The history of the world

§. VIII. That Aegypt was conquered, and the King therein raigning slaine by NABVCHODO∣NOSOR, contrarie to the opinion of most Authors: who following HERO∣DOTVS and DIODORVS, relate it otherwise.

WHen by a long course of victorie Nabuchodonosor had brought into [unspec 20] subiection all the Nations of Syria, & the bordering Arabians, in such wise, that no enemie to himselfe, nor friend of the Aegyptian, was left at his back, that might giue impediment vnto his proceeding, or take aduantage of any misfortune; then did hee forth-with take in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the conquest of Aegypt himselfe, vpon which those other Nations had formerly beene depending. Of this expedition, and the victorious issue thereof, the three great Prophets, Esay, Ieremie, and Ezechiel, haue written so plainely, that I hold it al∣together needlesse to looke after more authoritie, or to cite for proofe halfe of that which may be alleadged out of these. Neuerthelesse, we finde many and good Au∣thors, who following Herodotus, and Diodorus Siculus, are well contented to straine [unspec 30] these prophecies with vnreasonable diligence vnto such a sense, as giues to Nabucho∣donosor little more than the honour of hauing done some spoile in Aegypt, omitting the conquest of that Land by the Babylonian, and referring the death of Apries or Hophra to a chance long after following, which had no coherence with these times or affaires. So preposterous is the delight which many men take in the meanes and second helps conducing to their purpose, that often-times they preferre the Com∣mentator before the Author; and to vp-hold a sentence, giuing testimonie to one clause, doe carelesly ouerthrow the historie it selfe, which thereby they sought to haue maintained. The reports of Herodotus and Diodorus, concerning the Kings of Aegypt, which raigned about these times, are already rehearsed in the former book: [unspec 40] but that which they haue spoken of Apries, was purposely reserued vnto this place. Herodotus affirmes, that he was a very fortunate King, but wherein he telleth not;* 1.1 (vnlesse we should vnderstand that he was victorious in the Warre, which he is said to haue made vpon Tyrus and Sidon) that hee raigned fiue and twentie yeeres, and was finally taken and put to death by his owne subiects; who did set vp Amasis, as King, which preuailed against him. The rebellion of the Aegyptians he imputeth to a great losse which they receiued in an expedition against the Cyrenians, by whom almost their whole Armie was destroied. This calamitie the people of Aegypt thought to be well pleasing to their King, who had sent them on this dangerous expedition, with a purpose to haue them consumed, that so he might with greater [unspec 50] securitie raigne ouer such as staied at home. So they who escaped, and the friends of such as were 〈◊〉〈◊〉, rebelled against Apries, who sent Amasis to appease the tu∣mult; but Amasis became Captaine of the rebells, and was by them chosen King. Finally, the whole Land consented vnto this new Election; whereby Apries

was driuen to trust vnto his forraine Mercenaries, the Ionians and Carians, of whom hee kept in readinesse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thousand good Souldiers that fought va∣liantly for him, but were vanquished by the great numbers of the Aegyptian forces, amounting vnto two hundred and fiftie thousand, which were all by birth and education, men of warre. Apries himselfe being taken prisoner, was gently intreated by Amasis for a while, vntill the Aegyptians, exclaiming vpon him, as an extreme enemie to the Land, got him deliuered into their hands, and strangled him, yet gaue him honourable buriall. Such is the report of Hero∣dotus, with whome Diodorus Siculus neerely agrees, telling vs that Apries did* 1.2 vanquish the Cyprians and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in battell at Sea, tooke by force and demo∣lished [unspec 10] Sidon, wan the other townes of Phoenicia, and the Isle of Cyprus, and finally, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as is before rehcarsed, when he had raigned two and twentie yeeres. This authoritie were enough (yet not more than enough) to informe vs of Apries his hi∣storie, if greater authoritie did not contradict it. But the destruction of Aegypt by the Babylonian, fore-told by the Prophets, which hath no coherence with these re∣lations, hath greater force to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our beliefe, than haue the traditions of Ae∣gyptian Priests (which the Greeke Historians followed) and greater probabilities to perswade those that looke onely into humane reasons. For Esay prophecied long* 1.3 before of the shameful captiuitie of the Aegyptians, whom the king of Asshur should carry away naked, young and old, in such wise, that the Iewes, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnto them [unspec 20] fo: deliuerance from the Assyrian, should bee ashamed of their owne vaine confi∣dence in men so vnable to defend themselues.

