Demonax | Hellenic Library Beta

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: Library » text » Manetho: History of Egypt
text:history_of_egypt

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
text:history_of_egypt [2013/08/23 22:00] – [Fr. 32 (a) (from Syncellus).] fredmondtext:history_of_egypt [2013/08/24 08:06] – fredmond
Line 979: Line 979:
 Dynasty XIII Dynasty XIII
  
-Fr. 38º (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.+==== Fr. 38º (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Africanus.
  
 The Thirteenth Dynasty10 consisted of sixty kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 453 years. The Thirteenth Dynasty10 consisted of sixty kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 453 years.
-Fr. 39 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.+ 
 +==== Fr. 39 (a) (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Eusebius.
  
 The Thirteenth Dynasty consisted of sixty kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 453 years. The Thirteenth Dynasty consisted of sixty kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 453 years.
-p75 (b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.+(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.
  
 The Thirteenth Dynasty consisted of sixty kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 453 years. The Thirteenth Dynasty consisted of sixty kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 453 years.
 Dynasty XIV Dynasty XIV
-Fr. 41 (a)º (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.+ 
 +==== Fr. 41 (a)º (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Africanus.
  
 The Fourteenth Dynasty11 consisted of seventy‑six kings of Xoïs, who reigned for 184 years. The Fourteenth Dynasty11 consisted of seventy‑six kings of Xoïs, who reigned for 184 years.
Line 999: Line 1010:
 The Fourteenth Dynasty consisted of seventy‑six kings of Xoïs, who reigned for 484 years. The Fourteenth Dynasty consisted of seventy‑six kings of Xoïs, who reigned for 484 years.
 p77 The Hyksôs Age, c. 1700-c. 1580 B.C.12 p77 The Hyksôs Age, c. 1700-c. 1580 B.C.12
-Fr. 42 (from Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.14, §§ 73‑92).+ 
 +==== Fr. 42 (from Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.14, §§ 73‑92). ==== 
  
 [Josephus is citing the records of neighbouring nations in proof of the antiquity of the Jews.] [Josephus is citing the records of neighbouring nations in proof of the antiquity of the Jews.]
Line 1015: Line 1028:
 91 In another book37 of his History of Egypt Manetho says that this race of so‑called Shepherds is, in the sacred books of Egypt, described as "captives"; and his statement is correct. With our remotest ancestors, indeed, it was a hereditary custom to feed sheep; and as they lived a nomadic life, they were called Shepherds.38 92 On the other hand, in the Egyptian records they were not unreasonably styled Captives, since our ancestor Joseph told the king of Egypt39 that he was a captive, and later, with the p91king's consent, summoned his brethren to Egypt. But I shall investigate this subject more fully in another place.40 91 In another book37 of his History of Egypt Manetho says that this race of so‑called Shepherds is, in the sacred books of Egypt, described as "captives"; and his statement is correct. With our remotest ancestors, indeed, it was a hereditary custom to feed sheep; and as they lived a nomadic life, they were called Shepherds.38 92 On the other hand, in the Egyptian records they were not unreasonably styled Captives, since our ancestor Joseph told the king of Egypt39 that he was a captive, and later, with the p91king's consent, summoned his brethren to Egypt. But I shall investigate this subject more fully in another place.40
 Dynasty XV Dynasty XV
-Fr. 43 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.41+ 
 +==== Fr. 43 (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Africanus.41
  
 The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of Shepherd Kings. There were six foreign kings from Phoenicia,42 who seized Memphis: in the Sethroïte nome they founded a town, from which base they subdued Egypt. The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of Shepherd Kings. There were six foreign kings from Phoenicia,42 who seized Memphis: in the Sethroïte nome they founded a town, from which base they subdued Egypt.
Line 1032: Line 1049:
  
 Total, 284 years. Total, 284 years.
-p93 Fr. 44 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.+ 
 +==== Fr. 44 (a) (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Eusebius.
  
