528
expressed a high land, they composed, according to the recital of Moses, a single
people, but divided into many nations,” &c.
To this theory Quatrem&re judiciously objects, — that the opinion 'which attributes a
Semitic origin to the Kanaanites (aside from its opposition to Xth Genesis, which he
considers of Mosaic editorship) reposes uniquely upon the resemblance of the tongue
spoken by the Kanaanites with the languages in vogue among cither peoples to whom
general consent now applies the name of Shemitish. He holds this basis to be unsafe;
because all of the affiliations of Shem did not speak one language; notably the
Elamites, of Persia; whose tongue differed entirely from that of Aramaeans or Arabs:
at the same time, surrounded as the KNA^NI ever were by Semitic influences, their
language would necessarily imbibe such exotic idioms. Again, it is by Quatremfere
considered doubtful, either that KNA&N means a low land, or ARM a high one. Indeed,
one might add that the final N in Kanaan may be a later addition to an original
root, KN# ; said to be the pristine name of the Phoinikes, Phoenicians; which is probably
preserved through another form, viz.: Beni-d.NK, “ sons of Anak; ” who were
not “ Giants,” as some commentators imagine. Such diversities of scientific opinion
are here presented to exhibit someproblemata; not to solve them.
To us the chart of Xth Genesis has proved a very trustworthy guide so far. It
assigns an Hamitic origin to KNA&N ; and consequently to the foundation of the city
of Sidon. No facts known to us interfere with this natural view. During the eighth—
ninth centuries b . c . the name of Sidon was already sculptured, according to Raw-
linson and Layard, upon the monuments of Assyria; but the very conjectural identity,
claimed by Osburn, of the SMIEETANA, hieroglyphed On the Egyptian records of
Ramses II., with the Sidonians, is now overthrown by Hinck’s translation of a cuneatic
register of Sardanapalus, wherein the “ Sharutinian” city becomes situate “ between
Antioch and Aleppo.” We have, moreover [supra, p. 239, Fig. 289], identified with
Egyptian native soldiery of the royal guard the individual whom Mr. Osburn suspected
to be a Sidonian. None dispute, however, that Sidon must have been a “ city” whensoever
Xth Genesis was written, so we proceed to the next name.619
36. nrr—katj—f hetr.’
The Bittites are -well known. Of them the patriarchal Abraham (£?efi.rxxni. 9,
17,19) purchased not a double cavern, called Machpelah; but “ the field contracted for."
Thus, under the magic wand of such scholarship as that of the Vatican Professor of
Sacred Philology, multitudes of mistranslated Hebrew words are replaced by their
historical meanings. — “ I boschi,” sayB Lanci, “ diventano i>meri, le doppie spelonche
spiegansi per contratti, i torrenti si cangiano in beneficii, le isole in popoU e stati, 'i topi
in virili vergelle, le rondini mpuledri, le voragini in montagne.”
In hieroglyphics, the KAeT, variously euphonized, pecur so often, back to^the age
of Thotmes III., or the sixteenth century B. c., that one need but refer to Mr. Birch’s
critical papers for authority. The “ land of Kheta’ among Egyptians seems to have
meant that part of Palestine where we find the Sittites of Scripture; but the name
KAeT also designated this very wide-spread people; who reappear, through Bayard’s
researches, on the cuneatic inscriptions of Assyria, as the Khatii or Khetta of Syria.
To us, and to the writer of Xth Genesis, KfteTt is not a man, but a people so called.620
37. ’DID’ — IBTJSI — ‘ J e b u s it e . ’
In the book of Judges (six. 10), a flagitious act is recounted, which chronologers
assign to about the year 1406 b . c. The date seems too remote, but the earlier it is
placed by commentators, the more certain will be the archseological deductions now
about to be drawn.
A Levite “ rose up and departed, and came over against Jcbus, which is Jerusalem
that is to say, the place had been known previously by the name of IBUS; but, in the
HEBREW NOMENCLATURE.
