the first ages it was not uncommon for people in distress to retire to these settlements. Probably famine, sickness, and oppression, as well as the inroads of a powerful enemy, might oblige the Iönim to migrate. And however the Atlantic Titanians may have been like the Cimmerians, described as a people devoted to darkness, yet we find then otherwise represented by Creüsa, who styles them Ασερας Εσπεριες, the stars of the western world. They were so denominated from being the offspring of the original Iönim, or Peleiadæ, of Babylonia; in memory of whom there was a constellation formed in the heavens. These Peleiadæ are generally supposed to have been the daughters of Atlas, and by their names the stars in this constellation are distinguished. Diodorus Siculus has given us a list of them, and adds, that from them the most celebrated " heroes were descended. The Helladians were particularly of this family; and their religion and Gods were of Titanian 38 original.

37 Diodor. Sic. 1. 3. p. 194.

38

Ουρανός και Γης εισιν οι περι Κρονον, και οι άλλοι Τίτανες εκ δε Tæv Toτavwv ås 85epoto. Scholia in Pind. Nem. Od. 6. v. 1. Τιτηνες———Ἡμετερων πρόγονοι πατέρων. Orphic. Hymn. 36. Pindar says, that the Titans were at last freed from their bondage. Λυσε δε Ζευς αφθιτος Τιτάνας. Pyth. Od. 4. v. 518.

GENESIS. CHAP. X.

V. 8. And Cush begat Nimrod. He began to be a mighty one in the earth.

10. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calne, in the land of Shinar.

11. Out of that land went forth Assur, and builded Nineveh; and the city Rehoboth, and Calah:

12. And Rezen between Nineveh and Calah; the same is a great city.

IN the course of my arguments I have followed the common interpretation of the passage above about Assur, and Nineve in verse the eleventh. And I think we may be assured, both from the context, and from the subsequent history of the city and country, that this is the true meaning of the sacred writer. I mention this because the learned Bochart does not allow that Nineve was founded by Assur. He gives a different inter pretation to the 39 passage, going contrary to all

39 Gen. c. 10. v. 11.

the versions which have preceded. Instead of out of this land went Assur, and builded Nineve, he renders it, out of this land he (Nimrod) went into Assur, or Assyria, and built the cities mentioned. 4° He adds, habeo persuasissimum Assur hic hominis nomen non esse, sed loci:-adeoque verba Hebræa ita reddenda: Egressus est in Assyriam. I am persuaded, that the term Assur is not in this place the name of a man; but of a place. The words therefore in the original are to be thus interpreted. He (Nimrod) went out of this land into Assyria. In this opinion he has been followed by others, who have been too easily prejudiced against the common acceptation of the passage.

As the authority of Bochart must necessarily be of great weight, I have subjoined his arguments, that the reader may judge of their validity.

1. His first objection to the common version is this. He thinks, that there is an impropriety in having the name of Assur, the son of Shem, introduced where the sacred text is taken up with the genealogy of the sons of Ham.

2. It is contrary to order, that the operations of Assur should be mentioned v. 11. and his birth not till afterwards at v. 22.

40 Geog. Sacra. 1. 4. c. 12. p. 229. He is followed in this opinion by Le Clerc.

3. There is nothing particular in saying that Assur went out of the land of Shinar; for it was in a manner common to all mankind, who were from thence scattered abroad over the face of the earth.

These objections are by no means well grounded: and the alteration proposed, by remedying a fancied evil, would run us into innumerable difficulties and contradictions. Is Assur be in this passage referred to as the name of a region, the same as Assyria: and if Nimrod seized upon a pre-occupied place; colonies must have gone forth before the dispersion from Babel. This (whatever my opinion may be) is a contradiction in Bochart; who supposes the dispersion to have been universal, and from the land of Shinar; not allowing any previous migration. The principal city of Nimrod was Babel, separated from Nineve, and the other cities above, by a sandy "wild; and it is said to have been left unfinished. They left off to build the city. c. 11. v. 8. Is it credible, that a person would traverse a desert, and travel into a foreign country to found cities, be

41

Among the learned men, who have betaken themselves to these researches, I have hardly met with one, that has duly considered the situation, distance, and natural history of the places, about which they treat.

fore he had completed the capital of his own kingdom? It cannot, I think, be imagined..

i

As to the supposed impropriety of introducing an account of Assur, where the text is taken up with the genealogy of another family, it is an objection of little weight. It arises from our not seeing things in their true light. We should observe, that it is not properly the history of Assur, which is here given; but the history of Nimrod. He trespassed upon Assur, and forced him out of his original property and the accounts of each are so connected, that one must be mentioned with the other, or the history would be incomplete. Many things recorded in Scripture are not introduced according to precise method: and the like is to be found in all writings. We have in the same book of Moses an account given of 42 Canaan, the son of Ham, antecedent to the genealogy of his family, which comes afterwards in another 43 chapter.

Bochart thinks, that the mentioning of Assur's going forth out of Shinar is unnecessary: as it was a circumstance common to all mankind: but I have endeavoured to prove, that all mankind were not concerned in the dispersion from Shinar. Be

42 Gen. c. 9.

43 C. 10.