Alorus is made an antediluvian prince; and being raised ten generations above Sisuthrus, or Noah, he stands in the same degree of rank as the Protoplast; and many in of it have supconsequence posed him to be Adam. We are much indebted to Alexander Polyhistor for giving us, not only a more copious, but a more genuine extract from Berosus, than has been transmitted by the other two writers. We know from him that there were of that author 39 two books, of the first of which he has transmitted to us a curious epitome. In this book, after having given an account of the country, and its produce, he proceeds to the history of the people; and the very first occurrence is the appearance of Oannes, ( Aaywv) the man of the sea. He is introduced, εν πρωτῳ ενιαυτώ, in the first year of the history, which is no other than the first year of the world after the flood, when there was a renewal of time, and the earth was in its second infancy. At this period is Oannes introduced. But the other two writers, contrary to the tenor of the original history, make him subsequent in time. This embarrasses the account very much; for, as he is placed the very first in the prior treatise of Berosus, it is hard to conceive how any of these ten kings

39 There were in all three.

could have been before him, especially as the author had expressly said, Εν τη δευτερα της τ Bariλeas. In the second book I shall give an account of the ten kings of Babylon. It is manifest from hence, that they were posterior to Oannes, and to all the circumstances of the first book. The Grecians, not knowing, or not attending to the eastern mode of writing, have introduced these ten kings in the first book, which 4 Berosus expressly refers to the second. They often inverted the names of persons, as well as of places, and have ruined whole dynasties through ignorance of arrangement. What the Orientals wrote from right to left, they were apt to confound by a wrong disposition, and to describe in an inverted series. Hence these supposed kings, who, according to Berosus, were subsequent to the deluge, and to the Patriarch, are made prior to both; and he who stood first is made later by ten generations, through a reversion of the true order. Those who have entertained

40 Abydenus begins the history of the ten kings with these words; Χαλδαίων μεν της σοφίας περι τοσαυτα : So much concerning the wisdom of the Chaldeans. Is it not plain that this could not be the beginning of the first book? and may we not be assured, from the account given by Alexander Polyhistor, that this was the introduction to the second treatise, in which Berosus had promised to give a history of the Chaldean kings?

the notion that these kings were antediluvian, have been plunged into insuperable difficulties, and deservedly. For how could they be so weak as to imagine that there was a city in Babylon, and a country named from it, ten generations before the flood; also a province styled Chaldea? These names were circumstantial, and imposed in aftertimes for particular reasons, which could not before have subsisted. Babylon was the Babel of the Scriptures, so named from the confusion of tongues. What is extraordinary, Abydenus mentions this fact, and says, that "Babylon was so called from confusion, because the language of men was there confounded. In like manner, Chaldea was denominated from people styled Chasdim and Chusdim, who were the posterity of Chus. But if the name were of an etymology ever so different, yet to suppose a people of this name before the flood, also a city and province of Babylon, would be an unwarrantable 3 presumption. It would be repugnant

48 Βαβυλων καλείται δια την συγχυσιν, κ.τ.λ. Eusebii Chronic. p. 13. from Abydenus.

42 The true name of the country, called by the Greeks and Romans Chaldea, was Chasdia and Chusdia; named so from the inhabitants, styled Chusdim, or the children of Chus. This is the general name which uniformly occurs in Scripture.

43 Syncellus says, that before the flood, Te Babuλwv ny emi tns

to the history of Moses, and to every good history upon the subject.

At the close of the first book it is said, by Eusebius, that Berosus had promised in the second to give an account of the ten kings, who reached in a series to the deluge. I wish that Eusebius, instead of telling us himself the author's intention, had given us his words. The passage is very suspicious, and seems not to have existed, even in the Greek translation, as it is totally omitted by Syncellus. Berosus might, at the conclusion of his first treatise, say, that he would now proceed to the history of the ten kings; but that they were to reach down to the deluge I believe was never intimated; nor does there seem in the nature of things any reason for him to have mentioned such a circumstance. It is highly probable, as Oannes stood foremost in the allegorical history of the Chaldeans, that Sisuthrus held the same place in the real history of that country, for they were both the same

yus, &re Xandaswv Baoλsia, there was no such city as Babylon, nor any kingdom of Chaldea. p. 15. Again, ToTW T σapesεpor axveir εθελοιμι περί Βαβυλωνος, ότι προ το κατακλυσμό εδέπω ώφθη, είδε μετα τον κατακλυσμον, ἕως τὸ κινησαι τις ανθρωπες πληθυνθεντας απο ανα τόλων, και κατοικησαι αυτές εν γη Σεναάρ, και οικοδόμησαν την πολιν και τον πειργον, προηγεμένα αυτών τε θεομαχο Νεβρώδ, και βασιλεύοντος. Ibid. p. 37.

person; and whatever series there might be of persons recorded, they were in descent from him. But the Greeks, not attending to the mode of writing in the original, have ruined the whole disposition, and made these persons precede. And here is a question to be asked of these historians, as well as of Eusebius in particular, allowing these kings to be antediluvian; What is become of those who succeeded afterwards? Were there no postdiluvian kings of Babylon? Did nobody reign after the flood? If there did, what is become of this dynasty? Where is it to be found? The history of Babylon, and of its princes, taken from the later æra, would be of vast consequence: it is of so early a date, as to be almost coeval with the annals of the new world; and must be looked upon as the basis of historical knowledge. The supposed antediluvian accounts are trifling in comparison of the latter: the former world is far separated from us. It is like a vast peninsula joined to the continent by a slip of land, which hardly admits of any communication. But a detail of these after kings would be of consequence in chronology; and would prove the foundation for all subsequent history. Where then are these kings? In what quarter do they lurk? They are no where to be found. And the reason is this their dynasty has been inverted. Hence they have been misplaced through anticipation;,

*