 The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 250 years. The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 250 years.
Line 1039: Line 1060:
 The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 250 years. The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 250 years.
 Dynasty XVI Dynasty XVI
-Fr. 45 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.+ 
 +==== Fr. 45 (from Syncellus). ==== 
 + 
 + 
 +According to Africanus.
  
 The Sixteenth Dynasty were Shepherd Kings again, 32 in number: they reigned for 518 years.47 The Sixteenth Dynasty were Shepherd Kings again, 32 in number: they reigned for 518 years.47
-Fr. 46 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.+ 
 +==== Fr. 46 (a) (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Eusebius.
  
 The Sixteenth Dynasty were kings of Thebes, 5 in number: they reigned for 190 years. The Sixteenth Dynasty were kings of Thebes, 5 in number: they reigned for 190 years.
Line 1048: Line 1077:
  
 The Sixteenth Dynasty were kings of Thebes, 5 in number: they reigned for 190 years. The Sixteenth Dynasty were kings of Thebes, 5 in number: they reigned for 190 years.
-p95 Dynasty XVII + 
-Fr. 47 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.+Dynasty XVII 
 + 
 +==== Fr. 47 (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Africanus.
  
 The Seventeenth Dynasty48 were Shepherd Kings again, 43 in number, and kings of Thebes or Diospolis, 43 in number. The Seventeenth Dynasty48 were Shepherd Kings again, 43 in number, and kings of Thebes or Diospolis, 43 in number.
  
 Total of the reigns of the Shepherd Kings and the Theban kings, 151 years.49 Total of the reigns of the Shepherd Kings and the Theban kings, 151 years.49
-Fr. 48 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.+ 
 +==== Fr. 48 (a) (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Eusebius.
  
 The Seventeenth Dynasty were Shepherds and brothers:50 they were foreign kings from Phoenicia, who seized Memphis. The Seventeenth Dynasty were Shepherds and brothers:50 they were foreign kings from Phoenicia, who seized Memphis.
Line 1082: Line 1120:
  
 It was in their time that Joseph appears to have ruled in Egypt.54 It was in their time that Joseph appears to have ruled in Egypt.54
-p99 Fr. 49 (from the Scholia to Plato).+Fr. 49 (from the Scholia to Plato).
  
 Saïtic, of Saïs. From the Aegyptiaca of Manetho. The Seventeenth Dynasty consisted of Shepherds: they were brothers55 from Phoenicia, foreign kings, who seized Memphis. The first of these kings, Saïtês, reigned for 19 years: the Saïte nome56 is called after him. These kings founded in the Sethroïte nome a town, from which as a base they subdued Egypt. Saïtic, of Saïs. From the Aegyptiaca of Manetho. The Seventeenth Dynasty consisted of Shepherds: they were brothers55 from Phoenicia, foreign kings, who seized Memphis. The first of these kings, Saïtês, reigned for 19 years: the Saïte nome56 is called after him. These kings founded in the Sethroïte nome a town, from which as a base they subdued Egypt.
Line 1089: Line 1127:
  
 Saïtês added 12 hours to the month, to make its length 30 days; and he added 6 days to the year, which thus comprised 365 days.57 Saïtês added 12 hours to the month, to make its length 30 days; and he added 6 days to the year, which thus comprised 365 days.57
 +
 p101 Dynasties, XVIII,58 XIX p101 Dynasties, XVIII,58 XIX
-Fr. 50 (from Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.15, 16, §§ 93‑105) — (continued from Fr. 42).+ 
 +==== Fr. 50 (from Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.15, 16, §§ 93‑105) — (continued from Fr. 42). ==== 
  
