the
writes Sat. Stoick, contemporary with Martial under
V. Lib. xi. Domitian, who must yet have been old
Nat.Quaf, at that time, if it were his Book de Cometis
L. vii.c.5. which was mentioned by Seneca.And he is
rig. c.Celf. Certainly quoted by fofephus.
Ep. 58.
confr. O-
1. p. 45.
in Euf.b.
Græ.p.6.
§. XXXIII. BUT there was alſo another
occaſion about this time, which made the
Jewish Kosμoyevía more taken notice of
Which, though it feems indeed to have
proceeded from this, yet recommended
it farther, to many who knew nothing of
the favourable eſteem the formentioned
Philofophers had for the Jewish Philofophy
it felf. That is, that it was about this
time, taken into the pretended Philofophy
of the Egyptian Hermes. The name of
Hermes had indeed been mentioned by
many Authors before the coming of our
Saviour. His Pillars alfo are faid to have
been confulted by Manetho for compiling
his Hiftory. But for any Philofophical
Difcourfes publiſhed under his name, fuch
as the Pamander and Afclepius now ex-
tant, fuch as were many more now loſt,
but mentioned by the Antients, Ibelieve
there can be no Teſtimonies produced
much
( 73 )
(1) De Ifid. & Ofirid.
E Esμ
τῇ Ἑρμα λεγό
μέναις βίβλοις ἱερᾶσι
€20-
as, &c. p. 375.F.
(2)He quotes ú púnav
Eqμs #cburá-
τὸ Ἑρμα * πρεσβυτά
concerning the
τω
Marks of Apis, probably
much Antienter than Philo Byblius, at leaft
not as extant in the common Greek Cha-
racter as well as Tongue. And yet they
could hardly have been much later, con-
fidering that St. Justin Martyr quotes
them about the time of Antoninus Pius,
as alſo his Contemporary Apuleius, if the
Latin Tranflation of Afclepius be his,
confidering withal, that (1)
Plutarch alfo mentions them,
an Author undoubtedly equal,
if not Antienter than Philo By-
blius; that (2) Ælian does fo
who lived under Hadrian, Con-
temporary with Philo; confi-
dering alſo that before them,
the Ægyptian Hereticks,the Ba-
filidians eſpecially, and the Va.
lentinians, made ufe of many
of his Notions. Now thoſe
Hereticks are generally by the
confent of Antiquity, faid to
have rifen about the time of
Hadrian.But our moſt Learned
Biſhop of Cheſter * thinks them
Antienter, to whom I refer the Reader
for fatisfaction that defires it. However,
the Author from whom they borrowed
their Herefies, fhould in all reafon, be
fome while Antienter than they. And
F
out of thofe Two and
Forty. Myfical Books of
Hermes, which contain-
Egyptian Priests, men-
tioned by Glemens Alex-
andrinus, unless poffibly
ed the Rituals of the
he did not mean a Book,
but a Tradition Father-
ed upon Hermes, like
thofe níentioned by
Manetho.
* Vind. Ign.
fom
( 74 )
from him it is most likely that the Valen.
tinians took their Ogdoas, and the Baſi-
lidians their Magical Practices, that I
may not now defcend to a more parti-
cular Parallel. Nor yet can I think, as
the Learned Cafaubon does, that any Chri-
ftian (even of thofe Hereticks) counter-
feited him. There are fuch other marks
in him, that the Author was indeed a
Pamand. Heathen. He calls the Sun the greatest
C.3:25. God of those that are in Heaven, to whom
all the Heavenly Gods pay respect, as to
1b.c.3. 17. their King and Potentate. And he elfe-
where mentions the God's appearing_in
the Stars. That he fhould call the Sun
God, might indeed feem agreeable to the
Bafilidian Hypothefis, who made Abraxas
theirs. But that he ſhould allow all the
Stars for Gods alfo, feems more than any
Christian could grant. Yet even this Ex-
preffion the Hellenistical Jews did not
fcruple. So Philo the Jew, fpeaking con-
cerning the Creation of the Heavens,
fays, that it ought therefore to be crea-
ted firſt, and of the pureft part of Matter,
Γe Mund. Διότι Θεῶν ἀφανῶν τε καὶ ἀπητών ἔμελλεν οἶκο
Opif. P. forza ispáTATO.
S. E.
Thefe 'Alant so were
no doubt the Stars.
many more, things
However there were
extant then, in the
time of Philo Byblius, which did undeni-
ably
(75)
ably prove the Author to have been a
Heathen. Such were thofe Books men-
tioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, where- Strom. vi.
in all the whole Order of the Ægiptian P. 633.
Worſhip was particularly preſcribed, by
which their Idolatrous Priefts in thoſe
times were guided.
§. XXXIV. YET though the Author
of theſe Counterfeited Works, pretending
to the name of Hermes were a Heathen, I
muſt withal grant, that the great Perfon
now mentioned, had an occafion for mi-
ftaking him for a Christian, from thofe
frequent allufions to the Old Testament
Scriptures, which he had obferved in him.
But I have already fhewn another way
how theſe Allusions, not exprefs Quotati-
ons, might have been uſed by a Heather
of that Age. That is, that the Coun-
terfeiter of them, might have been one
of that Sect of Philofophers, who had, as
has been ſhewn, taken in the Jewish Phi-
lofophy into theirs, from the Writings of
Philo and fuch others as had recommend-
ed it to them, by their Mystical Expofi
tions of it. Accordingly, their Quotati-
ons of the Scriptures themselves, are ge-
nerally at the Second hand, as they found
them already produced by fuch Writers
as they dealt with, not mentioning, or
F 2
but
8 76 j
but very rarely, either Book or Author,
as in all likelyhood they would, if they
had taken them immediately from the
Originals. And this Party was more like-
ly to propagate among the Egyptians
fuch as thefe undoubtedly were who
Forged the Works of Hermes) becauſe
the Alexandrian Jews were moft Famous
both for Numbers and Learning, above
any of their Nation in any other Colony ;
had multitudes of their Philofophical
Effenes, and a flourishing Temple among
them to the days of Vefpafian; and did,
no doubt, fuit their Notions as near, as
Truth would give them leave, to the
received Doctrines of the Egyptians, which
were very plaufible recommendations to
them. And when it had thus got into
the Hermetical Philofophy, by this means
it was unawares infinuated into thoſe who
were moſt averſe either to the Jewish or
the Christian Religion, who yet had a
great Veneration for the Philofophy, as
was pretended, of the Antient and Deifi-
ed Hermes. Longinus was one of them,
who yet wrote againſt the Chriftians.
Ap. Eufeb. And Porphyry another, who yet was one
Fr.Ev.xv. of the greateft Adverfaries, perhaps, that
20.
the Chriftians ever had. And this was
the more likely to prevail among them,
when
( 77 )
when Mofes himſelf was taken for one of
their own Priests, and that of Heliopolis,
where thofe very Pillars are pretended
to have been, from whence the Doctrine
of Mercury was pretended to have been
Collected, the cuftody of which muſt, by
their Cuſtoms, been properly his Province
as a Priest. So that on this account, they
might prefume his Doctrine to have been
the fame with that of Mercury. But how
much more might they prefume it, if they
took his Perfon to have been the fame
alfo? And fome of them were of that
Opinion, if we may believe Artapanus.
This I take to be a more likely account, Artap. ap-
Euf.Pr.Ev.
how Scripture Notions
got among the Phi-
ix. 27:
lofophers, than the common miſtaken
paffage concerning Ammonius and the
ise. I am fure it agrees much
better both with Hiftorical Truth and Ex-
periments than the other, however it has
had the Fortune to take among Learned
Men.
§. XXXV. To return therefore to Philo
Byblius, this I take to be the moſt likely
defign of his forging the whole Hiftory of
his pretended Sanchoniathon. He was,
no doubt, as a Phenician, zealously con-
cerned for the honour of his Country.
