Talk:William Jones (philologist)
Add topicWork in progress
[edit]- Jones was just as concerned about the fact that "some intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt the authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses." In his estimation, too, "either the first eleven chapters of Genesis . . . are true, or the whole fabrick of our national religion is false, a conclusion which none of us, I trust, would wish to be drawn" (Jones 1788, 225). Eager to settle the matter, Jones undertook the responsibility of unraveling Indian chronology for the benefit and appeasement of his disconcerted colleagues: "I propose to lay before you a concise history of Indian chronology extracted from Sanskrit books, attached to no system, and as much disposed to reject Mosaick history, if it be proved erroneous, as to believe it, if it be confirmed by sound reason from indubitable evidence" (Jones 1790a, 111). Despite such assurances, Jones's own predispositions on this matter were revealed in several earlier written statements: " I . . . am obliged of course to believe the sanctity of the venerable books [of Genesis]" (1788, 225); Jones (1790) concluded his researches by claiming to have "traced the foundation of the Indian empire above three thousand eight hundred years from now" (145), that is to say, safely within the confines of Bishop Usher's creation date of 4004 B.C.E. and, more important, within the parameters of the Great Flood, which Jones considered to have occurred in 2350 B.C.E.
- quoted from Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 1.