 93 For the present I am citing the Egyptians as witnesses to this antiquity of ours. I shall therefore resume my quotations from Manetho's works in their reference to chronology. His account is as follows: 94 "After the departure of the tribe of the Shepherds from Egypt to Jerusalem, Tethmôsis,59 the king who drove them out of Egypt, reigned for 25 years 4 months until his death, when he was succeeded by his son Chebrôn, who ruled for 13 years. 95 After him Amenôphis reigned for 20 years 7 months; then his sister Amessis for 21 years 9 months; then her son Mêphrês for 12 years 9 months; then his son Mêphramuthôsis for 25 years 10 months; 96 then his son Thmôsis for 9 years 8 months; then his son Amenôphis p103for 30 years 10 months;60 then his son Ôrus for 36 years 5 months; then his daughter Acenchêrês for 12 years 1 month; then her brother Rathôtis for 9 years; 97 then his son Acenchêrês for 12 years 5 months, his son Acenchêrês II for 12 years 3 months, his son Harmaïs for 4 years 1 month, his son Ramessês for 1 year 4 months, his son Harmessês Miamûn61 for 66 years 2 months, his son Amenôphis for 19 years 6 months, 98 and his son Sethôs, also called Ramessês,62 whose power lay in his cavalry and his fleet. This king appointed his brother Harmaïs viceroy of Egypt, and invested him with all the royal prerogatives, except that he charged him not to wear a diadem, nor to wrong the queen, the mother of his children, and to refrain likewise from the royal concubines. 99 He then set out on an expedition against Cyprus and Phoenicia and later against the Assyrians and the p105Medes; and he subjugated them all, some by the sword, others without a blow and merely by the menace of his mighty host. In the pride of his conquests, he continued his advance with still greater boldness, and subdued the cities and lands of the East. 100 When a considerable time had elapsed, Harmaïs who had been left behind in Egypt, recklessly contravened all his brother's injunctions. He outraged the queen and proceeded to make free with the concubines; then, following the advice of his friends, he began to wear a diadem and rose in revolt against his brother. 101 The warden of the priests of Egypt63 then wrote a letter which he sent to Sethôsis, revealing all the details, including the revolt of his brother Harmaïs. Sethôsis forthwith returned to Pêlusium64 and took possession of his kingdom;65 102 and the land was named Aegyptus after him. It is said that Sethôs was called Aegyptus, and his brother Harmaïs, Danaus."66 93 For the present I am citing the Egyptians as witnesses to this antiquity of ours. I shall therefore resume my quotations from Manetho's works in their reference to chronology. His account is as follows: 94 "After the departure of the tribe of the Shepherds from Egypt to Jerusalem, Tethmôsis,59 the king who drove them out of Egypt, reigned for 25 years 4 months until his death, when he was succeeded by his son Chebrôn, who ruled for 13 years. 95 After him Amenôphis reigned for 20 years 7 months; then his sister Amessis for 21 years 9 months; then her son Mêphrês for 12 years 9 months; then his son Mêphramuthôsis for 25 years 10 months; 96 then his son Thmôsis for 9 years 8 months; then his son Amenôphis p103for 30 years 10 months;60 then his son Ôrus for 36 years 5 months; then his daughter Acenchêrês for 12 years 1 month; then her brother Rathôtis for 9 years; 97 then his son Acenchêrês for 12 years 5 months, his son Acenchêrês II for 12 years 3 months, his son Harmaïs for 4 years 1 month, his son Ramessês for 1 year 4 months, his son Harmessês Miamûn61 for 66 years 2 months, his son Amenôphis for 19 years 6 months, 98 and his son Sethôs, also called Ramessês,62 whose power lay in his cavalry and his fleet. This king appointed his brother Harmaïs viceroy of Egypt, and invested him with all the royal prerogatives, except that he charged him not to wear a diadem, nor to wrong the queen, the mother of his children, and to refrain likewise from the royal concubines. 99 He then set out on an expedition against Cyprus and Phoenicia and later against the Assyrians and the p105Medes; and he subjugated them all, some by the sword, others without a blow and merely by the menace of his mighty host. In the pride of his conquests, he continued his advance with still greater boldness, and subdued the cities and lands of the East. 100 When a considerable time had elapsed, Harmaïs who had been left behind in Egypt, recklessly contravened all his brother's injunctions. He outraged the queen and proceeded to make free with the concubines; then, following the advice of his friends, he began to wear a diadem and rose in revolt against his brother. 101 The warden of the priests of Egypt63 then wrote a letter which he sent to Sethôsis, revealing all the details, including the revolt of his brother Harmaïs. Sethôsis forthwith returned to Pêlusium64 and took possession of his kingdom;65 102 and the land was named Aegyptus after him. It is said that Sethôs was called Aegyptus, and his brother Harmaïs, Danaus."66
  