But Ezekiel and Ieremie, as their prophecies were neerer to the time of execution, so they handled this Argument more precisely. For Ezekiel telleth plainely, that Aegypt should be giuen to Nebuchadnezzar, as wages for the seruice which hee had done at Tyre: Also hee recounteth particularly all the chiefe Cities in Aegypt, say∣ing,* 1.4 That these by name should bee destroyed, and goe into captiuitie; yea, that* 1.5 PHARAOH and all his armie should be slaine by the sword. Wherefore it must needes be a violent exposition of these Prophecies, which by applying the issue of such threatnings to an insurrection and rebellion, concludes all, without any other alte∣ration [unspec 30] in Aegypt, than change of the Kings person, wherein Amasis did succeed vn∣to Apries, by force indeede, but by the vniforme consent of all the people. Cer∣tainely, if that notable place of Ieremie, wherein hee 〈◊〉〈◊〉 how the Iewes in* 1.6 * 1.7 Aegypt should see Pharaoh Hophra deliuered into the hand of his enemies, as Zedekia had beene, were to be referred vnto the time of that rebellion, whereof Herodotus hath spoken, as the generall opinion hath ouer-ruled it, then was it vainely done of the same Prophet (which God forbid that any Christian should thinke, seeing hee did it by the appointment of God himselfe) to hide in the clay of a Brick-hill, those very stones, vpon which the throne of Nabuchodonosor should be ser, and his paui∣lion spred. Yea then was that prophecie no other than false, which expressed the [unspec 40] 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Pharaoh thus: Behold, I will visite the common people of No, & PHARAOH, and* 1.8 Aegypt, with their gods and their kings, euen PHARAOH, and all that trust in him: and I will dcliuer them into the hands of those that seeke their liues, and into the hand of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, King of Babel, and into the hands of his seruants. The clearenes of this prophecy being such as could not but refute that interpretation of many other places, which referred all to the rebellion of Amasis, it caused me to wonder what those Commentators would say to it, who are elsewhere so diligent in fitting all to the Greeke Historians. Wherefore looking vpon Iunius, who had in another place taken the enemies of Pharaoh Hophra to be Amasis, and his followers, I found him* 1.9 heere acknowledging that the Aegyptian Priests had notably deluded Herodotus [unspec 50] with lies, coined vpon a 〈◊〉〈◊〉-glorious purpose of hiding their owne disgrace and bondage. And surely it may well be thought, that the historic of Nebuchadnezzar, was better knowne to the Iewes, whom it concerned, than to the Greekes, that scarce∣ly at any time heard of his name. Therefore I see no cause why we should not ra∣ther

beleeue Iosephus, reporting that Nabuchodonosor in the three & twentieth yeere of his raigne, and the fift yeere of the destruction of Ierusalem, did conquer Egypt, kill the King thereof, and appoint another in his stead, than Herodotus or 〈◊〉〈◊〉;* 1.10 who being meere strangers to this businesse, had no great reason to labor in search∣ing out the truth, but might rest contented with any thing that the Priests would tell them. Now if setting aside all aduantage of authoritie, we should only consider the relations of Iosephus, and of the Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as either of them might bee verified of it selfe by apparant circumstances, without reflecting vpon the Hebrew Prophets, or Aegyptian Priests; me thinks the death of Apries can no way be appro∣ued as hauing beene wrought by consent of the people, but affords great matter of [unspec 10] suspition; yea, though no man had opposed the reports of Herodotus and Diodore. For the great loue and houour which the Aegyptians did beare vnto their Kings, is notorious by the vniforme testimony of al others that haue handled the matters of that Countrey, as well as by the report of Diodore himselfe. How then can wee thinke it probable, that Apries hauing wonne great victories, did for one only losse fall into the hatred of all his people, or which may serue to perswade vs, that a King of Aegypt would seeke, or so demeane himselfe, that he might be thought to seeke the destruction of his naturall subiects? As for that armie of thirtie thousand soul∣diers, Carians and Ionians, which the King of Aegypt, whom Amasis tooke prisoner, is said to haue kept for his defence: doth it not argue that hee was a forrainer, and [unspec 20] one that armed himselfe against the Aegyptians, wishing them few and weake; ra∣ther than any of the Pharaohs, who accounted the force of the Country, as assured∣ly their owne, as the strength of their owne bodies? It were more tedious than a∣ny way needfull, to vse all Arguments that might bee alleadged in this case. The very death of this supposed Apries, which the clamours of the people obtained of Amasis, who sought to haue kept him aliue, doth intimate that he was some forren Gouernour, not a naturall Prince; otherwise the people would haue desired to saue his life, and Amasis to take it quickly from him. I will not labour any further to disproue that opinion, whereunto I should not haue yeelded, though it had stood vpon great apparance of truth, considering that the voice of Truth it selfe [unspec 30] cries out against it; but leaue the circumstances, prouing the Conquest of Aegypt by Nabuchodonosor to bee obserued, where due occasion in course of the storie fol∣lowing shall present them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Herod. l. 2. &. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.2

  Diodor. Sic. lib. 1. ca. 2.
• * 1.3

  Esa. 20. ver. 4, 5. &. 6.
• * 1.4

  Ezech. 29. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 20. &c. 30.
• * 1.5

  Ezech. 32. v. 31.
• * 1.6

  Ierem. 44. 30.
• * 1.7

  Ierem. 43. 10.
• * 1.8

  Ierem. 46. verse 25, &. 26.
• * 1.9

  Iun. in Ierem. c. 44. verse 30.
• * 1.10

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 de An∣tiq. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 10. c. 11.