Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

Book Fifteen — the multiplication of mankind after the flood

SECOND DISPUTATION. On the Antiquity of the Egyptians

LatineEnglish

SECOND DISPUTATION. On the Antiquity of the Egyptians.

SECUNDA DISPUTATIO. De Antiquitate Aegyptiorum.

SI Mezraim primus Aegypti habitator fuit primusque Aegyptiorum parens, ex eo apparet quanta sit Aegyptiorum vetustas: namque a diluvio (post quod non paucis annis Mezraim terram Aegypti petiit et coluit, eiusque genti initium dedit) ad hanc usque diem nondum quatuor annorum millia exacta sunt. Ergo quae de innumerabilibus suorum regum suarumque rerum ac gentis annis iactant Aegyptii apud Herodotum, Platonem, Diodorum et Melam, ut aniles nugae ac poetarum fabulae meraque mendacia rideantur et contemnantur. Audi quid Pomponius Mela de istorum vanitate scribat: Ipsi, inquit, vetustissimi (ut praedicant) hominum, trecenos et triginta reges ante Amasim, et supra tredecim millium annorum aetates certis annalibus referunt; mandatumque literis servant, dum Aegyptii sunt, quater cursus suos vertisse sidera, ac Solem iam occidisse bis unde nunc oritur. Sic ille.
If Mezraim was the first inhabitant of Egypt and the first parent of the Egyptians, from this appears how great is the antiquity of the Egyptians: for from the flood (after which, not a few years later, Mezraim sought and cultivated the land of Egypt, and gave a beginning to his nation) up to this day not yet four thousand years have been completed. Therefore the things which the Egyptians boast of the innumerable years of their kings and of their affairs and nation, in Herodotus, Plato, Diodorus, and Mela, are to be laughed at and despised as old wives' trifles and the fables of poets and mere lies. Hear what Pomponius Mela writes of their vanity: “They themselves, the most ancient (as they boast) of men, report in their certain annals three hundred and thirty kings before Amasis, and ages of above thirteen thousand years; and they keep it committed to letters that, since the Egyptians have been, the stars have four times changed their courses, and the Sun has twice already set where it now rises.” So he.1
AC fuisse quondam inter multas gentes de principatu antiquitatis non minus pertinaci studio quam superba (vel stulta potius) vanitate decertatum, ex historiis tam Graecis quam Latinis manifestum est. Athenienses se ipsos appellabant αὐτόχθονας, hoc est, indigenas et aborigenes. Sed maior Arcadum vanitas vel insania, qui se προσελήνους iactabant, quasi genitos ante Lunam. Inde est illud Ovidii: Ante Iovem genitum terras habuisse feruntur / Arcades, et Luna gens prior illa fuit.
And that there was once contended among many nations about the primacy of antiquity, with a zeal no less obstinate than the proud (or rather foolish) vanity, is manifest from the histories, both Greek and Latin. The Athenians called themselves αὐτόχθονας [autochthones], that is, natives and aboriginals. But greater was the vanity, or madness, of the Arcadians, who boasted themselves προσελήνους [proselenes], as it were begotten before the Moon. Hence is that of Ovid: “Before Jove was born the Arcadians are said to have held the lands, and that nation was older than the Moon.”2
PERVULGATUM est id quod narrat Herodotus, Psameticum regem Aegypti, quo exploraret quae lingua omnium antiquissima fuisset et prima, educandos dedisse duos infantes cuidam pastori procul ab hominum consuetudine, ut nullam audirent humanam vocem; persuasum habens quam illi primam instinctu naturae vocem ederent, eam primogeneam et quasi naturalem esse mortalium linguam. Pueros ferunt, triennio in solitudine educatos, cum iam fari coepissent, ad pastorem porrectis manibus acclamasse, Beccus, Beccus; pastorem id retulisse ad regem; qui cum incognitam Aegyptiis eam vocem reperisset, de eius significatione per totam Asiam quaeri iussit. Tandem compertum est, [Beccus apud Phrygas vocari panem]…
It is well known what Herodotus narrates: that Psammetichus, king of Egypt, in order to explore which language was of all the most ancient and first, gave two infants to a certain shepherd to be reared far from the company of men, that they should hear no human voice — being persuaded that the first voice which they should utter by the instinct of nature would be the firstborn and, as it were, natural language of mortals. The boys, they relate, reared three years in the solitude, when they had now begun to speak, cried out to the shepherd with outstretched hands, “Beccus, Beccus”; the shepherd reported this to the king; who, when he found that voice unknown to the Egyptians, ordered inquiry about its meaning through all Asia. At last it was discovered, [that ‘Beccus’ among the Phrygians means bread]…3
…Beccus apud Phrygas vocari panem. Quamobrem Aegyptii vetustatis principatum Phrygibus concesserunt. Similem inter Scythas et Aegyptios fuisse contentionem tradit Iustinus, utrisque pro vetustate suae gentis ductas ex Physiologia rationes afferentibus.