%
time of the writer of Judges, was called Jerusalem, as a second name for one and the
same locality; whence the Benjamites, who gave it this latter appellative, had failed
to drive the Jebusites out, “ even unto this day.” {Jud. i. 21.) So Joshua (xviii. 28),
i. e. the book so-called, has “ and IBUS which is Jerusalem;” and without requiring
further information, the following text corroborates what precedes: |l§ § | Chron. xi.
4), “ And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is IBUS, where the IBUSfcm
(were then) the inhabitants of the land.”
Hence it is certain, that IBUS was a very ancient city, on the site of which the
exotic Israelites founded a more recent one they named Jerusalem — literally, YeRuS,
heritage, and SAaLai'M, peace (in the dual) -7- written YeRuSAaLalM, and signifying,
according to Lanci, “ She who inherits two-fold peace.”
IBUSI, in Xth Genesis, means therefore “ a man of, or belonging to, IBUS,” a city;
and not the imaginary son of a man of that name. Around this topographical centre
clustered the IBUS&m before the irruption of Israel’s hosts into Kanaan. There the
Jebusites manfully vindicated their nationality until David stormed their citadel, Mt.
Zion; and here some of them remained long after their city was changed into Jerusalem,
until the invader and the invaded were swallowed up by the Babylonians.
Now, whether a tribe called IBUSfcm built a city and named it after a mythical ancestor,
divine or human; or whether the anterior name of a city was adopted by a tribe,
is what neither ourselves nor any one else can aver. Xth Genesis speaks of an I b u s -
idn; just as it speaks of an inhabitant of any more celebrated but perhaps not more
ancient city than IBUS, already in existence when Joshua entered Palestine.
Mr. Osburn’s reading o f “ Jebusite,” among the “ thirty-seven prisoners of Beni-
Hassan,” has not survived criticism [supra, p. 173]; but M. De Saulcy recognizes
Gabusa, or Jebus, upon the old cuneiform tablets at Lake Van. We note a “ man
• appertaining to the city of Jebus ” in the IBUSI of Xth Genesis, and pass onwards.621
38. HON — AMRI— ‘Amok it e . ’
Around half the circumference of the Lake Asphaltum, and from the Jordan northward
to Mt. Hermon, once dwelt a people “ of stature high as cedars, and strong as
oaks ” {Amos ii. 9), called the A m o r im : — cousins to the Emlm, Rephalm, ZuzXm, Zam-
zumlm, NiphiRm, and AnakXm; falsely rendered “ giants” , in the versions; all,
according to the Vulgate translators, “ monstra qusedam de genere giganteo” {Numb.
xiii. 33): some of whom were so tremendously tall, that Caleb’s spies reported how
“ we were in our own eyes as grasshoppers, and such were we in their eyes.” Nevertheless,
astonishing as such human proportions seem, those of a thorough-bred Amo-
rite surpassed them all; according to the orthodox stream.of Hebraical traditions
supplied by Cahen.
“ When Og (the Amoritish king of Bashan) saw the Israelite camp, which had six
parasangs (twenty-four miles) of extent, he said: I single-handed will undertake the
combat with,this people, that they do not to me as to Sihon. For this object he detached
a mountain six parasangs (twenty-four miles) in breadth, and placed it on his
head to heave it upon the Israelites. God caused an insect to come, which, piercing
the mountain through the middle, caused Og’s head to sink therein. He, wishing to
• disengage himself, could not manage it, because one of his teeth projected in front
very considerably. Moses then seized an axe ten cubits (fifteen feet) in length, and
jumping into the air to the height of ten cubits (fifteen feet), struck the giant on the
ankle-bone of his foot. On falling, the corpse of Og touched the Israelite camp.” To
similar rabbinical stories Horace replied, “ Credat Judaeus Apella!” After all, In the
Text, another and later writer, during whose day Og’s iron bedstead was still exhibited
at Rabbath, found, by actual measurement, that this 14remnant of giants” had slept
within an area of only thirteen and a half feet by six {Deut. iii. 11).
67