phrase), the next verse (Gen. x. 9) states that NMRD was a “ mighty hunter!"
Upon this translation hang chiliads of commentaries. Leaving them in suspension
we again present Lanci’s etymologies. ’
The Hebrew word T«ID (translated hunter) is not in this case derivable from SXnj
a huntsman; but comes from the Arabian verb WSD; instead of Arabicb SUD He-
braich TiUD, to hunt. Now, WaSaD means “ to be firm," to possess consistency and
stability; which quality, applied to the vast-domains assigned in Xth Genesis to Nimrod
makes the words GiBoR-TsID mean " great-in-landed-tenemmts" ; and not “ vigorow
in the chase.”
What of Assyrian mythology, on the question of Nimrod, may become exhumed
eventually through cuneiform researches, it is useless yet to speculate upon. In the pIe.
sent state of science, Lanci’s exegesis, grammatically as to Hebrew, philologicallv
as to Semilish tongues, and far more sensibly in connection with the probable meaning
of the writer of Xth Genesis, stands of itself, quite as well as, if not better than, the
modern rabbinical notion of a “ hunter.” [Always ready for my own part ^surrender
any hypothesis the moment its irrationality is proven, I submit (for what I conceive
to have been one of the intentions of the compiler of Xth Genesis) the following
retranslation of his sentences, accompanied by notes to some extent justificatory. —
G. Br. G.]
The personage who wrote Xth Genesis is unknown. The language he adopted was
Canaanitish, afterwards called “ Hebrew.” The age in which he flourished is obscure:
the alphabet used by him still more so. His individual biases, beyond a Supposable
Chaldaic tendency, enter, as respects ourselves, into the vast family of human conjectures..
The media through which this document, Xth Genesis, has been handed down,
are, in a scientific point of view, suspicious. The vicissitudes (even when restricted
to the Hebrew Text) through which the original manuscript has passed, in order to
reach our eye m printed copies of King James’s version, are not few: because, the
oldest Hebrew manuscripts of Xth Genesis now extant do not antedate the tenth century
a . c . ; the Masorete diacritical marks, upon which orthodox commentaries mainly
repose, were not invented before '506 a . c . , nor perfected until .some 800 years ago;
and, finally, the Ashouri, sguare-letter, character of present Hebrew MSS. cannot possibly
ascend to the second century of our era. It will therefore be conceded that
before the personal ideas of the first editor of Xth Genesis could have reached our
individualities, some elements of undertainty intervene; independently of errors of
transcribers and of translators, from Hebrew into Alexandrian Greek; from both of
these languages into Latin; from the three, in unknown quantities, into English: all
conditions of doubt that cannot, nowadays, archasologically (and neither hagiogra-
phically nor evangelically) speaking, be altogether dodged. Upon such historical considerations,
we opine, the algebraical chances of mistakes, in respect to Xth Genesis,
are rather more numerous than those of exactitude in interpretation: albeit, He-
braically, the subjoined attempt at an English restoration can withstand criticism quite
as well as, according to St. Paul, “ Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses.”
3d. Biblically. — Genesis X.
Verse 8. “ And KUSA begat NMRD (Nem-Rud == he-whose-royal-actions-correspond-
to-the-good-odor of his fame); he first began to be mighty upon earth: ”
Ter. 9. “ He was a jjfciat-landed-proprietor before (the face of) IeHOuaH; whence
the saying— ‘like NMRD, great-landed-proprietor before (the face of) IeHOuaH:’ ”
Ver. 10. “ And the beginning of his realm was BaBeL; and AReK, and AKaD, and
KaLNeH, in the land of SAiNAAR.”
Ver. 11. “ From this land he himself (NMRD understood) went forth (to) ASAUR
(Assyria), and built NINUeH and ReKAoBoTi-AAIR and KaLaKA.”