…that ‘Beccus’ among the Phrygians means bread. Wherefore the Egyptians conceded the primacy of antiquity to the Phrygians. That there was a similar contention between the Scythians and the Egyptians, Justin relates, each bringing forward, for the antiquity of their nation, reasons drawn from natural philosophy.4
SED lubet novam quandam miramque de antiquitate Aegyptiorum docti opinionem excutere. Argumentatur ille Gerardi Mercatoris viri nostrae aetatis in Chronographia diligentia parem fuisse propemodum Aegypti atque ipsius Mundi antiquitatem; et Aegyptios non solum fuisse ante diluvium, verum etiam in primordiis fere Mundi et primorum hominum, id est, Adami et Evae aetate genitos: hoc inquam argumentatur ille ad hunc modum (dicam eius verbis, quo certius opinionem eius lector cognoscat, simulque nostram opinionis eius confutationem melius perpendat): Etsi supra Saltim inferioris Aegypti et Timaeum Thebaidis (sive superioris Aegypti) contemporaneos reges nullius regis nomen extat quod ego sciam, tamen Dynastiarum multitudo ab Eusebio notata vetustissimum et cum primis fere hominibus natum esse regnum Aegypti satis arguit. Etenim sedecim Dynastias numerat Eusebius ante imperium Pastorum (quos Hicsos appellat Manethon apud Iosephum libro primo contra Appionem), eas vero Dynastias exiguo annorum spatio concludere non convenit: non enim leviter et subito regnorum potestas ex uno stemmate unaque natione ad aliam transit, sed deficiente demum priore, vel superveniente potentiore (quod in magnis regnis rarius contingit), nec sine huiusmodi transitu facile administrationis forma mutatur.
But it is pleasing to examine a certain new and strange opinion about the antiquity of the Egyptians. That [opinion] of Gerard Mercator, a man of our age, argues in his careful Chronography that the antiquity of Egypt and of the World itself was nearly equal; and that the Egyptians not only existed before the flood, but were even begotten in almost the beginnings of the World and of the first men — that is, in the age of Adam and Eve: this, I say, he argues in this manner (I will give it in his words, that the reader may more certainly know his opinion, and at the same time better weigh our confutation of it): “Although above Saltis of Lower Egypt and Timaeus of the Thebaid (or Upper Egypt), the contemporary kings, no name of any king is extant that I know, yet the multitude of Dynasties noted by Eusebius sufficiently argues the kingdom of Egypt to be most ancient and born with almost the first men. For Eusebius numbers sixteen Dynasties before the empire of the Shepherds (whom Manethon, in Josephus book one against Appion, calls Hicsos), and it is not fitting to conclude those Dynasties in a small space of years: for the power of kingdoms does not pass lightly and suddenly from one lineage and one nation to another, but only when the prior at last fails, or a more powerful one supervenes (which in great kingdoms more rarely happens), nor without such a transition is the form of administration easily changed.”5
…bius annos regum Aegypti recensere, cum ipso diluvii tempore concurrit; hinc concludi, priores quindecim Dynastias quas Eusebius tacitis earum annis praeteriit, non potuisse non tantum temporis comprehendere, ut gentem Aegyptiorum aequalem fere primorum hominum facere necesse sit.