Nay his concernment for his own City
Byblos
F 3
( 78 )
εκβάλλει
7
δικήσει, καὶ
'Em Télos Byblos appears, in that he makes his ficti-
Kev tious Author pretend that it was the First
TEXT City in Phenicia. Had it been fo, it is
Téu ftrange, it fhould never have been men-
tioned in the Scriptures before the times
πρώτω
p of the Prophets, where notwithſtanding
TÓMIV KT- ſo many other Phenician Cities are fo
frequently mentioned. The 2 in Jo-
DO:Vinks fua feems to be rather from Gabala a City
BULAOV. of Phoenicia,diftin&t from Byblios,in Ptolomy
Pr. Ev. 1. and Gamala in Pliny. This very thing is
10. P. 37. a fhrewd fufpicion that Sanchoniathon
from him was to ſay nothing but what Philo Byblius
Stephanus. would have him, that though we have
Nat. Hift, feen him fo full of a partial deſign for the
(
Βύβλον.
u
A. and
V. 20.
AR
Fr.Ex
20.
Honour of his Country; and though we
have feen him guilty of fo many inftances
of notorious disingenuity in that regard;
and though this pretence concerning By-
blos, appears, from the Scripture-de-
ſcription of Phenicia, to have been as
groundless a fiction as any he had been
guilty of: Yet he ſhould yield to the In-
tereft of Philo, and make his Byblos a
more Antient City even than his own
beloved Bergtus, when he might with as
much ground have preferred his own City
before it. The name of Berytus does cer-
tainly better reſemble a Phenician Origi-
nal than that of Byblos. Philo there fore
being
(79)
being thus concerned; and being, by his
concernment, prompted to fay many things
both new and falfe, and which could not
be made appear from any Monuments
as yet produced; thought himſelf there-
fore obliged to pretend fome new means
of Information for his pretended Sancho-
niathon, in fuch matters as he was to de-
liver without any known Authority of
extant Authors. And becauſe he knew
the Tyrian Records and Infcriptions had
been ſearched and publiſhed before; he
therefore makes his Sanchoniathon to en- 'Ex*x?!
quire allo into the Records and Infcriptions πόλιν υ
of the other particular Cities. This feems to ToμÉ-
have been his Artifice to reccommend TV, &c.
what he had to ſay in favour of his own ap. Eu eb.
Porphyr.
City, in oppofition to the other Cities of Pr. Ev.1.9.
Phenicia, or in favour of his Country, P.31. B.
in oppofition to fuch Countries as had
not Authority of their own Records to
oppoſe againſt him.
§. XXXVI. BUT theſe were not the
only Adverfaries against whom his Ambi-
tion had engaged him in this Work. He
feems alfo in this very Work to have had a
particular defign upon the Jews. One
whole Book of this work feems to have
related to them in particular. For that
very fame paffage concerning Abraham's
F 4
Sacri-
Eu'eb.
(( 80
80 )
B.
Pr. Ev. 1. Sacrificing Ifaac, which Eufebius relates
10.p. 40. from the work of Philo e Inday that
Pr. Ev.iv. he produces elſewhere from the First
16.p.156. Book of his Phenician Hiftory. By this
D. it ſhould feem,
(*) Thus it appears from
the abrupt beginnings of ma-
ny of Phil's Works, that
they were defigned to conti-
nue others, though of different
Titles. So St. Lukes Tear
Aóz was his Gospel, his
Second is Πράξεις ? Απο
7'ATO-
stawy, written, no doubt at
the fame time, and intended
to continue the fame Hiftory
where his Goſpel left it. So
immediately fubjoyned his
Life (as has already been
obferved by the moft Learn-
ed Dr. Ifaac Voffius) and af-
ter his Life his Books against
Appien, yet fo as that his Life
and his Two Books againſt Ap-
pion kept their diftin&t Titles,
none ever mentioning any
more than Twenty Books of
his Antiquities, excepting
Cafodore, who reckons Two
and Twenty, Div. Lect.c.17.
No doubt the Two odd Books
were thoſe againſt Appion. So
that it feems his Life,though
added as an Appendix to his
Twentieth Book, yet did not
encreaſe the Number.So The-
ephilus Antiochenus's Third
both that the proper Title of
the First Book was con-
cerning the Jews (as many
(*) Inftances might have
been given of fuch proper
Titles of Parts of larger
Works in thoſe times) and
that this Book diftina from
Philo's Preface,was reckon-
ed as the First Book, which
would again confirm what
I faid before to reconcile
Eufebius, who reckons Nine
Books of this Phoenician Hi-
ftory with Porphyry, who
reckons only Eight, that
this First Book was taken
into the Number of the
whole Work by Eufebius,
but left out by Porphyry,
becauſe it had a diftinct Ti-
tle by it felf. Unleſs poffi-
bly the fame paffage in the
First Book of the Phoenici-
an Hiſtory, were quoted
by Philo in that other work
of
( 81 )
of his concerning the Jews,
for I confess there is fome
difficulty in making them
the fame. However, for the
prefent, fuppofing that he
defigned one Book princi-
pally to give an acount of
Jewish Affairs; and that he
had withal,a farther defign
of arrogating the principal
ornaments of their Nation
to his own (of which his
other Work is alone fuffici
ent to render him fufpici-
ous, though he had no par-
ticular Book of this that
bore fuch a Title) and that
he knew that an account
from Phenician Records
here, would not be taken
for fufficient to confront
their own ſo much better,
and more Authentick Tefti-
monies concerning them-
felves, eſpecially when con-
firmed with fuch a concur.
rence of Teſtimonies of o-
ther Nations, Phenicians as
well as others, as he had
ſeen produced by Jofephus:
Book Ad Autolyc. was not
Antiently called the Third
Book as it is now, but by a
proper Title, Liber de Tempo-
ribus ad Autolyc. as appears
23. and it plainly begins with
a new addrefs, as if defigning
from Lactantius, Div. In§. 1.
a new Argument. So Cle-
mens Alexandrinas's Protrep-
tick, Pedagogus and Strama-
tes carry on the fame defign.
ribus Palatine plainly con-
nects with the end of the
Eighth Book of his Ecclefiafti-
cal Hiſtory, yet ſo as not to
difturb the account of his
Ten Books of that whole work.
So Eufebius's Book De Marry-
So the fame Eufebius's Three
Books againft Marcellus An-
cyranus, and Two De Ec-
clefiaftica Theologia belong
plainly to the fame work.
So the Seven Books of Laitai
tius of Divine Inflitutions,
have every one of them di-
ftinet Titles. But the inftance
of the Books of Lucifer Calz-
ritanus is moft remarkable.
They were all defigned as
parts of the fame work, writ-
ten continuedly, and intend-
ed to be preſented at the
fame time to the Emperour
Conftantius. Yet no continu-
ation of any one number of
Books, or Tit. There are
Two in defence of Athanafi
"s,one De Regibus Apoftaticis,
cum Hareticis, another non
There-
another De non conveniendo
( 82 )
I
Parcendo in Deum delinquenti-
bus,and laftly one De eo quod
moriendum fit pro Deifilio.
have been the more particu-
lar in theſe inftances, becauſe
as the Obfervations are uſe-
Therefore it may be, he
thought it fit his Sanchoni-
athon ſhould live in the time
of Abibalus the Father of
that Hiram, whofe time
was the higheſt Period of
any Phenician Teftimo-
nies, yet produced concerning Jewish
Affairs.
ful, ſo I have not found them
commonly taken notice of.
勿
​§. XXXVII. THIS time he makes either
equal, or a little before the Deftruction of
Troy, when he makes his Author equal to
Semiramis, who was, as he tells us, either
equal, or a little before that War. Which
yet is not fo to be understood, as if he
had fixed this time by the Age of Semira-
mis. No, he would have his Abibalus
equal with her, whofe Husband Ninus
was taken,as I faid, for the utmoſt Period
of Heathen Hiſtory. But the fixation of
this time, was from the time of Abibalus,
and that Abibalus no other than the Fa-
ther of Hiram. His time indeed, accor-
ding to the account that had already been
given from the Tyrian Records by Me-
nander Ephefius, will agree with what is
faid concerning the War of Troy. For
from the Twelfth of Hiram, concurrent
with the Fourth of Solomon wherein the
Temple was begun, to the building of
Carthage
( 83 )
•
Fofeph. c. Appion. L. 1.
P. 1042. B. 1043. F. &
apud Euf. Pr.Ev. X.13.
