Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

then are applied to the assumed progenitors, a constant standard of height, before which -partly plural names, [Kittim, Dodanim, everything is dwarfed. Ludim, &c.], which do not suit the progenitors, as single individuals,-partly patronymics, [Jebusite, Amorite, Girgashite, &c.,] which apply to races, not to single persons. In the last two cases, it seems almost as if the author himself had not thought of separate individuals as progenitors. Leaving out of consideration the derivation of the peoples, this list of nations is an historical document, for the nations brought forward in it are historical their existence was the occasion of

the author's composing his description, and his knowledge enabled him to do so. We need not be surprised at this, if we realise the relation of the Hebrews to the Phoenicians, and their comprehensive commerce.

And KALISCH adds, Gen.p.235:— The Hindoos also connected all the nations, of which they had the least knowledge, with their own history. But they traced the ther nations to illegitimate alliances with the different castes, and regarded them all as impure rebels.

1232. The word Kěnahan, 'Canaan,' v.15, means 'low,'* i.e. Lowlands, in opposition to Aram, 'high,' the Highlands of Syria. Mr. GROVE describes the district of Aram, SMITH's Dict. of the Bible, i.p.98, as

the great mass of that high table-land, which rising with sudden abruptness from the Jordan and the very margin of the Lake of Gennesareth, stretches at an elevation of no less than 2,000 feet above the level of the sea to the banks of the Euphrates itself, contrasting strongly with the low land bordering on the Mediterranean, the 'land of Canaan,' or the low country.'

And he writes of Canaan, Ib., i.246: High as the level of much of the country west of the Jordan undoubtedly is, there are several things which must always have prevented, as they still prevent, it from leaving an impression of elevation. These are

(i) That remarkable, wide, maritime plain, over which the eye ranges for miles from the central hills,-a feature of the country, which

cannot be overlooked by the most casual observer, and which impresses itself most indelibly on the recollection;

(ii) The still deeper, and still more remarkable and impressive, hollow of the Jordan valley, a view into which may be commanded from almost any of the heights of central Palestine;

(iii) The almost constant presence of the line of the mountains east of the Jordan,which from their distance have the effect more of an enormous cliff than of a mountain range,-looking down on the more broken and isolated hills of Canaan,-and furnishing

* So AUGUSTINE says, Op. Omn.vi.p.501, "Why, however, the land was called Canaan,' the interpre ation of this name explains: for 'Canaan' is interpreted to mean 'low.'

1233. The above is, beyond a doubt, the true meaning of the word as expressing the country. But the Hebrew writer has introduced a person,-Canaan, the son of Ham,-and given him eleven sons, of whose names nine are tribal names, and one is the name of the The Canaanites ancient city, Sidon.

were, in point of fact, the lowland tribes of that district, including more particularly the Phoenicians, who lived upon the coast, and who both called themselves Canaanites, and are SO called in the Bible. Thus we read:

Is.xxiii.11, 'Jehovah hath commanded concerning Canaan [=Tyre]'; Zeph.ii.5, O Canaan, land of the Philistines.'

So Sidon is named as the firstborn of Canaan, G.x.15; and, accordingly, in the lists of the aboriginal tribes, E.iii. 8,17,&c., the first place is always given to the 'Canaanite in the stricter sense of the word, i.e. the Phoenicians.

1234. GESENIUS says of the name Canaan, Heb. Gr. p.8 :—

It is the native name both of the Canaanitish tribes in Palestine, and of those who dwelt at the foot of Lebanon, and on the Syrian coast, whom we call Phoenicians, while they are called Kěnahan, Canaan,' on their own coins. Also the people of Carthage gave them

selves the same name.

The Hebrew tribes were originally Syrians, i.e. Aramæans or Highlanders. But probably, as we shall presently see, they were in reality kindred tribes with and spoke the same language as, the Canaanites or Lowlanders, whence the Hebrew language is called, in Is. xix. 18, 'the (lip) language of Canaan.'