…[Euse]bius to reckon the years of the kings of Egypt coincides with the very time of the flood; from which it is concluded that the first fifteen Dynasties, which Eusebius passed over with their years left unmentioned, could not but have comprehended so great a span of time that the nation of the Egyptians must of necessity be made nearly coeval with the first men.6
SED multa, nisi ego valde fallor, in hac disputatione Mercatorem fefellerunt. Principio, initium decimae sextae Dynastiae vult Mercator concurrisse cum ipso tempore diluvii: at Eusebius diluvio posterius id facit ducentis nonaginta duobus annis, signans ipsum in ortu Abrahae. Deinde exordium decimae septimae Dynastiae quae fuit Pastorum, et in qua primus rex fuit Saltis, Mercator signat in anno Mundi millesimo octingentesimo quadragesimo sexto; cum tamen ex computatione Eusebii necesse sit ipsum annotari in annis post orbem conditum bis millesimo centesimo quadragesimo: siquidem decima sexta Dynastia coepta est anno post diluvium ducentesimo nonagesimo secundo, stetit autem annis centum nonaginta. Quod si Mercator aliter quam Eusebius Dynastias illas ordinare, earumque tempora digerere suo arbitratu vult, fidem minime meretur, cum de istiusmodi Dynastiis nihil extet apud ullum auctorem nisi quod ab Eusebio proditum est.
BUT many things, unless I am much mistaken, have deceived Mercator in this argument. First, Mercator would have the beginning of the sixteenth Dynasty coincide with the very time of the flood; whereas Eusebius places it two hundred and ninety-two years after the flood, marking it at the birth of Abraham. Next, the opening of the seventeenth Dynasty, which was that of the Shepherds and whose first king was Saltis, Mercator sets in the year of the World 1846; although by Eusebius's reckoning it must be noted at the year 2140 after the founding of the world: since the sixteenth Dynasty began in the 292nd year after the flood and lasted 190 years. But if Mercator wishes to arrange those Dynasties otherwise than Eusebius does, and to order their dates at his own discretion, he deserves no credence at all, since nothing exists concerning Dynasties of this kind in any author except what has been handed down by Eusebius.7
IAM vero quod cuique illarum quindecim priorum Dynastiarum assignat Mercator annos centum quindecim, id facit ex suo sensu et arbitrio fingens. Eusebius certe multas commemorat longe breviores centum annis, ut vigesimam secundam, annorum quadraginta novem; vigesimam tertiam, quadraginta quatuor; vigesimam quartam, quadraginta trium; vigesimam quintam, quadraginta quatuor; vigesimam octavam, sex; vigesimam nonam, viginti; trigesimam, decem et octo.
Now, as for Mercator's assigning to each of those first fifteen Dynasties one hundred and fifteen years, this he does by inventing it out of his own opinion and discretion. Eusebius, to be sure, records many far shorter than a hundred years: the twenty-second, of forty-nine years; the twenty-third, forty-four; the twenty-fourth, forty-three; the twenty-fifth, forty-four; the twenty-eighth, six; the twenty-ninth, twenty; the thirtieth, eighteen.8
IAM vero Ioannes Annius in iis Commentariis quibus supplementum Manethonis interpretatus est, primas illas quindecim Dynastias uno tantum et sexaginta centumque definit: primam earum orsus ab anno centesimo trigesimo primo post diluvium, quo scilicet tempore facta est divisio linguarum et discretio hominum in varias provincias: „Dynastiae,“ inquit, „Aegyptiorum primae a diluvio usque ad quadragesimum tertium annum (qui fuit natalis annus Abrahae) quindecim fuere, ut Eusebius in suo Chronico scripsit. Primae duodecim fuere sub duodecim diis primis maioribus Aegyptiorum, quarum singulae duraverunt septem annis, earumque fuit initium in anno centesimo trigesimo primo post diluvium. Omnes igitur earum anni fuere quatuor et octoginta. Reliquas tres Dynastias dii minores tenuerunt, et quidem decimam tertiam annis quatuordecim, decimam quartam annis viginti sex, decimam quintam annis triginta septem: qui simul sumpti, continent annos septem et septuaginta: adiecti vero priorum Dynastiarum annis, summam efficiunt unius et sexaginta centumque annorum. His si addas unum et triginta centumque annos a diluvio transactos usque ad exordium primae Dynastiae, reperies duos et nonaginta superque ducentos annos usque ad finem decimae quintae Dynastiae et initium decimae sextae, id est, usque ad quadragesimum tertium annum Nini et primum Abrahae, quo tempore coepta est decima sexta Dynastia quae appellatur Thebaeorum.“