From whom Theophilus
Antiochenus's account
of that fame Number
from the fame Autho-
rity is to be corrected
L. ii. ad Autolyc. cxliii.
for cxxxiv.And Lantan-
tins who ufually follow-
Chronology has cxl.neg-
ed Theophilus in his
lecting the finaller
number.Div.Inft.iv.8.
Οι δὲ τέτων χρόνοι
Carthage by Dido are reckoned One Hun-
dred forty three years and Eight Months,
by Jofephus from Menander. If
therefore Dido received Æneas
coming from Troy, as Virgil and
his Authors will have it (as un-
doubtedly fo exact a Man as
he had Authors for what he faid,
and there is nothing fo certain-
ly agreed among Authors con-
cerning the building either of
Carthage or Rome to contradict
it) Sanchoniathon must then
have been fo much and more
as contemporary, not with
Hiram, but Abibalus) before the
War of Troy, as Porphyry him-
felf does exprefly place him.
Which there would yet have been more
pretence for with them who had followed
the account of Appian, who makes the ve- Appian.
ry building of Carthage to have been Fifty Panic.init,
years Elder than the Deſtruction of Troy.
I doubt not but it was a great miſtake, but
I am only concerned to fhew what ac-
count, right or wrong, they might have
followed who made him Elder than the
War of Troy. But if this fame number of
One hundred forty three years and Eight
Months was the distance between the War
Twin mÃ-
τεστ χρόνων. Porph.ap.
Ef.Pr.Ev.l.9.p.31.D.
of
(84)
Eujeb.
971.
ap. CI
Alex.
.326.
Chron. L. of Troy and the building of Carthage, as
ii. Num. Eufebius does conceive; then it will fol-
low that he was about the time of that
War. And to this exactly agrees the ac-
Menander count of the fame Menander and Latus,
& Larus (the Fublisher and Tranflator of Mochus,
Hypficrates and Theodotus) who make
Strom. 1. Menelaus put in at Phenicia in his return
from Troy in the time of Hiram. This
I take to be the true account of this doubt-
ful dif-junction concerning this time, be-
cauſe it is ſo very agreeable with the then
extant Phenician Authors. As for the
making Sanchoniathon equal with Semira-
mis, as it was indeed done very unskil-
fully ; ſo it ſeems (as I faid) to have been
with a defign to put him beyond all poffi-
bility of conviction by different Authors,
making him hereby fo far fuperior in time
to any Records that might pretend to ri-
val him, as that he must have been equal
to the utmost Period of time, that they
pretended with any confidence to give
any account of.
§. XXXVIII. AND having placed him
thus high, he was in courfe obliged to de-
rive his Means of Information yet higher.
But being to give an account of Jewish
Affairs, upon the Credit (as I faid) of
Jewish Teftimonies, yet very different
from
( 85 )
from thoſe which were owned and re-
ceived among the fews themſelves; he
was therefore obliged to bethink himſelf
of fome fewish Name to Father his Re-
cords upon, of whofe Writings the Jews
themſelves had never heard. And the
reaſons, why he was to make him a Priest,
might be of two forts: That he might
hereby recommend his Authors Credit,
becauſe thoſe moſt Antient accounts of
things were generally, as we have ſeen,de-
rived from Sacred Infcriptions in Temples
pretended alfo to have been written either
in Hieroglyphicks, or Sacred Characters,
to which as the Priests were fuppoſed to
have the eaſieſt accefs, fo they were alſo,
by thoſe Myftical Inftructions which they
were obliged to know as Priests, beſt
qualified for underſtanding them: And
that he might alfo give an account why
fuch unheard-of Writings might have been
fo long concealed from Vulgar knowledge,
becauſe being Sacred, and written by a
Sacred Perfon, they might have been kept
within the Adyta, only amongst the Priests,
which might alſo give an account how
they might afterwards mifcarry, before
the pretended Sanchoniathon was to ap-
pear to quote them, though they might
have been ſuppoſed really extant when
he
( 86 )
he was to Collect his Obfervations from
them. Accordingly, whoever of the
Philofophers, made it his bufineſs to en-
quire into the Monuments of any place,
whether Hiftorical, or Philofophical, made
his addreffes to the Priests of the place,
whole Antiquities he was defirous to
Famblich. learn. So Pythagoras in Phenicia to the
thagor. Prophets, the Pofterity of Mochus, in Ægypt
Porphyr to the Heliopolitane, Memphitane and
thag. Plu- Diofpolitane Priefts, particularly to Oenu-
tarch. So- phis or Pfenuphis, and perhaps Sonchis;
Jen & de Solon and Lycurgus, but particularly So-
Ofirid. lon, to the fame Priefts now mentioned
Clem. Al. Eudoxus to Chonuphis, and Plato to Sech-
nuphis. And for Plato, on occafion of
de vit. Py-
vit. Py-
Ifid. &
Strom. I.
P. 303. his Story of the Island Atlantis, and the
In Tim.
init.
Exploits of his own Country-men the
Athenians againſt them, for which he was
beholden, not to any Athenian Monu.
ments, but only to thoſe pretended to by
the Egyptian Saitane Priests: So he
thought himſelf concerned, as well as he
could, to defend their Credit, and to do
it by theſe degrees. First, though this
was only a matter of Secular History, yet
for the better recommendation of it, he
refers, not to Secular, but Sacred Records.
Next he affigns theſe Sacred Writings, as
was undoubtedly moft proper, to the
cuftody
( 87 )
Chr. Gr.
p. 6.
cuftody of the Priests. Then he infinu-
ates a Recommendation of the Credit of
their Prieſts, beyond any of other places
that might be oppoſed to them, from the
particular conveniences they enjoyed,
above others, for addicting themſelves
wholly to the employment of their own
Profeffion, and their unmixed nefs with
the Prophane Vulgar. Accordingly they
who, before Sanchoniathon, pretended to
Publiſh their own Records, were gene-
rally Prieſts. So was Berofus and Mane- Ap. Euſeb.
tho, and Charemon. And Manetho affumes
the Title in the very Dedication of his
Work, as if it were purpoſely to add the
greater credit to his performance. And
though the Jews pretended to no fuch
Sacred Pillars or Infcriptions; nor ever
kept their Sacred Books ſo reſerved from
the Vulgar, either in Sacred unknown
Characters, or by laying them up in the
Adyta; yet becauſe it was faſhionable,
they alſo infifted on the fame way of de-
fending their own Records against the
Heathens who contradicted them. So
Jofephus alſo reaſons. He alſo derives his Cont.
Information from the Sacred Records of his pion. L. 1
own Nation. He makes the preferving
thefe Records the peculiar Province of
their Priests. He infifts on the fame Qua-
•
lifications
P. 1036.
(88)
lifications of their Priests, which Plato had
uſed before him, their Separation from
Secular Employments, and their unmix-
edness with Vulgar Affinities. And as of-
ten as he has occafion to vindicate his own
Credit, either against Justus Tiberienfis,
or the then Gentile Authors who had given
other accounts of the Jewish War, than he
had done, though this were not a Subject
wherein he could pretend any Sacred Re-
cords, yet ſtill he infifts on this Topick of
his being a Prieft for Vindicating his own
-Antiq xvi. Hiftorical Credit againſt them. So that
11.P.563. from hence the Learned Bochart might
Appion. L. have ſeen a very uſeful reaſon why San-
1.p.1038. choniathon, when he makes his Hierom-
E. cont.
A.
Jan
baal not only a few, but a Prieft, fhould
alfo underſtand the name Priest in the
Sacred and Popular fignification.
§. XXXIX. AND having thus made him
a Jew and a Priest, it followed farther,
that he was to be made a Priest of the God
of the Jews. But Jao (which is the fame
name with Jevo, and is read for it in this
Theodoret. fame paffage of Porphyry concerning San-
Therap.ii. choniathon, as we have it in Theodoret)
is the name by which the God of the fews
was known among the Heathens, even
before the time of Philo Biblyus. Diodo-
thec.L.ii. rus Siculus in the time of Auguftus, had
Biblio-
exprefly
( 89 )
exprefly made Jae to be the God from
whom Mofes, as he would have it be-
lieved, pretended to have received his
Laws. And it may alfo hence be con-
jectured why he pitched on Gideon ra-
ther than any other on whom he was to
Father his Forgeries. He defignedly
chooſes to call him by his Sir-name of
Hierombaal, rather than his Original name
of Gideon, poffibly becauſe it was the
Faſhion, as on other occafions, fo on the
undertaking the Office of a Prieft, for
thoſe Orientals, to change their names, as
one Ceremony of their Confecration. Thus
Jofeph, whom they made a IeySaμμATEÙS,
had the Egyptian name given him of
Pfonthom-phanech in the Scripture, but
Petefeph in Charemon; Mofes
that of Ofarfiph in Manetho
Tifithen in Cheremon, Joachim,
but eſpecially Melchi with the
Myfte in Clemens Alexandri-
nus, And this might alfo have
been the reaſon why Nebuchad-
nezzar changed the names of
Daniel and the Three Children
when he had given them up to
the Inftitution of the Chaldeans who
were reputed Sacred among them. And
upon this account, as I ſaid, he thight the
rather
&
Cheremon ap. Fofeph. c.
