in whose reign Cyrus took Babylon. Five generations, says Sir John Marsham, could not make up two hundred years. Herodotus has been thought by all antiquity to be mistaken in this point. Herennius observes, that Babylon' was built by Belus, and makes it older than Semiramis by two thousand years, imagining, perhaps, Semiramis to be as late as Herodotus has placed her; or taking Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, to be Semiramis, as Photius suggests Conon to have done. Herennius was, indeed, much mistaken in the antiquity of Babylon; but whoever considers his opinion, will find no reason to quote him, as Sir John Marsham' does in favour of Herodotus. Porphyry' is said to place Semiramis about the time of the Trojan war; but as he acknowledges, in the same place, that she might be older, • Can. Chron. page 489. f Apud. Steph. in Voce Bab. Euseb. Præp. lib. 1. his opinion is no confirmation of the account. given by Herodotus. From Moses's Nimrod to Nabonassar appears evidently from Scripture to be about one thousand five hundred years; for so many years there are between the time when Nimrod began to be a mighty one, and the reign of Ahaz, king of Judah, who was contemporary with Nabonassar; therefore Herodotus, in supposing the first Assyrian king to be but five hundred and twenty years before Deioces of Media, falls short of the truth above. nine hundred years. But there ought to be no great stress laid upon Herodotus' account in this matter; as he himself seems to own that he had taken up his opinion from report only, and not examined any records to assure him of the truth.' Ctesias, who was physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon, and lived in his court, and near his person about seventeen years, wrote his history about a hundred years after Herodo * Genesis x. 8. 2 Kings xvi. 7. * Lib. 1. c. 95. ως των Περσεων μετεξέτεροι λεγεσιν κατα ταυτα γραψω. tus. He was every way well qualified to correct the mistakes which Herodotus made in his history of the Assyrian and Persian affairs; for he did not write as Herodotus did, from hearsay and report; but he searched the royal records of Persia, in which all transactions and affairs of the government were faithfully registered." That there were such records was a thing well known; of which the books of Ezra and Esther give us a testimony. Ctesias' account falls very well within the compass of time which the Hebrew Scriptures allow for such a series of kings as he has given us; and we have not only the Hebrew Scriptures to assure us that from Nimrod to Nabonassar were as many years as he computes; but it appears from what Callisthenes the philosopher, who accompanied Alexander the Great, observed of the astronomy of the Babylonians; that they had been a people eminent for learning, for as long a time backward as Ctesias supposes. They had astronomical observations for one thousand nine hundred and three years backward when Alexander took Babylon; and Alexander's taking Babylon happening about four hundred and twenty years after Nabonassar, it is evident they must have been settled near one thousand five hundred years before his reign; and thus Ctesias' account is, as to the substance of it, confirmed by very good authorities. The Scriptures shew us, that there was such an interval between the first Assyrian king and Nabonassar, as he imagines. The observations of Callisthenes prove, that the Assyrians were promoters of learning during that whole interval; and Ctesias' account only supplies us with the number and names of the kings, whose reigns, according to the royal records of Persia, filled up such an interval. Ctesias' accounts, and Callisthenes' observations were not framed with a design to be suited exactly to one another, or to the Scripture; and therefore their agreeing. so well together is a good confirmation of the truth of each. There are, indeed, some things objected against Ctesias and his history. We find the ancients had but a mean opinion of him; for he is treated as a fabulous writer by Aristotle, Antigonus, Caristheus, Plutarch, Arrian, and Photius. But I might observe, none of these writers ever imagined that he had invented a whole catalogue of kings; but only related things not true of those persons of whom he has treated. There are, without doubt, many mistakes and transactions misreported in the writings of Ctseias, as there are in Herodotus, and in evry other heathen historian; but it would be a veryunfair way of criticizing, to set aside a whole work as fabulous, on account of some errors or falshoods found in it. However, H. Stephens has justly observed, that it was the Indian history of Ctesias, and not his Persian, which was most liable to the objections of these writers. In that, indeed, he might sometimes romance, for we do not find he wrote it from such authentic vouch Hen. Stephanus in Disquisitione de Ctesia. |