 p107 103 Such is Manetho's account; and, if the time is reckoned according to the years mentioned, it is clear that the so‑called Shepherds, our ancestors, quitted Egypt and settled in our land 393 years67 before the coming of Danaus to Argos. Yet the Argives regard Danaus as belonging to a remote antiquity.68 104 Thus Manetho has given us evidence from Egyptian records upon two very important points: first, upon our coming to Egypt from elsewhere; and secondly, upon our departure from Egypt at a date so remote that it preceded the Trojan war69 by wellnigh a thousand years.70 105 As for the additions which Manetho has made, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he has himself admitted, from anonymous legendary tales,71 I shall later refute them in detail, and show the improbability of his lying stories. p107 103 Such is Manetho's account; and, if the time is reckoned according to the years mentioned, it is clear that the so‑called Shepherds, our ancestors, quitted Egypt and settled in our land 393 years67 before the coming of Danaus to Argos. Yet the Argives regard Danaus as belonging to a remote antiquity.68 104 Thus Manetho has given us evidence from Egyptian records upon two very important points: first, upon our coming to Egypt from elsewhere; and secondly, upon our departure from Egypt at a date so remote that it preceded the Trojan war69 by wellnigh a thousand years.70 105 As for the additions which Manetho has made, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he has himself admitted, from anonymous legendary tales,71 I shall later refute them in detail, and show the improbability of his lying stories.
-Fr. 5172 (from Theophilus, Ad Autolyc. III.19).+ 
 +==== Fr. 51 (from Theophilus, Ad Autolyc. III.19). ==== 
  
 Moses was the leader of the Jews, as I have already said, when they had been expelled from Egypt by p109King Pharaôh whose name was Tethmôsis. After the expulsion of the people, this king, it is said, reigned for 25 years 4 months, according to Manetho's reckoning. Moses was the leader of the Jews, as I have already said, when they had been expelled from Egypt by p109King Pharaôh whose name was Tethmôsis. After the expulsion of the people, this king, it is said, reigned for 25 years 4 months, according to Manetho's reckoning.
Line 1132: Line 1175:
  
 Then, his son Sethôs, also called Ramessês, for 10 years. He is said to have possessed a large force of cavalry and an organized fleet. Then, his son Sethôs, also called Ramessês, for 10 years. He is said to have possessed a large force of cavalry and an organized fleet.
 +
 Dynasty XVIII Dynasty XVIII
-Fr. 52 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.+ 
 +==== Fr. 52 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus. ==== 
  
 The Eighteenth Dynasty73 consisted of 16 kings of Diospolis. The Eighteenth Dynasty73 consisted of 16 kings of Diospolis.
Line 1145: Line 1191:
 The fourth king (queen), Amensis (Amersis), reigned for 22 years. The fourth king (queen), Amensis (Amersis), reigned for 22 years.
  
-p113 The fifth, Misaphris, for 13 years.+The fifth, Misaphris, for 13 years.
  
 The sixth, Misphragmuthôsis, for 26 years: in his reign the flood of Deucalion's time occurred. The sixth, Misphragmuthôsis, for 26 years: in his reign the flood of Deucalion's time occurred.
Line 1172: Line 1218:
  
 Total, 263 years. Total, 263 years.
-p115 Fr. 53 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.+ 
 +==== Fr. 53 (a) (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Eusebius.
  
 The Eighteenth Dynasty consisted of fourteen kings of Diospolis. The Eighteenth Dynasty consisted of fourteen kings of Diospolis.
Line 1233: Line 1283:
 8. Orus, for 28 years. 8. Orus, for 28 years.
  