Now indeed John Annius, in those Commentaries in which he expounded a supplement to Manetho, fixes those first fifteen Dynasties at only one hundred and sixty-one years; beginning the first of them from the 131st year after the flood, that is, at the time when the division of tongues and the separation of men into various provinces took place. „The first Dynasties of the Egyptians,“ he says, „from the flood down to the forty-third year (which was the year of Abraham's birth) were fifteen, as Eusebius wrote in his Chronicle. The first twelve were under the twelve first greater gods of the Egyptians, each of which lasted seven years, and their beginning was in the 131st year after the flood. All their years therefore were eighty-four. The remaining three Dynasties the lesser gods held: namely the thirteenth fourteen years, the fourteenth twenty-six years, the fifteenth thirty-seven years; which taken together make seventy-seven years; and added to the years of the earlier Dynasties they make a sum of one hundred sixty-one years. If to these you add the one hundred thirty-one years passed from the flood down to the opening of the first Dynasty, you will find two hundred ninety-two years down to the end of the fifteenth Dynasty and the beginning of the sixteenth — that is, down to the forty-third year of Ninus and the first of Abraham, at which time began the sixteenth Dynasty, which is called that of the Thebans.“9
SI cui fortasse haec Annii Chronographia Dynastiarum non placet, huic per me licet existimare fabulosa esse quae de illis quindecim primis Dynastiis prodita sunt; nempe accepta a solis Aegyptiis, qui alia permulta, ut de immenso aevo suae gentis, regum, literarum et annalium, impudentissime mentiti sunt. Mihi certe merum videtur commentum, fuisse Dynastias Aegyptiorum ante diluvium, vel etiam in ipsius mundi primordiis, ut putat Mercator: quomodo enim intra primos mundi ducentos vel etiam centum annos, Adami proles adeo multiplicari potuit, ut ad Aegyptum usque habitandum et complendum propagata sit? Certe si tunc fuit gens Aegyptiorum, necesse est fateri fuisse quoque tum Assyrios, Chaldaeos, Armenos, et complures alias gentes; quinimo has tanto magis quam Aegyptios, quanto eorum loca viciniora erant loco Paradisi, prope quem habitasse Adamum credibile est. Paradisum autem vel in Mesopotamia, vel non procul inde fuisse, in tertio libro Commentariorum nostrorum in Genesim disputatum est.
If perhaps this chronography of the Dynasties by Annius does not please anyone, he is free, for my part, to consider as fabulous the things handed down about those first fifteen Dynasties — received, namely, from the Egyptians alone, who have most shamelessly lied about a great many other matters, such as the immense antiquity of their nation, their kings, their letters, and their annals. To me, at any rate, it seems a sheer fiction that there were Dynasties of the Egyptians before the flood, or even at the very beginnings of the world, as Mercator supposes. For how, within the first two hundred or even hundred years of the world, could the offspring of Adam multiply so far as to be propagated all the way to Egypt to inhabit and fill it? Surely, if the nation of the Egyptians existed then, one must admit that there existed also at that time the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Armenians, and several other nations; nay rather, these all the more than the Egyptians, inasmuch as their lands were nearer to the place of Paradise, near which it is credible that Adam dwelt. And that Paradise was either in Mesopotamia or not far from there has been argued in the third book of our Commentaries on Genesis.10
ADDO praeterea unum, quo disputationem hanc concludam: opinioni Mercatoris videri aperte contrariam divinam scripturam, quae perspicuis verbis tradit post diluvium factam esse discessionem et dispersionem hominum in varias provincias. Hoc indicant extrema illa verba capitis decimi libri Geneseos: „Ab his (inquit) tribus filiis Noë divisae sunt gentes in terra post diluvium“: quo significatur talem divisionem non fuisse ante diluvium. In capite autem undecimo planissime dicitur causam discessionis hominum in varias provincias fuisse confusionem linguarum quae accidit aedificantibus turrim Babel. Audi scripturam: „Atque ita,“ inquit, „divisit eos Dominus ex illo loco in universas terras, et cessaverunt aedificare civitatem. Et idcirco vocatum est nomen eius Babel, quia ibi confusum est labium universae terrae, et inde dispersit eos Dominus super faciem cunctarum regionum.“
I add, moreover, one point with which to conclude this disputation: that divine Scripture seems plainly contrary to Mercator's opinion, since it teaches in clear words that the departure and dispersion of men into various provinces took place after the flood. This is indicated by those last words of the tenth chapter of the book of Genesis: {From these, the three sons of Noah, were the nations divided in the earth after the flood} — by which it is signified that no such division existed before the flood. And in the eleventh chapter it is said most plainly that the cause of men's departure into various provinces was the confusion of tongues that befell those building the tower of Babel. Hear the Scripture: {And so the Lord divided them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. And therefore its name was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded, and from thence the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the regions.}11
EXPLOSA igitur vel opinione vel coniectura Mercatoris de vetustate Aegyptiorum, maneat illud quod a principio diximus, primam Aegyptiorum originem petendam esse a Mesraim filio Cham. Ac licet fere et regio et gens Aegyptiorum de nomine sui conditoris appelletur Mesraim: attamen quia Mesraim filius fuit Cham, propterea non semel in sacris literis Aegyptus vocatur terra Cham, ut videre licet in Psalmo 77, 104 et 105.