Ver. 12. “ And ReSeN between NINUeH and between KaLaKA; (he) she (Nineveh
understood) the great city.” a , , ■■■..:
[The text, in verse 11, is ambiguous. It may be read, as in King James’s version,
« Out of that land went forth Ashur but such rendering leaves out an essential
member of the phrase, the word HHUA, ‘ he himself,’ before the verb “ went forth,”
which can only refer to the antecedent Nimrod. On the other hand, as the literal
text has “ went forth Ashur,” the preposition to must be interpolated ; but not altogether
arbitrarily, because learned Hebraists aver that this preposition is omitted in
Num. xxxiv. 4, and in Deui. iii. 1, and yet its interpolation is obligatory to make sense.
Indifferent to either reading, I will merely mention that three new and distinct
translations of Genesis, by eminent Hebraists (Glaire’s, Cahen’s, and De Sola’s), read,
“ Nimrod went to Ashur (Assyria) ” — that this last vindicates such explanation by
unanswerable arguments, while most of them quote high scholarship in its favor ; and,
finally, that the Hebraical profundity of “ N. M.,” who defends this view in Kitto’s
Cyclopoedia, is of more Germanic hue, and consequently deeper in Hebrew, if not perhaps
in “ geological” lore, than that of “ J. P. S.,” who opposes it. Non nostrum
tardas componere lites: which future cuneiform discoveries alone can settle.—G. R. G.]
The probable ideas of the constructor of Xth Genesis on NMRD, may now be
summed ùp : —
1st. That Nimrod was an affiliation of KAaM (Egypt !), swarthy, or red, race of mankind,
through KUSAiie, Arabian, lineage.
2d. That, unlike every other proper name, after “ Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” in Xth
Genesis, each of which is a geographico-ethnologieal personification, NMRD is an
individual; the only one in the whole chapter. Whether an actual hero, or a mythological
personage, cannot be gathered from the text.
3d. That, whether “ great in the chase ” or not, neither Nimrod’s name nor*his
deeds, nor any thing in Scripture, justifies our assumption that the writer of Xth
Genesis did not entertain high respect for Nimrod’s memory : on the contrary,
4th. This writer distinguishes NMRD from all his geographical compeers, as prominent
“ before IeHOuaH.”
5th. That Nimrod was positively the earliest “ great-landed-proprietor ” known to
the writer of Xth Genesis ; who ascribes to NMRD the foundation of eight of the
proudest cities along the Euphrates and Tigris—Babel, Brech, Accad, Chaîne, Nineveh,
Eehoboth-Aïr, Kalah, and Resen.
6th. And, finally, that the practical writer of Xth Genesis is innocent of the sin of
causing those incomprehensible delusions about NMRD, which, commencing with Josephus’s
hypotheses, only 1800 years ago, pervade all biblical literature at the present
day. ' . . . . . .
Two inferences might, however, be drawn from the said writer s peculiarities.
One, that the document, being Jehovistic, belongs to a later age than that immediately
after Joshua; earlier than which, as shown further on, the mention of Canaanitish
expulsions renders it archseologically impossible to place the writer : — the other is,
that the writer not only was better informed upon Babylonish traditions than (to judge
by his silence) upon those of other countries, but that he derived pleasure from the
elevation of the former above the rest. Would not this imply Chaldasan authorship ?
Now, whether Nimrod was originally a demigod, a hero, or a “ hunting-giant;”
whether, under such appellative, lie associations with Ninus, Belus, or Orion ; or
(were we to “ travel out of the record,” what we should first examine), whether he
was not another form of the Assyrian Hercules, to be added to those so skilfully illustrated
by Ràoul-Rochette—these are speculations foreign to our subject, and we refrain
from their present obtrusion, i
The compiler of Xth Genesis, whose meaning we strive to comprehend, was satisfied
to ascribe to NMRD the foundation of four Babylonish and four Assyrian cities ; and,
although the positions of some of thèse eight are not yet so positively fixed as might
be desired, they group together in Mesopotamian vicinities ; and thus the last affiliation
of KUSA becomes placed in Asia—further removed from African “ Ethiopia than
the whole, or any, of his geographical brethren.609