-p119 9. Achencheres . . ., for 16 years. In his time Moses became leader of the Hebrews in their exodus from Egypt.+9. Achencheres . . ., for 16 years. In his time Moses became leader of the Hebrews in their exodus from Egypt.
  
 10. Acherres, for 8 years. 10. Acherres, for 8 years.
Line 1246: Line 1296:
  
 Total for the dynasty, 348 years. Total for the dynasty, 348 years.
-Fr. 54 (from Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.26‑31, §§ 227‑287).+ 
 +==== Fr. 54 (from Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.26‑31, §§ 227‑287). ==== 
  
 (Josephus discusses the calumnies of the Egyptians against the Jews, whom they hate.) (Josephus discusses the calumnies of the Egyptians against the Jews, whom they hate.)
Line 1256: Line 1308:
 254 To begin with, the reason which he suggests for his fiction is ridiculous. "King Amenôphis," he says, "conceived a desire to see the gods." Gods indeed! If he means the gods established by their ordinances, — bull, goat, crocodiles, and dog‑faced baboons, — he had them before his eyes; 255 and as for the gods of heaven, how could he see them? And why did he conceive this eager desire? Because, by Zeus,98 before his time another king p135had seen them! From this predecessor, then, he had learned their nature and the manner in which he had seen them, and in consequence he had no need of a new system. 256 Moreover, the prophet by whose aid the king expected to succeed in his endeavour, was a sage. How, then, did he fail to foresee the impossibility of realizing this desire? It did, in fact, come to naught. And what reason had he for ascribing the invisibility of the gods to the presence of cripples or lepers? Divine wrath is due to impious deeds, not to physical deformities. 257 Next, how could 80,000 lepers and invalids be gathered together in practically a single day? The prophet had bidden him expel the cripples from Egypt, but the king cast them into stone-quarries, as if he needed labourers, not as if his purpose was to purge the land. 258 Manetho says, moreover, that the prophet took his own life, because he foresaw the anger of the gods and the fate in store for Egypt, but left in writing his prediction to the king. 259 Then how was it that the prophet had not from the first foreknowledge of his own death? Why did he not forthwith oppose the king's desire to see the gods? Was it reasonable to be afraid of misfortunes which were not to happen in his time? Or what worse fate could have been his than that which he hastened to inflict upon himself? 254 To begin with, the reason which he suggests for his fiction is ridiculous. "King Amenôphis," he says, "conceived a desire to see the gods." Gods indeed! If he means the gods established by their ordinances, — bull, goat, crocodiles, and dog‑faced baboons, — he had them before his eyes; 255 and as for the gods of heaven, how could he see them? And why did he conceive this eager desire? Because, by Zeus,98 before his time another king p135had seen them! From this predecessor, then, he had learned their nature and the manner in which he had seen them, and in consequence he had no need of a new system. 256 Moreover, the prophet by whose aid the king expected to succeed in his endeavour, was a sage. How, then, did he fail to foresee the impossibility of realizing this desire? It did, in fact, come to naught. And what reason had he for ascribing the invisibility of the gods to the presence of cripples or lepers? Divine wrath is due to impious deeds, not to physical deformities. 257 Next, how could 80,000 lepers and invalids be gathered together in practically a single day? The prophet had bidden him expel the cripples from Egypt, but the king cast them into stone-quarries, as if he needed labourers, not as if his purpose was to purge the land. 258 Manetho says, moreover, that the prophet took his own life, because he foresaw the anger of the gods and the fate in store for Egypt, but left in writing his prediction to the king. 259 Then how was it that the prophet had not from the first foreknowledge of his own death? Why did he not forthwith oppose the king's desire to see the gods? Was it reasonable to be afraid of misfortunes which were not to happen in his time? Or what worse fate could have been his than that which he hastened to inflict upon himself?
  
