the Priests destroyed hy Cambyses. 49 



It is. altogether incredible, that, while their superstition and 

 history thus survived the persecution of Cambyses, their science 

 should have been utterly lost. There can be no question that 

 it too survived, such as it was ; and, regarding its true quality, 

 the same inquisitive historian has furnished us with very consi- 

 derable information. Thus, for instance, at his entering on the 

 subject of Egypt, he puts us in possession of the true merits of 

 their experimental philosophy, in the story of the two infants 



part, than on thai of the latter part. Now, in reckoning backwards from Sethon 

 of Egypt and Hezekiah of Judah, who were both contemporary with Senna- 

 cherib, we find eleven kings of Egypt inclusively to Sesostris, and twelve 

 kings of Judah to Rehoboam, who was contemporary with Shishak. 



In estimating the merits of the position that Sesostris and Shishak (in the 

 septuagint Sousakim) are the same, it is a matter of no small moment that 

 the first syllables of the respective names are composed of letters of the same 

 origin, especially as we find a similar circumstance taking place regarding the 

 name of another Egyptian king, mentioned both by Herodotus and the Jew- 

 ish historians ; the Sethon of Herodotus being evidently no other than So 

 (or, independently of the Masoretic points, Sua), in 2d Kings, xvii. 4, which 

 the septuagint has changed to Segor. 



There are several circumstances in which there are singular agreements 

 between the details regarding Sesostris and Shishak. Herodotus tells us, 

 that when Sesostris met with a brave resistance on the part of any nation, 

 he erected honorary columns to commemorate their resolution, and when he 

 was opposed by any people in a cowardly manner, he erected columns with 

 marks of infamy upon them. He tells us, also, that he himself saw some of 

 these columns of the latter sort in the Syrian Palestine, of which country we 

 elsewhere learn from him the city Hady tis, or Jerusalem, was the capital ; 

 and on referring to the history of Shishak, we find that he was permitted to 

 plunder Jerusalem without resistance. 



The conquests of Sesostris and Shishak agree also in respect of their tem- 

 porary character. Neither of them is described as attempting to keep per- 

 manent possession of the countries he subdued, — a very remarkable circum- 

 stance, almost unexampled in the history of conquerors. 



The people named as forming the armies of Shishak agree well with what 

 is said by Herodotus regarding the order of the conquests of Sesostris. We 

 find among them the Cushim, by which name, it is well known, the early 

 Hebrews denoted a people who dwelt in Arabia, near the Red Sea. Now, 

 Herodotus states, that Sesostris made his first expedition with a fleet on the 

 Red Sea, subduing the nations who dwelt on its shores. Hence, when he 

 turned his arms to the north, he would have, according to the practice of 

 conquerors, recruits in his armies from the conquered Cushim. 



These remarks go far to prove that Herodotus had received from the 

 Egyptian priest the true outline of the history of a period much earlier than 

 Sennacherib. 



VOL. XIII. NO. XXV. JULY 1832. D 