Mercator's opinion or conjecture about the antiquity of the Egyptians being therefore exploded, let that stand which we said from the beginning: that the first origin of the Egyptians is to be sought from Mesraim the son of Cham. And although both the region and the nation of the Egyptians are usually named Mesraim from the name of their founder, nevertheless, because Mesraim was the son of Cham, on that account Egypt is more than once called in the sacred letters ‘the land of Cham,’ as may be seen in Psalms 77, 104, and 105.12
TERTIUS filius Cham appellatus est Phut, de cuius posteritate ita scribit Iosephus: „Phut Libyae dedit colonos, deque suo nomine Phutos dici voluit. Extat et flumen in Mauritania hoc nomine, et complures apud Graecos historici eius mentionem faciunt, sicut etiam adiacentis regionis quae Phuta dicitur. Mutavit autem praesens nomen ab uno filiorum Mesrai, qui vocabatur Libys.“ Haec Iosephus; cui plane similia tradit Hieronymus.
The third son of Cham was called Phut, of whose posterity Josephus writes thus: „Phut gave colonists to Libya, and willed that they be called Phutians from his own name. There is also a river in Mauretania of this name, and several historians among the Greeks make mention of it, as also of the adjacent region which is called Phuta. But it changed its present name from one of the sons of Mesraim, who was called Libys.“ So far Josephus; and Jerome hands down things plainly similar to him.13
Quod autem Iosephus ait de flumine quodam Mauritaniae nominato Phut, firmari potest auctoritate Plinii, qui libro quinto cap. 1 eius fluminis in eo ipso loco eoque nomine mentionem facit. VERUM profani scriptores aliunde originem Libycae regionis et gentis arcessunt. „Quidam,“ inquit Solinus, „Libyam a Libya Epaphi filia, Africam autem ab Aphro Libys Herculis filio potius dictam receperunt.“ Nec absimile est quod scribit Isidorus: „Libya,“ inquit, „dicta est, quod inde Libs flat, id est, Africus.“ Alii aiunt Epaphum Iovis filium, qui Memphim in Aegypto condidit, ex Cassiopea uxore procreasse filiam Lybam, quae postea in Africa regnum possedit, cuius ex nomine terra Libya est appellata.
Now what Josephus says about a certain river of Mauretania named Phut can be confirmed by the authority of Pliny, who in book five, chapter one, makes mention of that river in that very place and by that name. But the profane writers fetch the origin of the Libyan region and nation from elsewhere. „Some,“ says Solinus, „have held that Libya was rather named from Libya the daughter of Epaphus, and Africa from Aphrus the son of Libys son of Hercules.“ Nor is it unlike this that Isidore writes: „Libya,“ he says, „is so called because thence blows the Libs, that is, the Southwest wind.“ Others say that Epaphus the son of Jupiter, who founded Memphis in Egypt, begot of his wife Cassiopea a daughter Lyba, who afterward possessed a kingdom in Africa, from whose name the land of Libya was called.14
GENTIS Phut alibi quoque non semel mentionem in sacris literis reperimus: et ex capite trigesimo Ezechielis apparet Phut fuisse in numero sociorum et confoederatorum cum Aegyptiis. Sic enim illic Hebraice est ad verbum: „Chus et Phut et Lud et omnis multitudo, Chub et filii terrae foederis una cum illis gladio cadent.“ Ubi Latinus noster interpres illa nomina vertit in Aethiopiam, Libyam et Lydos, haud dubie secutus Septuaginta Interpretes. Idem quoque licet animadvertere apud eundem vatem cap. vigesimo septimo. Apud Hieremiam item capite quadragesimo sexto, vocabulum Phut tam Septuaginta quam Latinus interpres Libyes transtulerunt. Nec non et ex praedictis scripturae locis palam est Phutaeos et Ludaeos populos fuisse Aegyptiorum socios atque vicinos. Ludaei autem populi, sive, ut Latinus interpres vertit, Lydii, Phutaeorum socii, diversi sunt a Lydiis qui partem Asiae incoluerunt, de quibus infra.