-260 But let us now examine99 the most ridiculous part p137of the whole story. Although he had learned these facts, and conceived a dread of the future, the king did not, even then, expel from his land those cripples of whose taint he had previously been bidden to purge Egypt, but instead, at their request, he gave them as their city (Manetho says) the former habitation of the Shepherds, Auaris, as it was called. 261 Here, he adds, they assembled, and selected as their leader a man who had formerly been a priest in Heliopolis. This man (according to Manetho) instructed them not to worship the gods nor to refrain from the animals revered in Egypt, but to sacrifice and devour them all, and to have intercourse with none save those of their own confederacy. Then having bound his followers by oath to abide strictly by these laws, he fortified Auaris and waged war against the king. 262 This leader, Manetho adds, sent to Jerusalem, inviting the people to join in alliance with him, and promising to give them Auaris, which, he reminded them, was the ancestral home of those who would come from Jerusalem, and would serve as a base for their conquest of the whole of Egypt. 263 Then, continues Manetho, they advanced with an army of 200,000 men; and Amenôphis, king of Egypt, thinking he ought not to fight against the gods, fled straightway into Ethiopia after enjoining that Apis and some of the other sacred animals should be entrusted to the custody of the priests. 264 Thereafter, the men from Jerusalem came on, made desolate the cities, burned down the temples, massacred p139the priests, and, in short, committed every possible kind of lawlessness and savagery. 265 The priest who framed their constitution and their laws was, according to Manetho, a native of Hêliopolis, Osarsêph by name, after Osiris the god worshipped in Hêliopolis: but he changed his name and called himself Moses. 266 Thirteen years later — this being the destined period of his exile — Amenôphis, according to Manetho, advanced from Ethiopia with a large army, and joining battle with the Shepherds and the polluted people, he defeated them, killing many, after pursuing them to the frontiers of Syria.+260 But let us now examine99 the most ridiculous part of the whole story. Although he had learned these facts, and conceived a dread of the future, the king did not, even then, expel from his land those cripples of whose taint he had previously been bidden to purge Egypt, but instead, at their request, he gave them as their city (Manetho says) the former habitation of the Shepherds, Auaris, as it was called. 261 Here, he adds, they assembled, and selected as their leader a man who had formerly been a priest in Heliopolis. This man (according to Manetho) instructed them not to worship the gods nor to refrain from the animals revered in Egypt, but to sacrifice and devour them all, and to have intercourse with none save those of their own confederacy. Then having bound his followers by oath to abide strictly by these laws, he fortified Auaris and waged war against the king. 262 This leader, Manetho adds, sent to Jerusalem, inviting the people to join in alliance with him, and promising to give them Auaris, which, he reminded them, was the ancestral home of those who would come from Jerusalem, and would serve as a base for their conquest of the whole of Egypt. 263 Then, continues Manetho, they advanced with an army of 200,000 men; and Amenôphis, king of Egypt, thinking he ought not to fight against the gods, fled straightway into Ethiopia after enjoining that Apis and some of the other sacred animals should be entrusted to the custody of the priests. 264 Thereafter, the men from Jerusalem came on, made desolate the cities, burned down the temples, massacred p139the priests, and, in short, committed every possible kind of lawlessness and savagery. 265 The priest who framed their constitution and their laws was, according to Manetho, a native of Hêliopolis, Osarsêph by name, after Osiris the god worshipped in Hêliopolis: but he changed his name and called himself Moses. 266 Thirteen years later — this being the destined period of his exile — Amenôphis, according to Manetho, advanced from Ethiopia with a large army, and joining battle with the Shepherds and the polluted people, he defeated them, killing many, after pursuing them to the frontiers of Syria.
  