1235. In all probability, the nations in this chapter are, as KNOBEL says, historical, that is, they had a real existence in the views of the writer, and are not, as some have supposed, in many cases, a mere fiction of his own imagination.

There is, however, one point, in respect of which there is an indication of artificiality in the list, viz., that there are exactly seventy national names given in this register, if we omit the passage about Nimrod,*

* So writes Mr. BEVAN, SMITH'S Dict. of the Bible, p.545: It does not seem to have formed

v.8-12, which has some appearance of | Again, Tarshish* (Tartessus in being a later interpolation, whether by Spain), and Kittim (Cyprus), which the same or another writer,-(since are known to have been Phoenician five sons of Cush are given in v.7, and it is strange that the story should begin v.8, and Cush begat Nimrod,')-and which at all events is concerned with the acts of an individual person, and not with a tribe or people. This number seventy' may have reference to the 'seventy' souls of the House of Jacob, which came into Egypt, G.xlvi. 27: comp. also D.xxxii.8,

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.'

settlements, are classed among the Japhethites, v.4, though Sidon or Phoenicia itself is placed among the Hamites,v.15. The Medes also (Madai) are separated as Japhethites from the probably kindred tribes of Asshur and Elam, who are reckoned as Shemites.—perhaps because the territory of the Medes was supposed to extend indefinitely towards

the north.

*The Chronicler writes, 2Ch.ix.21,- For the king's ships went to Tarshish with the servants of Hiram: every three years came the ships of Tarshish bringing gold and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks,' to king SoloHere he has evidently meant to copy the corresponding datum in 1K.x.22:- For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold and silver, But the ivory, and apes, and peacocks.'

mon.

1236. But there are several discrepancies in this account, which show some uncertainty in the traditions, reports, or theories, on which the writer relies; and there are other points, on which it is at variance with the ethno-writer in Kings speaks only of a navy of logical science of the present day. Tarshish,' i.e. a fleet of merchant-vessels, the

of

proverbial for merchantman,' Ps.xlviii.7,Is. ii.16,xxiii.1,14,1x.9,Ez.xxvii.25, from the great traffic which the Phoenicians had with Tarshish (or Tartessus) in Spain. The Chronicler, however, has understood the expression literally, and therefore writes of Solomon's ships going to Tarshish.

So we find in 1K.xxii.48,' Jehoshaphat made

ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not, for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber.' But in 2Ch.xx.36,37, we read, And he joined himself with him to make

Thus the names of Sheba and phrase ship of Tarshish' having become Havilah,-doubtless, the names countries, occur both among the sons of Ham, v.7, and the sons of Shem, v.28,29; and again Sheba occurs among the grandsons of Abraham, xxv.3. There may have been two branches of each of these two tribes, one settled on the E. coast of Africa, the other in Arabia; and the first in each case may have been reckoned by the writer with the sons of Ham, and the other with the Shemites. But then the two branches of each name must really have been related to each other; they must have been both Shemitic, or both Hamitic. And so DELITZSCH notes, p.307:

It is impossible for us to keep asunder the Cushite Sheba, x.7, the Joktanite Sheba, x.28, and the Abrahamite Sheba, xxv.3.

1237. But if so, then both Sheba and Dedan, who are reckoned together as grandsons of the Shemite, Abraham, xxv.3, must be connected with the Hamite Sheba and Dedan of x.7.

part of the original genealogical statement, but to be an interpolation of a later date. It is the only instance in which personal characteristics are attributed to any of the names mentioned. The proverbial expression, which it embodies, bespeaks its traditional and fragmentary character; and there is nothing to connect the passage either with what precedes or with what follows it.'

ships to go to Tarshish; and they made the ships at Ezion-geber. And the ships were broken, that they were not able to go to Tarshish.' That is to say, the earlier writer says, very correctly, that Solomon built merchant ships at Ezion-geber, at the top of the Red Sea, to go to Ophir, on the SE. coast of Arabia: whereas the Chronicler says that Solomon made ships on the Red Sea to go to a port in Spain. Some commentators have supposing Tarshish to be in Asia: but there attempted to 'reconcile' the difficulty by is no real ground whatever for this: comp. Is.xxiii.6, Jon.i.3, from which it is plain that Tarshish was directly accessible from the Mr. TWISLETON writes, coast of Palestine.