Appion. L. 1. p. 1057.B.
Ofarfiph ap. Maneih. Fof.
c. Appian. L. 1. p. 1054. A
Tifthen ap. Chæremon.
fofeph. ib. p. 1057. B.
Foachim and Melchi after
his Affumption
into
Heaven. Clem. Alexandr¿
Strom. 1. p. 343. C.
( 90 )
rather make a Prieft of Gideon, becauſe
there is none of the Judges but he that
has any more than one name given him
in the Scripture. But infifting on his Au-
thority as a Prieſt, he might think it more
convenient to call him by his Mystical
Name, rather than by that by which he
was commonly known. Befides, who
knows but he might purpoſely pitch upon
the name 'Iteμßad that the very name
might feem to the Greeks (for whom
he defigned his pretended Tranflation)
to imply his being a 'ges? There are in-
numerable Examples of the like abfurd
Etymologies of Words of other Tongues,
efpecially among Mystical Writers of all
forts, both Jews and Gentiles, from Greek
Originals, which yet generally prevailed.
How much more eafie was it for him to
impoſe on them in a Tongue fo little un-
derſtood by them as the Hebrew or Pu-
nick? They themſelves took a Liberty of
doing it, when they had a mind to prove
their own Fictions from fuch ignorant
Etymologies. Thus Lyfimachus
proved that the Jews had built
their City Hierufalem, with
the Sacrilegious fpoils of all other
Temples and Altars they met
with in their way from the
Zyfimach. ap. Foſeph.
1058. G. So Eupol mus
derives Hierofolyma qua-
11 iegov Σshcus,
cont. Appion. L. 1. P.
ap. Eaſ, Pr. Ev. ix.
Etymo-
( 91 )
Etymology of Hierofolyma quafi isund.
Who knows alfo but he might himself
gather a thing he was fo willing fhould
prove true from the very Hebrew name
of Gideon? It may be he might think it
to have ſome affinity with the y
dred by the LXXII.
nundi
and
ren-
Vid. Selden
de Diis Syr.
to Syntagm.
é, which none can doubt to have been 1. c. 2. &
proper to the Sperftitions Priest hoads of Buxtorf.
thoſe times, of which kind it is molt like-
ly this Heathen would make that or Gi
deons. As for the Letter G, where it
ftands for y, there it is frequently neg.
lected, and even where it ftands for 1,
as it does here, yet it is eaſily changed for
another Letter of the fame Organ, as is.
But, if we muſt needs take in the 1, yet
he might poffibly collect the ſame from
If it fignific to .גרעין the root of גרע
deftroy, we know the Sacrifices were Sym-
bols of deftruction, either as acknowledg
ed due for paſt crimes, or as imprecated
in cafe of any new violation of Faith for
the future, as in thoſe which were uſed
in the making of Covenants. Accordingly St. Matth.
the word is ufed for deftruction, xxiv. 51.
no doubt in allufion to the r which
were cut into two pieces for the Covenanters
to pafs through. But if it fignifie to di-
vide, that is yet moſt properly the Priests
Offices
ou
G 2
A
(92)
Office, whence the Notion of os do toμeïn &
A620 in the Apoſtle, applyed to Sacrifices
Gen. iv. 7. in the LXXII. Whether by
dividing we underſtand the dividing the
whole for the Parties to paſs through,
or the dividing the back (whence the
Notion of τετραχηλισμένα in the Apoftle)
to look into the Entrails, or the dividing
the Fat to Gods part to be burnt, not re-
ferving it to themſelves, of which the
Ap. Hefiod. famous Story of Prometheus among the
Theogon. Heathens, which is fuppofed moſt pro-
perly to belong to the Cafe of Cain.
Gr. p. 6.
§. XL. It was alfo further ufual in thoſe
Precedents, whom our pretended Author
feems to emulate in Forging this work,
to begin their Antiquities with a Philofo-
phical Kooμoyería: So had Mofes, whofe
Tranſlation by the LXXII. very probably
In Fufeb. firſt ſet the reſt upon it. So had Berofus,
in Eufeb. as appears by what we have from Alexan.
Gr. p.6.& der Polyhistor out of his Firft Book. So
de Pr. Ev. Manetho's in his Book Sothis, the fame it
II.p.44.C.
ſhould ſeem with his igg Bis, in which
was contained his Theologia, another name
of the Myſtical accounts of thofe Firſt Ori-
ginals, and it may be the fame with the
buy mentioned by Suidas, and feems
to have been alfo the beginning of his
Hiſtory. Thus therefore Philo alfo
Voce Ma-
μαθών.
thought
( 93 ).
thought it convenient to begin his San-
choniathon with a Philofophical, but My-
ſtical account of the beginning of the
World. And here alfo the Egyptian
Notions had generally obtained. I have
ſhewn how Berofus and the Phenicians
came to pretend to them. I have alfo
fhewn. how the Doctrine even of Mofes
came to be taken into them. But it feems
to have been the cuſtom of the Ægypti-
ans, to father all their Arts and Monu-
ments, and Sacred Conftitutions on Her-
mes. Thence fo many thouſand Books De Myft.
aſcribed to him in Jamblichus. Nor was Chald.
it only taken up by them. It was uſual
in thoſe times to father the Monuments of
a Sect on the firſt Author of it. Thus the
Golden Verfes, and other works among
the Pythagoreans afcribed to
who yet is faid to have written
(*) nothing, and that with
à defign that his Difciples
might not read, but live ac-
cording to his Injunctions.
Thus Plato's Difcourfes father-
ed on Socrates who yet dif.
owned (*) his being the Au-
thor of many things there at-
tributed to him. Thus (*)
roaſtres's works kept fecret a-
G 3
Pythagoras,
Ægypt. &
* Fofeph. c. Appion. L. 1.
1046. E. Lucian de lapf.
in falut. S. Hieronym. adv.
Rufin. Plutarch. de Fort,
Alexand. L. 1. p.328. A.
Porphyr. vit. Pythag. p.
208. Claudian. Mam. de
Stat. Anm. L. 11. c. 3.
(*) Laert. L.111. Platon.
p. 78. B. The fame Athe-.
neus fays concerning
Za-Gorgias and Phedon De-
mong
ipnof. L.xi. c.15. P. 505.
2. 507. B. (*) Clem. Al
Str. 1. p. 394. D.
(94)
mong the Diſciples of Prodicus, a fhrewd
fufpicion of their being Forged by them.
And this modish way of thofe times was,
in all likelihood, the occafion of fo many
Suppofititious Works Forged by the Primi-
tive Hereticks under the name of the Apo-
(*) Eupo- files. So alfo (*) Enoch being owned by the
lem. ap. Babylonians for the Author of Judicial A-
Ev. L.ix. ftrology, and other Arts and Sciences, being
pretended to have been revealed to his
Son Mathufelah by an Angel, was in all
likelihood the occafion of Forging the
Prophecy of Enoch, and thoſe Diſcoveries
Fragm.ap. pretended in it by the "Ezsúpp。 though it
Phyf. & allo appears that the Books of Mercury
Euf. Pr.
Stob. Eclog.
La&tant.
ii. 15, 16.