Of the nation of Phut we also find mention more than once elsewhere in the sacred letters: and from the thirtieth chapter of Ezekiel it appears that Phut was among the number of the allies and confederates with the Egyptians. For thus it stands there word-for-word in the Hebrew: {Chus and Phut and Lud and all the multitude, Chub and the sons of the land of the covenant shall fall together with them by the sword.} Where our Latin translator renders those names as Ethiopia, Libya, and the Lydians, doubtless following the Septuagint translators. The same may also be observed in the same prophet, chapter twenty-seven. Likewise in Jeremiah, chapter forty-six, the word Phut both the Septuagint and the Latin translator rendered as ‘the Libyans.’ And it is also clear from the aforesaid passages of Scripture that the Phutians and the Ludaeans were allies and neighbors of the Egyptians. But the Ludaean peoples — or, as the Latin translator renders, the Lydians — allies of the Phutians, are different from the Lydians who inhabited a part of Asia, of whom below.15
QUARTUS filius Cham omnium famosissimus fuit Chanaam, cui Noë pro scelere patris sui Cham maledixit, et vilissimam servitutem, quam eius posteritas posteris Sem et Iaphet servitura erat, tanto ante denuntiavit. Ab hoc regio quam insederunt Hebraei, et cuius possessionem tribus eius populi patriarchis Abraham, Isaac et Iacob Deus promiserat, appellata est Chananaea, in multas sane provincias variasque gentes dispertita: quae licet communi vocabulo a patre suo nominarentur Chananaei, propriis tamen singulae nominibus insignitae fuerunt, tametsi quaedam earum gentium commune nomen ut proprium sibi asciuit. Verum de his postea et opportunius et latius dicemus. Hae autem gentes ab Hebraeis maiorem partem caesae vel servitute oppressae, tandem extinctae sunt, earum nomine ex hominum memoria deleto.
The fourth son of Cham, most famous of all, was Chanaan, whom Noah cursed for the crime of his father Cham, and to whom he foretold, so long beforehand, the most abject servitude which his posterity was to render to the descendants of Shem and Japheth. From him the region which the Hebrews settled, and the possession of which God had promised to the three patriarchs of that people — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — was called Chanaan, parceled out indeed into many provinces and various nations: which, though by a common name they were called Canaanites after their father, were nevertheless each marked by their own proper names, though some of those nations adopted the common name as their own. But of these we shall speak afterward both more fittingly and more fully. These nations, for the most part slain by the Hebrews or oppressed with servitude, were at last extinguished, their name blotted out from the memory of men.16

Translator’s notes

  1. §36. From Mesraim's settling, the Egyptians are under 4,000 yrs old — so their boasts of innumerable years (Herodotus, Plato, Diodorus, Mela) are old wives' tales; Mela: 330 kings, 13,000+ years, the stars' courses thrice reversed. Margins: Herodotus bk. 1; Plato in the Timaeus; Diodorus bk. 1; Mela bk. 1, ch. 9. ↩
  2. §37. Nations vied for the title of greatest antiquity: the Athenians ‘autochthones,’ the Arcadians ‘before the Moon’ (Ovid). Margins: “The contention among various nations about the primacy of antiquity”; Ovid, Fasti bk. 1. ↩
  3. §38. The famous Psammetichus experiment (Herodotus): two infants reared in silence cried ‘Beccus’ — found to be Phrygian for ‘bread’ (so the Egyptians yielded the antiquity-prize to the Phrygians). Margins: Herodotus bk. 2; Psammetichus; “By what argument the Phrygians were proved most ancient.” Continues on p. 414. ↩