SMITH's Dict. of the Bible, iii.p.1440: The compiler of the Chronicles, misapprehending the expression ships of Tarshish,' supposed that they meant ships destined to go to Tarshish; whereas, although this was the original meaning, the words had come to signify large Phoenician ships of a particular size and description, destined for long voyages, just as in England East Indiaman' was a general name given to vessels, some of which were not intended to go to India at all. . . . This alternative is in itself by far the most probable, and ought not to occasion any surprise.'

1238. On v.8-12 KALISCH writes, I The name 'Hebrew' is first used Gen.p.255:

The whole import of this interesting passage has been perverted and contorted. The hero' Nimrod has been, [through a false interpretation of his name, as from marad, 'rebel,'] transformed not only into a giant, a tyrant, and a ravager, but into a rebel against the authority of God, into a proclaimer of wicked principles, teaching the docile people that they owe all their happiness to their own virtue and exertion, and not to the power and goodness of God,-that the Divine rule was an intolerable tyranny, which had inflicted a general Flood, but which they could for the future escape by gathering around one great centre, the tower of Babel. He was regarded as a hunter of men, as well as of wild-beasts; his very name is believed to imply impious revolt; he has been identified with the fearful monster Orion,' [called Kesil, fool' or 'knave, Job.xxxviii.31,] chained in the expanse of heaven with indestructible fetters, to warn and to terrify; he was, among the later Arabic writers, the subject of incredible fables, which (it is asserted) are hinted at in these verses. And all

this because Nimrod is here called a 'hero' and a mighty huntsman'!

1239. G.x.21.

'Shem ... the father of all the sons of Eber.'

6

of Abraham, G.xiv. 13. It is applied to his descendants only in the mouth of foreigners, G.xxxix. 14,17,xli.12,E.i. 16, ii. 6,7, 1S.iv.6,9, xiii. 19,xiv.11,xxix.3, or when they are contrasted with foreigners, G.xl.15,xliii.32, E.i.15,19,ii. 11,13,xxi. 2, D.xv. 12, 1S.xiii.3,7.

1241. The Jehovist in this chapter has deduced the inhabitants of the countries with which he was best acquainted, (whether through extended intercourse with Egypt, Phoenicia, and the East, or through other means,) from the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In Hebrew, the name Ham, kham, would be derivable from the word khamam, 'be hot'; but its real origin appears to be the native designation for Egypt, khemi, 'the black country,' PLUTARCH, χημία, (whence chemistry,' alchemy,')which it received from the colour of its soil.

[ocr errors]

1242. The name Japheth, yepheth, is supposed by some to be derived from By 'sons of Eber (Heber)' are evi-yaphah, be fair, beautiful,' and to dently meant Hebrews; in other have reference to the light colour of words, the writer here deduces from the European nations: while Shem, the name of an imaginary personal means a name, renown,' vi.4,xi.4, and ancestor, as a patronymic, the appel- may imply the favour with which the lative name, 'Hebrew,' which is most Hebrew branch of the Shemites was disprobably derived from heber, across, tinguished by Jehovah, or more genebeyond, on the other side of,' and was rally, the grandeur and fame, which, in applied by the Canaanites to the people the earliest historical times, was atof Israel, as men who had crossed tached to the nations of Western over,' i.e. had come originally from Asia: comp. in modern Europe, ‘la beyond the Euphrates. Hence the grande nation.' The Jehovist, howLXX express the word 'Hebrew by ever, in ix.27, connects the name JaTEρáτns, one from the other side;' pheth with pathah, enlarge. Some, as and exactly in the same way the na-BUTTMANN, connect it with the Greek. tives of Natal speak of the thousands Iapetos. The Targ. Jer. upon G.ii.7, of fugitive Zulus, who have crossed- says that God created man red, black, over the boundary River Tugela into and white,'-showing that the idea the British colony, for protection from of a triple partition of mankind, actheir tyrannical kings, as abawelayo, cording to colour, was current among

'crossed-over.'