(1) Ex-
prefly
favoured the fame accounts of the fall of
Div. Inft. thofe Angels, becauſe the Babylonians and
Ægyptians both pretended to the fame
Traditions at Heliopolis. But in no fort
of Writing was this more frequent than
in their (1) Dialogues, which was the
owned by Form generally obferved in theſe pre-
Cicero Ep. tended Works of Mercury. And I can-
ad Varron. not tell, but thefe fame Traditions of
Academ. the Heliopolitanes were fo far counte-
& Macrob. nanced by the Jews themſelves, as their
Saturnal. own Revealed Religion would give
leave. The account of Mofes's Expc-
dition into Athiopia, and feveral other
things much for his advantage, was taken
ante Qual.
L. I.C. I.
by
( 95 )
by Artapanus from the Heliopo-
litanes, and greedily followed
by Jofephus, which fhews no ill
underſtanding among them. So
alfo does the Jews chooling
that place above all others, to
build their Ægyptian Temple
of Onias, I mean at the Helio-
politane Leontopolis in
Artapan.apud Eufeb.Pr.
Er. ix. 27. p. 432. D.
Fofeph. Aut. ii. 5.
fofeph. Ant. xii. 15.
xiii. 6. xx. 8. Bell. Jud.
vii. 30.
contradiftinction
to Leontopolis, that was the head of a di-
ftinct vous. Nor is there any heed to be
taken of the Rabbins who place it in Alex-
andria, though I believe, by Alexandria vid.sellen
they mean the whole Egyptian Colony de Succeff.
of Jews, in oppofition to their Colonies Heb. L. ii.
in other Countries.
XLI. THIS Ægyptian Philofopher there-
fore, being that which was ingredient in
moſt of the received Kooμojeval, at leaſt
being pretended and conceived to be fo,
how different foever the accounts were,
which were pretended from that fame
Original; therefore Philo Byblius alfo
thought it fit to take it into his pretended
Sanchoniathon. And becauſe he had found
it Fathered on Authors who fo little
agreed concerning the Particulars of it,
where it was to be had, and who muſt
therefore fome of them be certainly miſta-
ken; it was therefore neceſſary to pre-
G 4
tend
in Pontif.
C. &
( 96 )
tend to fome very certain means of Infor
mation. Accordingly he alſo pretends to
the Writings, not the Pillars of Taautus
or Mercury. Which, by the way, makes
it fufpicious that he took his Informations
from the Books as Publiſhed from the He-
liopolitane Pillars, feeing he does not him-
felf, ſo much as pretend to the Original
Pillars themſelves; and yet to fecure his
Credit from being only at the Second hand,
he pretends that Mercury caufed them to
be written Originally, not in Pillars, but
in Books. But becauſe fo many before
him who had pretended to thoſe ſame
Writings, had yet miſtaken in Interpret-
ing them; he therefore contrives a likely
account how they might have a likely oc-
cafion of fuch mistakes, and yet himſelf
be free from the Sufpicion of the like Er-
rors. He pretends therefore that the firft
Writings of Mercury, had extricated the
Philofophical accounts of the firft Origi-
nals of things, from the Mythological Arts
of concealment, wherein Antiquity had
involved them; and that it was fome
while after, but yet before any communi-
cation with the Greeks, that the Prieſts
had again involved them. Which yet be-
ing done before Orpheus's time, by whoſe
means they came to the Greeks, was a plain
occafion
(97)
occafion how the Greek Writers, who fol-
lowed thoſe latter accounts darkened pur-
pofely by the Priefts, might be miſtaken.
Becauſe they had nothing to inform them
but theſe defignedly obfcure Allegories,
which were both capable of many fenfes
in themſelves; and if any certain fenfe
had been preſerved, yet it had not been
eafily diſcoverable by the Greeks without
the Priests, who, as I faid, were not for-
ward to communicate any thing of that
nature to Strangers.
Pr.Ev.i.x.
P. 39. C.
§. XLII. AND by the fame means be
had alſo provided an account how the
Ægyptians themſelves might be miſtaken
concerning their own Philofophy. For
thofe Priefts, who firft involved them,
are faid to have delivered them down
thus obfcured, both to their own Suc- Ap. Eufeb.
ceffors, & To`s ÈTE OU's, that is, to fuch as
were initiated in their Myfteries, as I be-
lieve Vigerus has rightly rendred it. It
feems then, that they muft not have been
ſuppoſed to have cleared them, even to
fuch as were initiated, which fure they
would have done, if themſelves had pre-
ferved any certain Tradition concerning
them. Accordingly they are fuppoſed to
have continued under this obſcurity, till
(after many Generations from Taqutus) 1b.p.40.B
Surmu-
( 98 )
ལ་
Surmubelus and Thuro are faid to have
again unriddled them. So I underſtand
Ithoſe words of
Philo Byblius ; αλληλείαις
ἐπεσκιασμένην ἢ Θεολογίαν ἐφώτισαν. For this
feems to have been the Notion of that
Sacred terms, as it is uſed in the
counterfeit Writings of Mercury (whom
this Author follows) and the Pen-men
of the New-Teftament, and other fuch
Writers of that Age, for the Revelation of
Myfteries. I fuppofe from that Literal
Jedi and was, and withdrawing of
the Vail before the Shrine of the Image by
the Ἱεροφάντης, which were in the ordinary
courfe of Initiation to be uſed to thofe
who were brought into the dark Adyta,
and initiated in the higher fort of Initia-
tion called 'ETоlea. Theſe therefore I
fufpect to have been pretended for the
Authors of the 'Απόκρυφα Αμμονίων γράμματα,
to which this Author pretended, as has
already been obſerved. Wherein if I be
not miſtaken, it will than be further fuf-
picious, that thefe Authors themſelves did
not ſo diſcover them as to make them com-
mon to the prophane Vulgar, but only fo
as to retrieve the Traditions of the Priests,
which had probably, by that time, quite
miſcarried, after they had been ſo long re-
ſerved in their Breafts, and intruſted only
to
(99)
to Oral-Tradition. For, if theſe diſcove-
ries had been defigned for the Vulgar, the
Writings which contained them, would
not have been ſtyled 'Apua, (the pro-
per term for Mystical Writings) nor con-
fined to the A, and by that means
rendred inacceffible to uninitiated Perfons,
as they are fuppofed to have been. Be-
fides that, by the prefent extant Epiftle of
Ammon, it appears that the Ammonians
muſt not have been for divulging their
Myfteries.
. XLIII. AND in giving this account
how all that had before him, written on
this Subject, might have been miſtaken,
he at the fame time fecured his own Auú-
thority from the like Exceptions. For
having pretended before, that Taautus
had written his Books clear from thoſe
Mythologies and Allegories wherein they
had been involved by the Priests, and
were afterwards again involved till they
were a fecond time unriddled by Surmu-
belus and Thurosand having made his San-
choniathon derive his Information imme-
diately, both from Taautu's own Books,
and from the Books of thoſe Expofitors,
who afterwards retrieved his way of
fpeaking clearly without Allegories: He
had hereby fecured himſelf of two things
of
( 100 )
照
​of great moment for recommending his
Credit. One was, that his Informations
were derived from clear and unobfcured
Originals, not from Allegorical and Se-
cond-hand accounts, from them who had
no mind to be underſtood by thofe to
whom they communicated their Myste-
ries. Another was that, even for thoſe
Originals themſelves, he did not depend
on a fingle Authority. The confent of
the Writings of Mercury, with thoſe of
the Ammonians, were to be mutual atte-
ſtations of the Sincerity of each (at leaſt
would be pleaded as fuch by him) that
neither the Original Writings of Taantus,
nor thoſe retrievements from the Ammo-
nians, might ſeem fufpitious of being the
Fictions of thoſe who first produced
them. For having pretended them to be
from diftant Writers, and diftant places,
and Sacred inacceffible Records; it would
be pretended that there could not have
been that Communication between them,
as to make them able to agree in Forge-
ries. Yet was not this excluding of Alle-
gories to be underſtood fo, as if he had
avoided all Fables; but particularly with
reſpect to the Stoical way, whether by
them derived to the later Ægyptians, or
borrowed from them. That was to Alle-
gorize
( 101 )
gorize their firſt Hiſtories into a Koruozvia,
a Syſteme of Natural Philofophy, to make
Jupiter fignifie the Ether, Juno the Air,
Vefta the Earth, Neptune the Sea, &c.
and fo to Allegorize the Hiftory of the
Actions of thoſe Perſons into a Hiſtory of
Nature, as if indeed there had never been
fuch Actions or Perfons, but only that the
feveral Elements of Nature had been
Myſtically reprefented by fuch Names, and
the Phenomena of Nature had,by a Poetical
Profopopæia, been turned into a Romance.
