I conceive that the army of Zerah, like that of Memnon, and those, perhaps, who assisted Shishak, may have been transported from their own country, by the navigation of the Red Sea. It has been objected by some, that Zerah could not have been king of Ethiopia above Egypt, without being master of the latter country: but not only was the way by the Red Sea shorter, and much more convenient, but the kings of Meroe at that time may have possessed a part of Arabia, and he may thus have marched his army through the peninsula. We may, however, reasonably suppose, that he would not have undertaken such an important war against the people of Judah, if he had apprehended any impediment to his progress, from such near and powerful neighbours as the Egyptians and Arabians. I see no more reason to doubt that this Zerah was a king of Meroe, than that Tirhaka was such, who bears the same title in Scripture, of king of Ethiopia. The monuments of Egypt and Ethiopia, fortunately, confirm the correctness of the title of the latter, and show us that Tirhaka, called king of Ethiopia, in the Bible, was also king of Meroe; but because no vestiges of edifices constructed by Zerah have survived the almost complete destruction of Ethiopian monuments, there is no reason why we should conceive that the Ethiopia of which he is called king is not the same country which Tirhaka afterwards ruled.
The army of Zerah, which is stated in the Bible at a thousand thousand, that is, a million of men, may seem enormous; and, perhaps, this is only a vague expression of an almost innumerable host; but we must consider, that the tribe of Judah raised an army of 300,000, and that of Benjamin 280,000, to oppose him. The obligation, still customary, for every one who could bear arms to join the array of their king, accounts for the magnitude of their forces. Their duty, as vassals, would oblige the Ethiopians to join the standards of their chiefs, and the same cause, joined to the more noble motives of zeal and devotedness for their country and religion, would draw from their more peaceful avocations the sons of Judah and Benjamin. The latter are described as armed with targets, spears, shields, and bows: such would be precisely the equipment of an army in the centre of Africa at the present day; but the Ethiopian had also three hundred chariots, which at once denotes a people to a certain degree advanced in the art of war. Whatever might be the circumstances which enabled Zerah to collect together this immense army, we could not have a more striking proof of the extent and the affluent condition of the kingdom of Meroe, when we consider that she was able to support the expense of such a vast and distant expedition, and dispense, for so long a period, with the services of so many of her sons.
The events hitherto mentioned as connected with the history of Meroe have been important, as showing her political importance at a very early period. We have seen her successfully repelling the invasions of Semiramis, and of her powerful neighbours the Egyptians, and carrying her arms to the succour of the Trojans, and to attack the people of Judah.
We come now to that glorious epoch in the annals of Ethiopia, when her kings reigned not only over their native country, but over the entire valley of the Nile, including the whole of Egypt. We shall see that Sennacherib, king of Assyria, felt their power. Their dominion embraced nations of every variety of colour and character, from Memphis to the interior of Africa. It is highly satisfactory to know, that the account of this dynasty of Ethiopian kings who reigned over Egypt is not only transmitted to us by the joint testimony of sacred and profane history, but also is amply confirmed by the monuments of both countries.
The lists of Eusebius and Africanus, extracted from Manetho, agree perfectly with the names of the three Ethiopian kings who reigned over Egypt, from 732 to 688 before the Christian era. The following table shows that they do not exactly correspond, either as to particular reigns, or the entire length of the dynasty, which Africanus makes 40 years, and Eusebius 44; but the difference is very slight.
| Africanus. | Eusebius. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sabbakon | 8 | Sabbakon | 12 |
| Sevechus, his son | 14 | Sevechus | 12 |
| Tarkus | 18 | Tarakus | 20 |
| 40 | 44 | ||
Herodotus says[61], that after Asychis, who erected the brick pyramid, a certain blind man was said to have reigned in the city of Anysis. During his sway, a large force of Ethiopians, under Sabachus, their king, invaded Egypt. The blind king escaped by flight into the mountains, and the Ethiopian reigned in Egypt fifty years. At the end of that period, according to Herodotus[62], a vision appeared to Sabachus, commanding him to assemble the priests together, and destroy them. Rather than be guilty of such a sacrilege, he preferred returning into his country, particularly as the fifty years, which the oracle usually consulted by the Ethiopians had stated to be the term of their sojourn in Egypt, was expired. Diodorus gives a narrative of this event, agreeing with that of Herodotus, except that he does not state the name of the king to whom Sabachus succeeded. He speaks of a king Bucchoris, of a vile appearance, who exceeded all his predecessors in talent and prudence, and says this king reigned some time before Sabachus. Both Eusebius and Africanus agree that Sabachus ascended the throne, after making prisoner a king called Bocchoris, or Bonchoris. When we consider the loose accounts which both Herodotus and Diodorus have, in every instance, given of the Egyptian kings, it is only extraordinary that the time assigned by them as the duration of the Ethiopian dominion in Egypt should differ only by six years from that stated by Eusebius. They have preserved few names of any of the dynasties, and these so generally differ from Manetho and the monuments, that it is not surprising to find them describe the Ethiopian dynasty as the reign of one monarch. We may consider it fortunate that the name of that king agrees so exactly with the always more correct orthography in the lists of Eusebius and Africanus. The accuracy, however, of the list of Eusebius is confirmed by testimony which cannot be disputed, namely, the evidence of lapidary inscriptions on the monuments of Egypt and Ethiopia. I will first mention to the reader the names and titles of those kings, with the places where they were found recorded; and will afterwards show him that the third king of this dynasty is the same Tirhaka whose name is connected with one of the most interesting historical events narrated in the sacred writings.
ⲥⲟⲩⲧⲉⲛ (Ⲣⲏ ⲛⲟϥⲣⲉ (ⲛ̀) ⲕⲁ) ⲥⲓⲣⲏ (Ϣⲃⲕ). “The King (Sun Beneficent of Oblations), Son of the Sun (Shabak).” This is undoubtedly the first of this list of kings. The name is not found upon any of the monuments of Ethiopia, but that is not surprising, so few of the temples there being preserved; but we have undoubted evidence of this king having, as the historians say, reigned over Egypt, for we find his name upon a gate of the temple of Karnak, and also the portrait of the king in his Ethiopian dress, with the same titles, on the interior of the door of the great propylon of the Temple of Luxor, which he repaired. Signor Rosellini states, that he found a date of the twelfth year of his reign; which corroborates the statement of Eusebius, that he reigned twelve years, and not eight only, according to Africanus. I saw at Berlin a scarabæus containing the name of this king, with the uræus on each side, and above the oval a lion couchant: the latter is curious, as it tallies with the singular title I observed above the names at Amarah, of “King of Kings,” represented by the reed and half circle, as king (ⲥⲟⲩⲧⲛ), and a lion, emblematical of king, with the sign of the plural number. Signor Rosellini mentions, also, that this name is on two amulets he purchased for the Museum at Florence, and on a statue in the Villa Albani at Rome. I think the latter must be removed, as I could not find it there, nor do I recollect having seen any other instance of the name of Sciabak or Sabachus, in the splendid collections of Egyptian antiquities at Turin, Berlin, Paris, London, Rome, Naples, Vienna, Munich, &c., except in an inscription on an alabaster Canopian vase at Paris.