1240. Thus 'Eber' in this passage is not really the name of a man, but, as Mr. BEVAN says, SMITH'S Dict. of the Bible, iii.p.1545,

represents geographically the district across (i.e. eastward of) the Euphrates. the country, which had been the cradle of their race, and from which they had emigrated westward into Palestine. Ib.i.p.770.

the Jews.

1243. Those, who receive the Jehovist's account as a sufficient explanation of the origin of the different nations of antiquity, must be prepared to explain how such remarkable permanent differences in the shape of the skull. bodily form, colour, physiognomy, as are exhibited on the most ancient Egyptian

monuments, where we see depicted the Mongol with his distinctive features, shaven except the scalp-lock on the crown, or else with long hair and thin moustache, and the Negro, black, flatnosed, thick-lipped, woolly-haired, just exactly as now, the children even with little tufts of woolly hair erect upon their heads, (see Types of Mankind, p.252, fig.173,) with many corresponding peculiarities in other cases,could have developed themselves so distinctly in the course of a few centuries, though no perceptible change has taken place in the negro face for 4,000 years to the present time. Nay, according to the Biblical accounts, the period allowed for the development of the physiological and linguistic differences in the races of men commences, not with Adam or even Noah, but with Peleg, in whose days mankind was dispersed, G.x.25; and Peleg was born (449) only 191 years before the birth of Abraham.

1244. On this point writes Dr. PYF SMITH, Geology and Scripture, p.353:

We have no instance of a white family or community acquiring the proper negro colour, nor of a ne ro family losing its peculiarity, and becoming of a proper, healthy, NorthEuropean white, where there are not intermarriages with fair persons, long continued in the favourable direction. This, I believe, must be admitted; and another fact of great importance must be added to it. The recent explorings of the Egyptian tombs and temples have brought to light pictures of native Egyptians, and of men and women of other nations, comprising negroes, who are distintinguished by their characteristic form of face and their completely black colour. Some of these highly interesting representations

are proved to be of the age of Joseph and earlier, and some, in which negro figures occur, are of the eighth century after the Flood. Assuming, then, that the complexion

of Noah's family was what I ventured to suppose as the normal brown, there was not time for a negro race to be produced by the operation of all the causes of change with which we are acquainted.

1245. And so writes NOTT, Types of Mankind, p.58:

[blocks in formation]

the contrary, always swallowed up and lost? Is it not strange, if there be any truth in this argument, that no race has ever been formed from those congenital varieties which we know to occur frequently, and yet races should originate from congenital varieties, which cannot be proved, and are not believed, by our best writers, ever to have existed? No one ever saw a Negro, Mongol, or Indian, born heard of an Indian child born from white or from any but his own species. Has anyone black parents in America, during more than two centuries that these races have been living there? Is not this brief and simple statement of the case sufficient to satisfy anyone, that the diversity of species now seen on the earth cannot be accounted for on this assumption of congenital or accidental origin? If a doubt remains, would it not be expelled by the recollection, that the Negro, Tartar, and Whiteman, existed, with their present types, at least one thousand years before Abraham journeyed to Egypt, as a supplicant to the mighty Pharaoh?

1246. It is impossible to assign with any degree of confidence the situation of many of the places or peoples here named. Some of them, of course, are well-known from the later history, while others have been identified with considerable probability from a comparison of their names, and of the order in which they are here enumerated, with descriptions which occur elsewhere in sacred or profane authors. Thus JAPHETH represents the nations of the north and west (in Europe and W. Asia), HAM, those of the south (in Africa and W. Asia), SHEM, those of the central parts of W. Asia,-comprising, probably, all those of which the writer had had some definite information, though it is not impossible that some may have been omitted or inserted, to make up the important number seventy. The Japhethites, being probably least known, are given only to two generations, the Hamites to three, the Shemites to four or five.