That theſe were indeed the Allegories de-
figned by Philo Byblius, appears by theſe
words of his : Ἀλλ᾿ οἱ μὲν νεώτατοι ἢ ἱερολόγων, Philo Byblo
τα μὲν γεγονότα πράγματα δξ ἀρχῆς ἀποπέμψαντο, ap. Eur.Pr.
αλληγορία; καὶ μύθος επινοήσαντες, καὶ τοῖς κοσμικοῖς
παθήμασι συγγένειαν πλασάμενοι, μυςήρια κατέςησαν,
καὶ πολὺν αὐτοῖς ἐπῆγον τύφον ὡς μή ραδίως προ συνο
ραν τα καλο αλήθειαν γενόμενα.
Αλληγορήσεις, τοῖς τε φυσικοῖς καὶ κοσμικοῖς πάθεων Ap. Eufeb.
αναμίξας,
avaias, &c. And what with graceful Pr. Ev. L.
mixtures of Poetical fancy, in the moſt
Antient Writers of their First Originals,
who were generally Poets; what with
that delight of the Antients in Parables,
and in veſting their Parables with Histo-
rical and likely Circumstances; what with
that ordinary Method of theſe Myſtical
Writers, who uſually made way for their
Allegories,
And again,
Ev. 1. 9..
X. P 39.C.
( 102 )
啡
​Allegories by catching at little occafions of
confuting the Hiftorical Truth of what
they defigned to Allegorize (wherein we
fee them imitated by Philo, Origen, and
the other Antients who firft began to pra-
ctice this way with the Scriptures) I fay
with all thefe ways, they made it indeed
feem likely, if not concerning all that was
faid of thofe Perfons,yet concerning many
of them, that they were not fo much as
defigned for Hiftorical Truths, but only
for Allegorical Reprefentation. Yet thefe
not being diftinguiſhable from their de-
figned Hiftories, at least not in later times
after the obliteration of the Original Tra-
ditions; and being withal delivered on
the fame Authority which delivered the
defigned Hiftories; must therefore render
all their Hiftories liable to juſt Suſpi-
cion.
§. XLIV. NOR does it ſeem to have
been the way of Allegorizing only, that
Philo found fault with in the Greek Wri-
ters,
and that uncertainty of their Hifto-
ries which neceffarily followed there-
upon; but alſo the indecorouſneſs of
their Allegories to their Deities, which
the Epicureans and Jews before, but now
in Philo's time, the Chriftians had lately
made great advantage of, for expofing
the
( 103 )
Antr.
the received Religions. When he makes
Anobret (defigned the fame with Sarah)
an επιχεις. νύμφη. The very name of Vid. Por
Nymph is Allegorical, and in the Philofo-phyr. de
phical Allegories, of a peculiar fignificati Nymphar.
on. This therefore Philo takes particu-
lar notice of, that from theſe Allegories
of the Phenician Priests, the Greeks had
taken occafion to fet up thoſe which were
fo very offenfive, and
اد
gave ſo
great ad-
vantage to their common Adverfaries.
Ενθεν Ησίοδο, ὅτε κυκλικοί περιηγημένοι θεολογίας, Philo ap.
και γιγαντομαχίας, καὶ Τιτανομαχίας ἔπλασαν ἰδίας Eujeb, Pr.
κι εκτιμάς οἷς συμπεριφερόμενοι, εξενίκησαν ἢ ἀλήθειαν.
Ev. 1. 9.
Theſe were the Allegories fo much decry-
ed, not only by Adverfaries, but difown-
ed by the Philofophers generally, and fuch
generally as, with any judgment, under-
took the defence of the received Religi-
ons: That the Gods fhould have a begin-
ning, and be Born by the Conjunction of
Males and Females like other Mortals,
(this he means by their sopvia) That
they ſhould be molefted by Wars, and
reduced to fo great extremities, as the
Fablers pretended, in the Wars with the
Giants,and Typhon and Enceladus and the
Titans (thoſe were the Tauazio and
Tiravoμazia) That they ſhould Emafculate
one another as Saturn is pretended to
have
( 104 )
gor. Ho-
mer
de Audi-
358.Procl.
+
have ferved Ouranus, and Jupiter his Fa-
ther Saturn (thofe are the 'ExToual here
meant.) Theſe the wifeft Men looked
on, not only as corruptions of their Hi-
ftories, but as reproaches to their Gods,
and Religions. Plato difowned them,
De Alle- and therefore fends Homer Crowned out
of his Common-wealth. So did Hera-
Plutarch. clides, and generally the Stoicks, who for
end. Poet, this very reafon turned them into Allego-
de 1.& of- ry. So Plutarch, Proclus and Macrobius.
rid. p.355. And therefore here Philo thought he
Theol. might do an acceptable piece of fervice to
Plat.Lib.1. the common cauſe of Philofophy and Pa-
crob.Somn. ganiſm in general, if he could from the
Scip. L. Originals of thefe Fictions, fhew that they
were intended for no other but Fictions,
by thoſe who first invented them; and
that they had no grounds in their Firſt
and moſt ſimple, and moſt creditable Tra-
ditions and Hiftories,but were fuper-added
by thoſe who neither did, nor could pre-
tend to any new means of Information,
and by this means diſoblige their common
caufe, from the defence of what the com-
mon conſent of their Wife men had
granted, to be indeed fo very indefen-
fible.
C. 4. Ma-
I. C. 2.
§. XLV. HE pretends therefore, in his
own History, to give us, from the fore-
mentioned
(105)
mentioned Records, the Hiftorical Truth
concerning thofe Antient Perfons and
Actions of the Phenicians, free from thoſe
Additional paffages concerning them,
which were only invented for defigns of
Allegory, whether by the Greeks, or the
Phoenician Priefts themfelves. Yet nei-
ther fo does his performance agree with
his undertaking. However it comes to
paſs (whether through the heedleſsneſs of
Philo, or his Injudiciousness in his choice
out of extant Hiftories, what he was to
Father on his Sanchoniathon) we have
fome things intermixed, which neither are
likely to have been true, nor to have
been defigned for fuch by the Authors;
nay feem to have been defigned for no
other than Allegorical Senfes, and that in
the worst moft indefenfible way of Alle-
gorizing, from which he had pretended to
vindicate their received Religion. He
make's his Saturn Emafculate his Father
Ouranus. Here is one of the 'Exual which
he had before reckoned among the moſt
Scandalous fort of Allegories. But this he
may poffibly pretend to have been done
by his Man Saturn, who was afterwards
by miſtake made a God, eſpecially as the
name God implyed not a Divine Honour
only, but alſo a Divine Nature. And con
H
cerning
( 106 )
μα
ποίων εἰς
τις πηγές,
27 ποτα
ap.
cerning the Man it might have been Hiſto-
rically true, and defigned for no more by
his pretended Sanchoniathon.
But what
ſhall we fay to that which follows, where
Amise he makes the Blood that flowed from the
aura-Wound of Ouranus to have paffed into the
μx 7 di- Springs and Rivers? What? one Man's
Joiwy eis Blood, and from fuch a Wound as that
was, to have flowed into the Fountains
vrand Rivers? Certainly this could have
Sara. been meant for no other but an Allegory.
Eufeb. Ib. It is like what is told concerning Ofiris
p. 38. B. among the Ægyptians, and the Tears of
Sophia among the Valentinians, who ſeem
to have borrowed much of their Herefie
from the Ægyptians, where it firſt
appear-
ed. And I can hardly doubt, but that this
was intended by the Authors from whom
he took it, to fhew the true Original of
Fountains and Rivers, that the Waters be-
neath the Firmament, as the Scripture di-
ftinguiſhes them, were derived from thoſe
above the Firmament; the Fountains of
the Deep fupplied from the Windows of
Heaven; the Fountains and the Rivers nou-
rifhed by the Rain which came from
Ouers, in the larger
includes the Air alfo.
dering this as taken
gyptian, by the Rivers
Notion of it, as it
And poffibly confi-
from Taautus an Æ-
might be meant
the
(107)
the feveral Oftia and Cuts of Nilus, from
which no doubt all the Fountains of Æ-
gypt proceeded, which were accordingly
turned alſo into Blood, when Nilus was fo ;
and then he might allude to the Tradition
of the Egyptians, that Nilus was derived
from Heaven, as Diodorus tells us.