  4. §38 (cont.). ‘Beccus’ = Phrygian for bread, so the Egyptians yielded antiquity to the Phrygians; a like Scythian–Egyptian contest (Justin). Margin: Justin bk. 2. ↩
  5. §39. Mercator's paradox (his Chronography): Egypt is nearly as old as the world — the Egyptians born even in Adam and Eve's age — argued from Eusebius's many Dynasties (16 before the ‘Shepherd kings’/Hyksos, which can't fit a short span). Margins: “A paradox of Gerard Mercator on the antiquity of the Egyptians”; Manethon; Eusebius in the Chronicle. Continues on p. 415. ↩
  6. §39 (concl.). End of Mercator's paradox (Chronography): since the start of the 16th Dynasty is made to coincide with the flood, the 15 prior Dynasties Eusebius left undated must span enough time to make Egypt nearly as old as the first men. ↩
  7. §40. Pererius refutes Mercator (margin: ‘Mercator is refuted’): (1) the 16th Dynasty's start is not the flood but 292 yrs after, at Abraham's birth; (2) the 17th (Shepherd/Hyksos) Dynasty's date is misplaced by ~294 yrs vs Eusebius; (3) Mercator may not rearrange the Dynasties at will, since Eusebius is the sole source. ↩
  8. §40 (cont.). Mercator's uniform 115 years per Dynasty is his own fabrication; Eusebius records many Dynasties far shorter than 100 yrs (the 22nd–30th: 49, 44, 43, 44, 6, 20, 18 yrs). ↩
  9. §41. Contrasting authority: John Annius (in his pseudo-Manetho supplement) makes the first 15 Dynasties total only 161 yrs (first 12 under the 12 ‘greater gods,’ 7 yrs each = 84; the 13th–15th under ‘lesser gods’ = 14+26+37 = 77). Adding 131 yrs flood→1st Dynasty gives 292 yrs to the start of the 16th (Theban) Dynasty = Abraham's 1st / Ninus's 43rd year. Margins: John Annius on the first 15 Egyptian Dynasties; Gen 11 (division of tongues). ↩
  10. §42. Pererius's own verdict: the 15 pre-Dynasties are fabulous, coming only from the lying Egyptians. It is mere fiction (against Mercator) that Egyptian Dynasties existed before the flood or at the world's start: Adam's offspring could not have multiplied and reached Egypt within 100–200 yrs; and the Assyrians/Chaldeans/Armenians, being nearer Paradise (in/near Mesopotamia, per his bk. 3), would predate the Egyptians. ↩
  11. §42 (cont.). Scriptural disproof: Gen 10:32 says the nations were divided ‘after the flood,’ so no such division existed before it; Gen 11 names the cause — the confusion of tongues at Babel (Gen 11:8–9 quoted). ↩
  12. §42 (concl.). Mercator exploded; the Egyptians' origin is from Mesraim son of Cham. Egypt is named ‘Mesraim’ from its founder, but also called ‘the land of Cham’ (Pss 78/105/106, Vulg. 77/104/105) because Mesraim was Cham's son. ↩
  13. §43. Cham's 3rd son Phut: per Josephus (Antiquities bk. 1), he colonized Libya, naming them Phutians; a river and region ‘Phuta’ in Mauretania bear the name, later renamed from Libys, a son of Mesraim; Jerome agrees. Margins: Josephus, Antiquities bk. 1; Jerome, Hebrew Questions on Genesis. ↩
  14. §43 (cont.). Pliny (bk. 5 ch. 1) confirms the Mauretanian river Phut. Pagan etymologies of ‘Libya’: from Libya daughter of Epaphus (Solinus), or from the Libs/southwest wind (Isidore), or from Lyba daughter of Epaphus son of Jupiter, founder of Memphis. Margins: Pliny; Solinus ch. 27; Isidore, Etymologies bk. 14 ch. 5. ↩
  15. §44. Phut in Scripture: Ezek 30 lists Phut among Egypt's allies (Hebrew quoted; Vulgate/LXX render the names Ethiopia/Libya/Lydians); also Ezek 27 and Jer 46 (Phut = ‘Libyans’). The Ludaeans/Lydians allied with Phut are distinct from the Asian Lydians (treated later). ↩
  16. §45. Cham's 4th and most famous son Chanaan, cursed by Noah (Gen 9) to servitude under Shem and Japheth; from him the Promised Land (promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) is named Chanaan, split into many Canaanite peoples — later slain/enslaved by the Hebrews and their name erased. Margin: Gen 9. ↩