V. CHAP. back to a period earlier than the age of Abraham'. Of this nature are the records required by the last question in the proposed inquiry, without having recourse to any of the writers of Greece or Italy. As for the traditions which refer the origin of these monuments to the age of the Israelites in Egypt, these exist not only among the Arabians, but also among the Jews and Egyptians. The author of a book entitled Morat Alzeman, cited by Greaves in his Pyramidographia, speaking of the founders of the Pyramids, says, "Some attribute them to Joseph, some to Nimrod." The Arabians distinguished the Pyramids by the appellation of Djebel Pharooun, or Pharaoh's Mountains'; and there is not one of these Oriental writers who does not consider them as antient sepulchres. Upon these premises, thus derived from Venephen, Pyramidos erexisse tradit; ac dein, in dynastia IV. regem (2) P. 6. Lond. 1646. (3) See also Egmont and Heyman's Travels, vol. II. p. 85. Lond. 1759. (4) See the Extracts from Ibn Abd Alhokm, and the Arabian authors, as given by Greaves, &c. &c. sources that are not liable to the objections urged by Pauw, being wholly independent of any notions which he supposes the Greeks to have blended with their accounts of the Pyramids, the following conclusions may perhaps appear to be warranted: 1. That the Hebrews inhabited Egypt in the 2. That the PYRAMIDS contain an existing tian historians, as well as from the tradi- CHAP. V. CHAP. V. Further View of the In the principal point to be determined, namely, the use for which these structures were erected by the Antients, there cannot remain even the shadow of a doubt. That they were sepulchres, has been demonstrated beyond the possibility of a contradiction; and in proving this, all the best authorities have long concurred'. In their whole extent from Djiza to Saccára, the PYRAMIDS, and all their contiguous subterraneous catacombs, constituted one vast cœmetery, belonging to the seat of the Memphian kings, the various parts of which were constructed in different periods of time. Some learned writers, however, as Shaw, and the author of Philosophical Dissertations on the Egyptians and Chinese, have exercised their erudition in attempting to prove that the Pyramids were mythological repositories of Egyptian superstitions; and they have described the Soros, in direct opposition to Strabo, either as a tomb of Osiris, or as one of those ziora legal in which (1) See the authorities and arguments stated by PERIZONIUS, Origines Egyptiaca, cap.21. p. 393. L. Bat. 1711. Also GREAVES's Pyramidographia, p. 43. Lond. 1646, &c. &c. (2) Tápos rãy Bacıxía. (Strabon. Geog. lib. xvii. p. 1145. Ed. Oxon.) In the threatenings denounced against the Israelites (Hosea, c, ix. v.6.) it is said, "MEMPHIS SHALL BURY THEM." (3) See PAUW on the Egypt. and Chinese, vol. II. p.48. Lond. 1795. V. the Priests kept their sacred vestments. Nor, CHAP. perhaps, would these conjectures have appeared so visionary, if those distinguished writers had carried the investigation somewhat further. If the connection between antient Egyptian mythology and Jewish history had been duly traced, an evident analogy, founded upon events which have reference to the earliest annals of the Hebrews, might be made manifest. The subject, of itself sufficient to constitute a separate dissertation, would cause too much digression; although an endeavour may be made to concentrate some of its leading features within the compass of a note'. The main object (4) See Shaw's Travels, p. 371. Lond. 1757. (5) Perhaps, with due attention to facts collected from antient and modern writers, the whole connection might be traced between the history of JOSEPH, and the Egyptian mythology founded thereon. For this purpose, the reader may be referred to all that Vossius has written. upon the subject (Vid. lib. i. cap. 29. tom. I. p. 213. de Theologia Gentili: Amst. 1642), who considers the Egyptian APIs as a symbol of the Patriarch. He supports his opinion by authority from RUFFINUS (Historia Ecclesiasticæ, lib. ii. cap. 33.); and derives evidence from AUGUSTIN, (Script. Mirab. l. i. c. 15.) to prove that the Egyptians placed an Ox near the sepulchre of JOSEPH. It appears also, from Suidas (voce Zágais), that APIs was by some considered a symbol of JOSEPH : Quo ut magis inclinem facit,” observes Vossius, "quòd Josephus Deuteronomii cap. penult. commate 17, bos vocetur, secundùm codices Hebræos." But if APIs were the same as JOSEPH, so must also be SERAPIS (or SARAPIS, as it was written by the Greeks) and OSIRIS ; for these are but different names of the same mythological personage. 66 Facti CHAP. at present is to prove the intention for which the Pyramids were erected; and in this, it is 66 Factus est Joseph quasi rex totius Ægypti, et vocaverunt eum Apis," says Kircher (Edip. Ægypt. tom. I. p. 196. Rom. 1652); and be gives us from Varro the reason why he was called SERAPIS: Quia Arca (inquit Varr.) in quá positus erat, Græcè seu Ægyptiacè dicitur Zogis, unde Zogáris, quasi Arca Apis, deinde, uná literá mutatá, Zigaxıs dictus est." Also, according to Strabo, Aris was the same as Osiris. *Ος ἐστιν ("Απις) ὃ αὐτὸς καὶ Ὀσίρις (lib. xvii. p. 1144. Ed. Oron.) Hence it may be inferred, that as JOSEPH, together with the names of Apis and SERAPIS, also bore that of OSIRIS, the annual mournings which took place in Egypt for the loss of Osiris' body, and the exhibition of an empty Soros upon those occasions, were ceremonies derived from the loss of Joseph's body, which had been carried away by the Hebrews when they left the country. Julius Firmicus, who flourished under the two sons of Constantine, endeavours to explain the reason (De Error. Profan. Relig.) why JOSEPH was called SERAPIS. In opposition to the origin assigned by Varro, for the name SERAPIS, it may be observed, that PLUTARCH (De Isid. et Osir. c. 29.) derides a notion which prevailed, maintaining that SERAPIS was no God, but a mere name for the sepulchral chest where the body of APIs was deposited: Ox Mas Θεὸν τὸν Σάραπιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ̓ΑΠΙΔΟΣ ΣΟΡΟΝ οὕτως ὀνομάζεσθαι. But things which were rejected by the Greeks, as inconsistent with their religious opinions, may come much nearer, on this account, to truth, and to our own. A very popular notion has long been entertained, concerning an extraneous idol brought to Alexandria, by one of the Ptolemies, from the coast of PONTUS, which received the appellation of Serapis upon its arrival in Egypt. But the word Serapis is purely Egyptian (Vid. Jablonski Panth. Ægypt. tom. I. p. 232. Francof. 1750); and there is something extremely improbable in the circumstances of the importation. That any of the Ptolemies, cooped as they were in Egypt, should insult the inhabitants of the country (Macrobius Saturnal. l.i. c. 7.) by the introduction of a strange Divinity from the EUXINE, has always worn an appearance of fable. Jablonski has refuted the opinion, by proving that Serapis was worshipped in Memphis long before the time of the PTOLEMIES (Panth. Egypt. lib. ii. c. 5. p. 233. Franc. C. 1750), |