So Homer calls it Amr.
Πεὶν γ᾽ ὅτ' ἂν Αιγύπλοκο Λείπετε ποταμοί
AUT; &dwp EN ņ;. →→→→→→
And again,
Αψ δ' εἰς Αιγύπλοο Διϊπετέθ ποταμοδο
Στῆσα νέα
AïgulⒸ with him is Nils. And I am apt
to think that the reafon why he called it
Ali was becauſe of all thofe many
Opinions which were afterwards raiſed
concerning the Rife of Nilus,he rather in-
clined to that which derived it from the
Air which is called Jupiter and 'Ougards, as
I faid in the larger Senfe, whether from
the Rain or the melted Snow, both of
which belong to Jupiter in the fenfe now
mentioned. The moſt Antient and moſt
Popular Opinions are most likely to have
been intended by the Mythologers. And to
prove that this was fo, we cannot have a
fitter Teſtimony than this of Homer. He is
one of the moft Antient of the Pagan Wri
ters. As a Poet, he is moſt fuited to Vulgar
capacity, and of neareſt affinity to the Mỹ-
thologifts. He was an Egyptian Born, of
the
H 2
-
Οδυσσ. Δ.
Ib.
( 108 )
the Egyptian Thebes, if we may believe
Heliodorus. But whether we believe him or
not, yet it is more unanimouſly agreed,that
he learned moſt of his Philofophical Noti-
ons from the Ægyptians. Whence it will
follow,that this was moſt probably the Po-
pular received opinion among the Egypti
ans in the time of Homer. And of the Two
Opinions (which as I ſaid,do make for this
purpoſe) one of them was received by moſt
of the Greateſt and moſt Antient even a-
mong the Ægyptians themſelves. That the
Nilus had its Original from Rain, was the
(1) Aristotle. Anonym. Opinion of (1) Ariftotle, (2)
ap. Phot. Cod. ccxlix. Agatharchides, and of the Ægyp-
tian Priefts, as (3) Eudoxus af
fures us. That it was from Snow
was the fenfe of (4) Democritus,
(5) Anaxagoras,(6) Eschylus,(7)
Sophocles, (8) Euripides, and all
(9) Antiquity,mentioned alfo by
(10) Lucretius and (11) Mela,
whether foever of the two be
true, or was thought fo by the
Antient Ægyptians, or by the moſt Antient
Philofophers (who in all likelihood bor-
rowed what they faid concerning it from
the Egyptians) is equally fubfervient, to
fhew what might have been the actual
fenfe of the pretended Hermes in this Al-
(2) Agatharchides. Dio-
dor.Sicul.Bibl.L.1.The-
opk. Simocatta ap. Phot.
Cod, LXV.
(3) Ap. Plutarch. de
Plac. Philof. L. iv. c.1.
(45) Diodor.Sic.Bib.L.1
(6789) Senec. Nat.
Quæſt. iv. 2.
(10) Lucret. L. vi.
(11) Mela. l. 9.
Dioder, sic. Bibl. L. 1.
legory.
( 109 )
legory. And that Nilus is derived from the
Blood of the Genitals of Ouranus, rather
than any other part,might have been to ex-
preſs the Fruitfulneſs of this River above
all others.The Slime it brought along with
it, manured the Land for Corn, and was
withal ſo very Prolifick, as that it engen-
dred ſeveral Animals, and made Women
Fruitful that uſed the Water,and gave oc-
cafion to the Fancy of thofe Antient Athe-
ifts, who thought the firſt Men produced
out of the Slime of Nilus. Now if I have
hit the meaning right in this inſtance, this
will alſo afford a new Argument againſt
our pretended Sancheniathon. Either he
pretended falfly that Taautus was free
from thefe Phyfiological Allegories, eſpeci-
ally from the Scandalous fort of them,and
this was a miſtake that muſt needs have
been willful, and with ill defign. He muft
needs have known from the Books them-
felves, if he had indeed any fuch Books,
whether any ſuch matter was fo much as
pretended by him. If it was pretended, but
falfly; that will ruine the Credit of Taan-
tus himſelf, and make him ſuſpicious of be-
ing forged by fome Modern concerned
Author, which will confequently ruine the
Credit of Sanchoniathon alſo, if he pretend
to know Fictions invented fo long after
H 3
his
( 110 )
his own time. Or elfe he did not confine
himſelf to thofe Informations of Taantus,
which were indeed free from fuch Allego-
ries.And this will alfo be another convicti-
on of his Unfincerity in pretending what
he did not intend to perform. In all likeli-
hood it was Philo who here betrayed him-
felf, and forgot the Perfon he was to A&
under the name of Sanchoniathon. Which
will be a conviction of his difingenuous
dealing in this, as well as his other pre-
tended means of Information.
§. XLVI. THIS feems to have been this
Authors defign in pretending to the now
mentioned means of Information. If I might
prefume yet farther, to guefs why he pitch-
ed on the very name of Sanchoniathon, on
whom he was defirous to Father his Forge-
ries; I do not know whether it might not
have been in imitation of the Ægyptian
Solen, Plu- Sonchis, to whom Solon and Pythagoras are
lan.& de j. faid to have been beholden for what difco-
fd.& Ofir.d. veries were made to them of the Ægyptian
rythagoras Philofopby. He is ftiled an Aps, and
Strom. 1. Ayaτarisgiwy, one of the moſt Learned
sarch.in So
Clem.Alex.
of their Prieſts of Sais, Characters excel-
lently qualifying him for underſtanding
their Sacred Records, thofe eſpecially of
his Country-man the Egyptian Mercury.
But yet becauſe he was to make him as
well
( 111 )
Bibl. L.iii.
well as Mercury, pafs for Phenicians ;
therefore he might think it fit a little to
diſguiſe his name with a termination diffe-
rent from that whereby he was known to
the Alexandrians, as he had done in the
name of Mercury. He calls him defignedly
Taautus, whom he confeffes that the Egyp-
tians called Owwę, the Alexandrians ☺wód.
Why might he not accordingly call him
Sanchoniathon, whom the Ægyptians called
Sonchis, eſpecially if by fuch a change he
could draw fuch an Argument for his cre-
dit from his very name, as Bochart con-
ceives? This Sonchis had taught Solon the
'Arλartınès aóy&. This feems to have been no Diodor.Si
other than the 'Atλaviy oλoyía in Diodo- ap. Eufeb.
rus Siculus, and in all likelihood was the Pr. Ev.
fame with that of Mercury, as this of San L. ii.
choniathon was profeffedly. For thoſe At-
lantii challenged Mercury for theirs, and
made him the Son of Maja the Daughter
of their famous Aftrological Atlas, and it
may be this was the reaſon why our pre-
tended Sanchoniathon alſo thought fit to
challenge Atlas as a Phænician, that they
might alſo have the double Title to that
fame Philofophy, on account of Atlas as
well as of Mercury. I am apt to fufpect that
the occafion of this Philofophy of the At-
lantii might have been taken from the men-
H 4
tion
( 112 )
tion of the Atlantick Iſland in Plato's Ti-
maus. This, fome Author well known to
Diodorus, might (in imitation of the Phi-
lofophical Mythologies, then fo much in
faſhion, and particularly of Enemerus who
wrote his Sacred Hiftory from a like pre-
tended Пenynas of a fictious Island called
Panchaia) have made the Subject of new
Diſcoveries. He might have Perſonated
fome who had found it, and in deſcribing
the place and the People, it very well be-
came the Poem, to have given an account
of their Sentiments, on thoſe Subjects con-
cerning which that Age was fo very inqui-
fitive and curious. Yet it alfo became it to
derive them from Atlas, and fo to fit their
Opinions to his Perfon. Or perhaps it might
rather have been that yet more antient ac-
count of Solon, concerning the Atlantes in
Verfe,from whom Plato took his firſt occa-
Plutarch. fion,but (as Plutarch tells us) never lived to
Solon. P. finifhit. It ſhould ſeem the deſign of theſe
92, 96.