1247. Among these may be noticedGOMER, comp. Cimbri, Cymry, and his descendants

Ashkenaz the Germans (?);
Riphath the Kelts (?), whom tradition
connects with the Rhipcean, now the
Carpathian, mountains;
Togarmah=Krim-Tartars (?), or Arme-

nia;

[blocks in formation]

from whom are derived (contrary to the | tiously maintain this view, but believes Greek tradition, which makes Ion the that the transactions in Paradise were descendant of Hellen)

Elishah Hellas or (?) Eolians;
Tarshish Tartessus, in Spain;
Kittim Cyprus;

Dodanim Rhodes, if the reading of the
Sam. Vers., Rodanim (as in 1Ch.i.7) is

correct;

[blocks in formation]

1248. WE proceed now to the consideration of the language spoken by the Hebrew tribes. According to the traditionary view, Hebrew must have been the language of Paradise, since all the conversations are recorded in that tongue,-the words of Jehovah-Elohim, those of Adam and Eve, and of the serpent, and, especially, the two names given by the man to his wife, ii.23, iii.20, names given with express reference to their meaning in Hebrew. So, too, after the expulsion from Paradise, the names are pure Hebrew: and Noah is made to play upon the name of Japheth, ix.27, with reference to a Hebrew root of like sound.

carried on in a different language, so that only broken reminiscences of what then took place have been handed down to us by tradition.

1250. But, however this may have been, we must suppose, it would seem, that Abrabam, while living at Haran, xi.31,32,xii. 4,5, in his father's house,' -which is elsewhere described as the 'city of Nahor, in Mesopotamia,' xxiv. 10, comp. xxvii.43,-spoke the language of the country, the Aramaic. We are told, however, that when Laban, the grandson of Nahor, Abraham's brother, gave an Aramaic name to the stone set up by himself and Jacob, xxxi.47, Jacob gave to the same stone a Hebrew name of like signification. From this, regarded as an historical matter of fact, we should infer that Jacob spoke Hebrew, as his mother-tongue, before he left his father Isaac's house, and that he retained his command of that language during the twenty years of his residence in Haran, (where, of course, Aramæan was spoken by everyone else,) and adopted it again on his return to the land of Canaan.

1251. But this would show also that Abraham's family, while living in the land of Canaan, had already changed their language from Aramæan to Hebrew; and it is natural to suppose that they did this by adopting the tongue of the people among whom they dwelt. But, since the Hebrew and Aramaic 1249. Accordingly, there are some who are merely different forms of the same have maintained that Hebrew was actu-Semitic family of languages, this would ally spoken in Paradise, and by all the inhabitants of the world before and after the Flood, without suffering any material modification, for 2,000 years (!), so that they remained still a people of 'one lip,' until, at the 'confusion of tongues, the one primeval language was shattered into a variety of different languages, or, rather, a multitude of different languages were separated at that time from the parent Hebrew tongue,which, however, was still maintained in its purity among the descendants of Peleg,in whose days the earth was divided,' x.25,-in the line of the eldest son till the time of Abraham. DELITZSCH, as we have seen (1034), cannot conscien

imply that the Canaanites spoke the same tongue fundamentally as the Hebrews themselves, before, as well as after, the migration of Abraham,-in other words, that the Hebrew tribes were originally kindred tribes to those of Canaan, and were not, as they are represented in G.x, the sons of Shem, while the Canaanites were the children of Ham.

1252. By those, who maintain Hebrew to be the original tongue of Paradise, or the nearest representative of the original tongue, it will be assumed that it was continued in its purity in the line of Abraham, while Aramaic was a deflection from it,—a dialectic variation.

« AnteriorContinuar »