 267 Here again Manetho fails to realize the improbability of his lying tale. Even if the lepers and their accompanying horde were previously angry with the king and the others who had treated them thus in obedience to the seer's prediction, certainly when they had left the stone-quarries and received from him a city and land, they would have grown more kindly disposed to him. 268 If indeed they still hated him, they would have plotted against him personally, instead of declaring war against the whole people; for obviously so large a company must have had numerous relatives in Egypt. 269 Notwithstanding, once they had resolved to make war on the Egyptians, they would never have ventured to direct their warfare against their gods, nor would they have framed laws completely opposed to the ancestral code under which they had been brought up. 270 We must, however, be grateful to Manetho for stating that the p141authors of this lawlessness were not the newcomers from Jerusalem, but that company of people who were themselves Egyptians, and that it was, above all, their priests who devised the scheme and bound the multitude by oath. 267 Here again Manetho fails to realize the improbability of his lying tale. Even if the lepers and their accompanying horde were previously angry with the king and the others who had treated them thus in obedience to the seer's prediction, certainly when they had left the stone-quarries and received from him a city and land, they would have grown more kindly disposed to him. 268 If indeed they still hated him, they would have plotted against him personally, instead of declaring war against the whole people; for obviously so large a company must have had numerous relatives in Egypt. 269 Notwithstanding, once they had resolved to make war on the Egyptians, they would never have ventured to direct their warfare against their gods, nor would they have framed laws completely opposed to the ancestral code under which they had been brought up. 270 We must, however, be grateful to Manetho for stating that the p141authors of this lawlessness were not the newcomers from Jerusalem, but that company of people who were themselves Egyptians, and that it was, above all, their priests who devised the scheme and bound the multitude by oath.
Line 1264: Line 1316:
 278 Thus, according to Manetho, our race is not of Egyptian origin, nor did it receive any admixture of Egyptians. For, naturally, many of the lepers and invalids died in the stone-quarries during their long term of hardship, many others in the subsequent battles, and most of all in the final engagement and the rout. 278 Thus, according to Manetho, our race is not of Egyptian origin, nor did it receive any admixture of Egyptians. For, naturally, many of the lepers and invalids died in the stone-quarries during their long term of hardship, many others in the subsequent battles, and most of all in the final engagement and the rout.
  
-p145 279 It remains for me to reply to Manetho's statements about Moses. The Egyptians regard him as a wonderful, even a divine being, but wish to claim him as their own by an incredible calumny, alleging that he belonged to Hêliopolis and was dismissed from his priesthood there owing to leprosy. 280 The records, however, show that he lived 518 years101 earlier, and led our forefathers up out of Egypt to the land which we inhabit at the present time. 281 And that he suffered from no such physical affliction is clear from his own words. He has, in fact, forbidden lepers102 either to stay in a town or to make their abode in a village; they must go about in solitude, with their garments rent. Anyone who touches them or lives under the same roof with them he considers unclean. 282 Moreover, even if the malady is cured and the leper resumes normal health, Moses has prescribed certain rites of purification — to cleanse himself in a bath of spring-water and to shave off all his hair, — and enjoins the performance of a number of different sacrifices before entrance into the holy city. 283 Yet it would have been natural, on the contrary, for a victim of this scourge to show some consideration and kindly feeling for those who shared the same misfortune. 284 It was not only about lepers that he framed such laws: those who had even the slightest mutilation of the body were disqualified for the priesthood;103 and if a priest in the course of his ministry met with an p147accident of this nature, he was deprived of his office. 285 How improbable, then, that Moses should be so foolish as to frame these laws, or that men brought together by such misfortunes should approve of legislation against themselves, to their own shame and injury! 286 But, further, the name, too, has been transformed in an extremely improbable way. According to Manetho, Moses was called Osarsêph. These names, however, are not interchangeable: the true name means "one saved out of the water," for water is called "mō‑y" by the Egyptians.104+279 It remains for me to reply to Manetho's statements about Moses. The Egyptians regard him as a wonderful, even a divine being, but wish to claim him as their own by an incredible calumny, alleging that he belonged to Hêliopolis and was dismissed from his priesthood there owing to leprosy. 280 The records, however, show that he lived 518 years101 earlier, and led our forefathers up out of Egypt to the land which we inhabit at the present time. 281 And that he suffered from no such physical affliction is clear from his own words. He has, in fact, forbidden lepers102 either to stay in a town or to make their abode in a village; they must go about in solitude, with their garments rent. Anyone who touches them or lives under the same roof with them he considers unclean. 282 Moreover, even if the malady is cured and the leper resumes normal health, Moses has prescribed certain rites of purification — to cleanse himself in a bath of spring-water and to shave off all his hair, — and enjoins the performance of a number of different sacrifices before entrance into the holy city. 283 Yet it would have been natural, on the contrary, for a victim of this scourge to show some consideration and kindly feeling for those who shared the same misfortune. 284 It was not only about lepers that he framed such laws: those who had even the slightest mutilation of the body were disqualified for the priesthood;103 and if a priest in the course of his ministry met with an p147accident of this nature, he was deprived of his office. 285 How improbable, then, that Moses should be so foolish as to frame these laws, or that men brought together by such misfortunes should approve of legislation against themselves, to their own shame and injury! 286 But, further, the name, too, has been transformed in an extremely improbable way. According to Manetho, Moses was called Osarsêph. These names, however, are not interchangeable: the true name means "one saved out of the water," for water is called "mō‑y" by the Egyptians.104
  
