facts, buildings, wars, armies and kingdoms, is what we must expect in their accounts and if we make due allowance for it; we shall find in many points a greater coincidence of what they write, with what is hinted in Scripture, than one who has not examined would expect. The sacred history says, that Nimrod began a kingdom at Babel," and the time of his beginning it must be computed to be about A. M. 1757. To this agrees in a remarkable manner the account which Callisthenes formed of the astronomical observations, which had been made at Babylon before Alexander took that city; who supposed them to reach one thousand nine hundred and three years backward from Alexander's coming thither; so that they began at A. M. 1771,* about fourteen years after the rise of Nimrod's kingdom. I have already remarked, that the writers who deny the Babylonian antiquities, endeavour as their hypothesis requires they should, to set aside this account of Callisthenes. Sir J. Marsham would prefer the h Gen. x. ver. 10, i See vol. i. b. iv. 157. accounts of Berosus or Epigenes before it,' but to them I have already answered." Our illustrious author seems best pleased with what Diodorus Siculus relates," that when Alexander the Great was in Asia, the Chaldeans reckoned four hundred and seventy-three thousand years, since they first began to observe the stars." This I allow might be the boast of the Chaldeans; but I would observe from what Callisthenes reported, that a stranger, when admitted accurately to examine their accounts, could find no such thing. The ancients, before they computed the year by the sun's motion, had many years of various lengths, calculated from divers estimates, and among the rest the Chaldeans are remarkable for having had years so short, that they imagined their ancient kings had lived or reigned above six, seven, or ten thousand of them." Something of a like nature might be the four hundred and seventy-three thousand years ascribed to their astronomy; and Callisthenes, upon re ducing them to solar years, might judge they contained but one thousand nine hundred and three real years, and so conclude that their observations reached no further backward. This seems the most probable account of those observations; and I think, that our great author's inclination to his hypothesis was the only reason, which in`duced him to produce the four hundred and seventy-three thousand years of the Chaldeans, and to seem to intimate that Callisthenes' report of one thousand nine hundred and three reached only to a part of them,' the largest number being most likely to make the Assyrian antiquities appear extravagant. The profane historians generally carry up their kingdom of Assyria to Ninus, and Ninus reigned when Abraham was born." Now we are well assured from the Scriptures, that the Assyrian antiquities are not hereby carried up too high; for in the time. of Nimrod, Ashur erected a kingdom and built several cities in this country.' The See Diodor. Sic. Gen. x. ver. 11. profane historians represent Ninus as having been a very great conqueror, and relate, that he subjected the Asiatic nations to his empire. The sacred history confirms this particular very remarkably; for it informs us, that the king of Elam in the days of Abraham had nations subject to his service, about eight or nine hundred miles distant from the city of his residence; for so far we must compute from Elam to the five cities, which served Chedorlaomer twelve years. We find from Scripture, that Chedorlaomor lost the obedience of these countries; and after Abraham's defeating his armies, until Tiglath-Pileser, the Assyrian kings appear to have had no dominion over the nations between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates. This indeed seems to confine the Assyrian empire within narrower bounds, than can well agree with the accounts which the heathen writers give of it; but then it is remarkable, that these enlarged accounts come from hands comparatively modern. Diodorus informs us, that he took his from "Gen. xiv. Ctesias: Ctesias might have the number of his ancient Assyrian kings, and the time or length of their reigns, from the Persian Chronicles; but as all writers have agreed to ascribe no great actions to any of them from after Ninus to Sardanapalus; so it appears most reasonable to suppose, that the Persian registries made but a very short mention of them; for ancient registries afforded but little history, and therefore I suspect that Ctesias' estimate of the ancient Assyrian grandeur was rather formed from what he knew to be true of the Persian empire, than taken from any authentic accounts of the ancient Assyrian. The profane historians relate, that the Assyrian empire was broken down at the death of Sardanapalus; but the Jews having at this time no concern with the Assyrians, the sacred writers do not mention this great revolution. However, all the accounts in Scripture of the kings of Assyria, and of the kings of Babylon, which are subsequent to the times of Sardanapalus, will appear to be reconcileable to the supposition of such a subversion of this ancient empire, * Lib. 2. 2 See Gen. v, x, xi, xxxvi, &c. ▾ Id. ibid. |