was Ninus; who is said to have reigned 52 years: and in the 43d of his reign this writer farther informs us, that the great patriarch Abraham was born. 3 Νικά τα βασιλέως Ασσυρίων τέσσαρακοςον τρίτον άγοντος έτος της βασιλειας, γενναται Αβρααμ. From whence we may be farther assured, of what I before supposed, about Arioch Melech Ellasar. For if Abraham was born in the latter part of the reign of Ninus; the time of Arius, the fourth in the dynasty of Africanus, coincides with that of Arioch in the Scriptures: so that they are certainly the names of the same person. And the reign of this prince will be found to commence about the 88th or 89th year of the life of Abraham, about three 2 4 Αβρααμ. Οντος ην ό τω Ιεδαίων εθνες προπάτως. Κατα τέτον, Ασσυρίας και της Ασίας πάσης εβασίλευσε Νίνος, και Σεμίραμις όμου. Απο το κατακλυσμό επι το πρώτον ετος Αβρααμ, ετη μβ. Euseb. Chron. pag. 9. 3 Euseb. Chron. Aoy. Пgwr. pag. 18. pag. 373. of ♦ Abraham was born according to Africanus in the 43d year Ninus. From the 43d of Ninus to the time of his death are nine years. And as Semiramis is supposed to have reigned 42 years, and Zames after her 38; the total amount is 89 years, which is the term of Abraham's life when Arioch begins to reign. Primus Assyriorum rex Ninus, Beli filius: regnavit Asia exceptis Indis, annos LII, cujus XLIII imperii anno natus est Abraham. Euseb. Chron. Hieron. Interprete. pag. 11. Βασιλεις Ασσυρίων ex Africano apud Euseb, Histor. Συναγωγ. Βήλος Νίνος Σεμίραμις Agios } με με pag. 356. years after the birth of Ishmael. But according to the Scripture account, this invasion, made by the four kings, seems to have been a year or two prior to this event; if we may judge from the place, where it is introduced: so that we cannot in these distant inquiries arrive at exact chronological precision. Yet I think, as these circumstances are brought to coincide so nearly, nobody can well doubt, but that Arioch Melech Ellasar, and Arius king of Nineve, are the same person. Archbishop Usher makes this war happen about the seventyfirst year of Abraham's life; but this is rather too early, as it does not quite agree with the account in the Scriptures: for this invasion of the kings was made, when Abraham was in the land of Canaan; and he did not reside there, till he was seventyfive years old. According to Bp. Cumberland, Zames began to reign in the fortieth year of Abraham and as he reigned 38 years, the time of Arius commences in the 78th year of the said patriarch: which gives room for every thing relating to that prince to correspond with the Scripture account of Arioch. Africanus instead of Ninus, makes Belus, his supposed father, the first Assyrian king, who reigned at Babylon: and the great Scaliger agrees with him intirely, and implicitly follows his canon. 5 Την των Αράβων βασίλειαν την μετα την Χαλδαίων διεδεξ 1 $ Euseb. Chron. Aoy. Пpwr. pag. 18. 6 αυτο Ασσυρίων βασιλεις, διαρκέσαντες απο τις πρώτες αυτών Βηλε, έως τα Θωνα Κονκολερς, τε και Σαρδανάπαλο. Upon which Scaliger remarks- Ante Belum Arabes in Babylonia, ante illos Chaldæi ibidem regnum obtinuerunt: et ut Chaldæos Arabes, sic illos Assyrii de regni possessione deturbarunt, &c. I have mentioned, that Belus was not a name of any particular person; but a title assumed by many, and of different nations. And, if Belus were a king; yet this, I believe, would be the only place in history, where he is made the conqueror of Babylonia, as Scaliger supposes. It is contrary to the uniform evidence of Ctesias, Diodorus, Trogus, Paterculus, and many other historians, who ascribe the conquest of that city to Ninus. 7 Νίκος ετράτευσε μετα πολλης δυναμεως επι Βαβυλωνίας. It is contrary to what Africanus hisself, and Eusebius after him, intimate in other parts of the history, that they have left us: where Belus is omitted in the list of Assyrian princes, which commences with Ninus; of whom it is there said, τ8τον πρωτον φασιν άπασης της Ασίας, πλην Ινδων, κεκρατηκέναι. Jos. Scalig. Can. Isagog. lib. 3. pag. 319, 1 Diod. Sic. lib. 2. pag. 90. Πρωτος δε των εις ίσορίαν και μνήμην παραδεδομένων Νινος ὁ βασιλευς των Ασσυρίων. Ibid. Primus omnium Ninus, rex Assyriorum, &c. Justin. lib. 1. cap. 1. * Euseb. Chron. Canon, pag. 89. Histor. Euvaywyn. pag. 356. But there is a farther mistake in this account of Africanus, as it is transmitted to us by Eusebius, Syncellus, and others; such as must necessarily take off from that implicit regard, which Scaliger thinks should be paid to him. Before the taking of Babylon by the Assyrians, he supposes two dynasties of kings to have reigned there; the first of Chaldeans 224 years, the latter of Arabians 216. In the first place, these dynasties are absolutely fictitious. No such kings reigned in the times, that are here specified; as I will shew hereafter. as to the two nations in this place mentioned, and distinguished; they were certainly the same people, and of the same original. For the Chaldeans here introduced may be proved to have been Arabians, even upon the evidence of these writers. The list is as follows; Chaldean kings of Babylon. Arabian kings And who succeeded. Who were the original Arabians, but the sons of Chus, as I have before proved? and who stand in the front of this list of Chaldean princes, but the heads of the Cusean family? The first in the detail is Evechoos; which name, though a little varied, signifies "the great lord Chus." This person, I know not why, is by many supposed to have been "Nimbrod: and, misled by this notion, somebody (for I know not to whom the mistake is originally to be attributed) has presumed to rectify the only thing in the list, which did not want amendment; and to transpose the order of these princes. O Χαλδαίοι πρωτοι ανηγόρευσαν ἑαυτες βασιλεις, ὧν πρωτος Ευηχοος, ὁ παρ ημιν Νευρωδ, εβασίλευσεν. "The Chaldeans were the first who styled them"selves kings: the first of which was Evechous, • Cedrenus has copied this notion. pag. 11. edit. Par, Exaλeiro de & Nebgud nas Eunxoos. Perizonius is much dissatisfied with Vossius for not being of the same opinion. Jac. Perizon. Orig. Babylonicæ. pag 326. |