 287 It is now, therefore, sufficiently obvious, I think, that, so long as Manetho followed the ancient records, he did not stray far from the truth; but when he turned to unauthorized legends, he either combined them in an improbable form or else gave credence to certain prejudiced informants. 287 It is now, therefore, sufficiently obvious, I think, that, so long as Manetho followed the ancient records, he did not stray far from the truth; but when he turned to unauthorized legends, he either combined them in an improbable form or else gave credence to certain prejudiced informants.
-p149 Dynasty XIX + 
-Fr. 55 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.+Dynasty XIX 
 + 
 +==== Fr. 55 (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Africanus.
  
 The Nineteenth Dynasty105 consisted of seven (six) kings of Diospolis. The Nineteenth Dynasty105 consisted of seven (six) kings of Diospolis.
Line 1286: Line 1343:
 Total, 209 years. Total, 209 years.
  
-p151 Sum total in the Second Book of Manetho, ninety‑six kings, for 2121 years.107 +Sum total in the Second Book of Manetho, ninety‑six kings, for 2121 years.107 
-Fr. 56 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.+ 
 +==== Fr. 56 (a) (from Syncellus). ==== 
 +  
 + 
 +According to Eusebius.
  
 The Nineteenth Dynasty consisted of five kings of Diospolis. The Nineteenth Dynasty consisted of five kings of Diospolis.
Line 1316: Line 1377:
 4. Ammenemes, for 26 years. 4. Ammenemes, for 26 years.
  
-p153 5. Thuoris, by Homer called the active and gallant Polybus, in whose time Troy was taken, reigned for 7 years.+5. Thuoris, by Homer called the active and gallant Polybus, in whose time Troy was taken, reigned for 7 years.
  
 Total, 194 years. Total, 194 years.
  
 In the Second Book of Manetho there is a total of ninety‑two kings, reigning for 2121 years. In the Second Book of Manetho there is a total of ninety‑two kings, reigning for 2121 years.
 +
 The Editor's Notes: The Editor's Notes:
  
Line 1807: Line 1869:
  
 107 For the corrected total of Book II, see Fr. 4, n. 4 (246 or 289 kings for 2221 years). The wide difference between the number of kings (96 or 92 as compared with 246 or 289) is puzzling: Meyer conjectures that about 150 or 193 of the larger numbers were ephemeral or co‑regents.  107 For the corrected total of Book II, see Fr. 4, n. 4 (246 or 289 kings for 2221 years). The wide difference between the number of kings (96 or 92 as compared with 246 or 289) is puzzling: Meyer conjectures that about 150 or 193 of the larger numbers were ephemeral or co‑regents. 
 +
 +
 +----
 +
 +
text/history_of_egypt.txt · Last modified: 2014/01/15 11:57 by 127.0.0.1