Atlantick Difcourfes both of Solon and
Plato was much larger than that fſmall ac-
count given in Plato's Timens. From ſome
of theſe, rather than Timans, it is probable
Elian. de that lian had his Tradition that the
Animal. Kings of Atlantes that were of Neptunes
race, wore their Diadems of Hee-goats as
their Queens did of Shee-goats hairs. The
IV. 2.
Nation
( 113 )
~
Melpom.
nim. vii.2.
Nation of the Atlantes are mentioned by Herodot.
the Antients as inhabiting at the foot of Mela. 14.
Mount Atlas, the Oxy in Ælian, 8. Plin.N.
upon whom theſe Traditions were imme. Hift. v.13.
diately Fathered. And the Country there-
abouts,as it is deſcribed by the fame Elian Elian. A-
probably from the fame Traditions, was
very pleaſant and Sacred, and upon both
accounts, very fit for the Scene of fuch a
Poetick Philofophy. But though that might
have been the Poetick Scene, yet the Ægyp
tians ſeem to have been the Poets that con-
trived theſe Stories, that we may not ad-
mire how it fhould agree with the Do-
&rine of Mercury. For as Plato had it from
Solon, lo Solon feems to have pretended it
no higher than Sonchis the Egyptian. And
confidering the Antiquity pretended of
thefe Atlantians, no Nation could or did
pretend to fuch Information concerning a
Nation fituate in the Weft of Africa as the
Ægyptians.Befides Enoch was taken for the
fame with this famous Aftrological Atlas, as Eupolemus
Eupolemus tells us. How could they have ap.Euf.Pr.
taken up this conjecture, but from the a-
greement they had obferved between the
Doctrines of Atlas, and thoſe of Enoch?
How could they guess at the Doctrine of
Enoch, but by the Apocryphal Writings then
extant under his Name? The Atlantick
Doctrines
Ev.L. ix.
(114)
Doctrines therefore agreed with thoſe of
the Book of Enoch, and that thoſe agreed
alſo with the Forgeries then extant under
the name of Mercury, has already been ob-
S. 40. ferved. So that Sonchis taught Solon no-
thing but what had very well become the
Perfon of Sanchoniathon.
§.XLVII. THUS I have endeavoured to
give an account of the defign of this whole
Fiction,and that fuch a one as might agree
both with the Time and Perfon of Philo
Byblius. I have fhewn what liberty the
Principles of thofe Philofophers allowed
them for the Practice of fuch difingenuities.
I have ſhewn how little fuch an Author as
Sanchoniathon was known before the time
of Philo Byblius, notwithſtanding all the
ſearch that had been made into the Phæni-
cians Records,and how little regarded after.
I have fhewn how little he favoured of the
Antient fimplicity, and how much of the
Modern Emulations. I have fhewn how lit-
tle creditable he is in his pretended means
of Information, and how far from that fin-
gular Love of Truth, for which he would
have it believed,that his Sanchoniathon was
fo particularly remarkable. I have ſhewn
that thoſe means themſelves are alſo fufpici-
ons,either that they never were extant, as
the Memories of Gideon; or that they were
Coun-
( 115 )
Counterfeited themſelves, as the Writings
of Taautus and the Ammonians, and that
long after the time that Sanchoniathon is
pretended to have lived in ; that he could
have followed no Jewish Records in his ac-
counts of Jewish matters; and that his fol-
lowing the Writings of Mercury and the
Ammonians, divulged ſo long after his pre-
tended Age, are rather Convictions of his
Falfe-hood, than a Recommendation of his
Credit.I have endeavoured alfo, as far as I
could guess from the Circumstances he li-
ved in, to give a particular account of the
occafion and deſign of each particular ob-
ferved in the management of this whole
Frand. And I know not what can be de-
fired more for the Conviction of it at this
diſtance of time, and loſs of Original Mo-
numents.
§. XLVIII. NOR can I fee that this dif
covery will in the leaft injure the Caufe for
which thofe Pious as well as Learned Per-
fons have been concerned, who have hi-
therto made ufe of this Author for ex-
pounding or confirming fome Hiftorical or
Philofophical paffages of Scripture. If there
were any of thefe Heathen Antiquities, that
could either pretend to the Age of the Scri-
ptures, or to that even Domeftick Evidence
of being genuine, there might then be ſome
pretence
( 116 )
pretence for reconciling or confirming
fome paffages of the Scriptures by them
for their uſe who did not grant the advan-
tage of the Sacred Writers above their
own in regard of their Divine Inspiration.
But we never hear of any of thoſe Heathen
accounts of things mentioned in the Scrip-
tures,before the Tranflation of the LXXII
put
them into an Emulation. Then it was
that Berofus,and Manetho, and Menander,
and Letus firſt made and publiſhed their
Enquiries. No mention of the Chaldean
Xifuthrus, nor of the Egyptian Hycfi, nor
of Abraham nor Mofes, nor the general De-
luge in Ctefias or Xenophon, or Herodotus, or
any of thoſe more Antient certainly-genu-
ine Writers. When they did publiſh them,
the very Records pretended for them
make them fufpicious of Forgery. They
were pretended only from Sacred Pillars
extant in Adyta, and thefe very Pillars
challenged in feveral places, yet not acceffi-
ble by any who had been defirous to con-
vict them. But the Scriptures were only
then Tranflated. The Originals were extant
long before in Books acceffible and intelligi-
ble by any who had the curiofity to learn
their Tongue. I do not infiſt on the Tranfla-
tion pretended to have been in Plato's time,
becauſe I find no better Arguments for it
than
( 114 )
than gueſſes that Plato had fome things
from the Sacred Writings, which I believe
he had not, befides that fuch a Suppofition
is directly contrary to the much better at-
tefted Story of Ariftans concerning the
Tranflation performed by the command
of Ptolomy Philadelphus. I rather chooſe
thoſe more Antient inftances of Theopompus
the Hiftorian, and Theodectes the Poet,who
had ſeen and underſtood thefe Books of
Jews,before the Tranflation of Philadelphus,
as we are aflured by Demetrius Phalereus Ap.Fofep.
in Ariftans, befides that even the Book Ant. xii.2.
of Daniel, one of the lateſt of them, was
yet fhewn to Alexander the Great, if we Ant. xi.8.
may believe Jofephus. So that even from
the Greeks we have as early Evidence of
their being known, as we have of their
being enquired after, or of their being in
a capacity to underſtand them, and there
can be no reaſon to expect earlier. Befides
the repugnancy of thoſe other Nations to
each other, and of the different Authors Cont. Ap-
even of the fame Nation, were certain pion. L.1.
Arguments that they did not write from
the fame uniform and true Records, as the
Jews who all agreed in the fame Books, as
Jofephus obferves. And for the Pentateuch,
that of the Samaritanes muſt in all likely-
hood
P. 1036.F.
( 118 )
hood have been received from them before
the the time of the LXXII. both becauſe
the Samaritanes were before that fo ex-
afperated by the Jews, as that it is not
likely they would receive any fuch thing
from them, and becauſe it fhould feem the
Prophets were not then collected by the
Jews that they might have been delivered
to them, and becauſe they ſtill preſerve it
in the Old Hebrew Character, not in that
which was afterwards introduced by Ef-
dras. Upon all theſe accounts it cannot
be thought reaſonable either to oppoſe
thefe Heathen accounts to the Scriptures,
or to think that any thing can be made
more creditable in the Scriptures, becauſe
it is confirmed by the confent of fo ex-
ceptionable Authorities. I have rather
fhewn that the occafion of their agreeing
in Philofophical matters, was rather their
imitating and allowing the Authority of
Mofes, and making him the Standard of
their feveral Kosugeria. Which may in-
deed be of uſe for fhewing Hiſtorically
how that part of Mofes was actually un-
derſtood from thofe times wherein theſe
Heathen accounts were firſt produced;but
can be of no farther ufe for fhewing either
the fenfe of Mofes, or how the anti-
ent
( 119 )
ent firſt Deliverers of his Doctrine did
actually underſtand him, than as theſe
things may be inferred, or prefumed,
from the actual fenfe of thoſe later times,
wherein thefe Heathen Antiquities firſt ap-
peared.
FINI S.
MODERN INGLIS DICTIONAAL