DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12609#0057
old chronicle.
41
alike with the Old Chronicle, monumental evidence,
and Scripture. Indeed, as they appear in the copyists
they are strongly marked with an apocryphal charac-
ter. Josephus does not give them. Syncellus ex-
cludes them, and inserts instead a list of 25 kings,
from Menes to the first of the Shepherd race or
Hucsos. Eusebius and Julius Africanus differ as to
their names and durations (sometimes by centuries),
and to most no lists of kings are given. From all
this we may conclude that the greater part of these
dynasties either refer to petty contemporary princes
of a remote period*, or are altogether spurious.
III. old chronicle.
On comparing the old chronicle with Manetho's
canon, we find many striking coincidences. The
names of its fifteen dynasties of mortal kings will be
found nearly the same with those of the first, third,
seventeenth, and following to the thirtieth of Manetho,
as given by Eusebius, excluding the anonymous twen-
* Many facts tend to prove, that in very early times Egypt was
divided into independent sovereignties. Some authorities expressly
refer to contemporary princes. In the neighbouring Syria no
less than thirty-one kings were expelled by Joshua from the small
territory occupied by the Israelites west of Jordan. (Josh. xii. 24.)
Kings are styled in the inscriptions "Lord of the Upper and Lower
Countries," and the Hebrew name of Egypt, Mitzraim, in the dual
form, (as pointed by the Masorites,) recognises the same general
division.
41
alike with the Old Chronicle, monumental evidence,
and Scripture. Indeed, as they appear in the copyists
they are strongly marked with an apocryphal charac-
ter. Josephus does not give them. Syncellus ex-
cludes them, and inserts instead a list of 25 kings,
from Menes to the first of the Shepherd race or
Hucsos. Eusebius and Julius Africanus differ as to
their names and durations (sometimes by centuries),
and to most no lists of kings are given. From all
this we may conclude that the greater part of these
dynasties either refer to petty contemporary princes
of a remote period*, or are altogether spurious.
III. old chronicle.
On comparing the old chronicle with Manetho's
canon, we find many striking coincidences. The
names of its fifteen dynasties of mortal kings will be
found nearly the same with those of the first, third,
seventeenth, and following to the thirtieth of Manetho,
as given by Eusebius, excluding the anonymous twen-
* Many facts tend to prove, that in very early times Egypt was
divided into independent sovereignties. Some authorities expressly
refer to contemporary princes. In the neighbouring Syria no
less than thirty-one kings were expelled by Joshua from the small
territory occupied by the Israelites west of Jordan. (Josh. xii. 24.)
Kings are styled in the inscriptions "Lord of the Upper and Lower
Countries," and the Hebrew name of Egypt, Mitzraim, in the dual
form, (as pointed by the Masorites,) recognises the same general
division.