So far, to judge by published commentaries, there are no insurmountable obstacles to
harmony between the most catholic interpreter of Xth Genesis and ourselves. “ Nos adversaires
” will now fairly confess that the battle-ground, upon which their and our opinions
have to be fought, lies on a miserable strip of the Nile’s deposits ; along the countries we
term, in common, the Nubias.
Yet, even here, reasonable persons—those who have of their own accord, and for the
sake of truth, already abandoned the Tchoudes, Finns, Samoides, Tongousians, Tartars, Mongols,
Malays, Polynesians, Esquimaux, American-aborigines, Hottentots, Bosjesmans, Kaffres,
Foolahs, Senegalidns, A byssinians, the Sahara desert, &c., &c., as not included in Xth Genesis—
such reasonable persons, we think, cannot make out, legally, a “ casus belli” between
our results and their individual preconceptions, upon matters so pitiful in geography as the
Nubias.
They have read our analysis of KTJSA. They have seen every affiliation of KUSA settled
in Arabia. Now, if every affiliation of KUSA in Xth Genesis be Arabian, why must we
seek for these KUSA-2te elsewhere? Indeed, if we both agree in classification, neither
party has any other genesiacaj names to dispute about.
KUSA and its affiliations being irrevocably determined in Arabia, and proved to have
been generally of the Himy ar-m? stock, it would be as absurd to look for them in Nubia
as on the Caucasian mountains. We know that until the Xllth and perhaps the Xlth
dynasty, the boundary of the MTsRáwí, Egyptians, was the 1st Cataract of Syene: and
inasmuch as the Nubias were then little known to Egyptians, they were undoubtedly far
less known to Asiatics.
Consequently, there was a time when Nubia herself was a “ terra incognita.” We have
only to continue this Asiatic ignorance of Africa for a few centuries, and every one will
allow that there is no improbability involved in the assertion that the Nubias were unrevealed
to the compiler of Xth Genesis at Jerusalem, or at Babylon. His map proves that
they were so ; and, thus far, discussion is at an end.
With the Nubias vanishes the last possibility that Negro races were known to the writer
of Xth Genesis. He never mentions them ; nor indeed does any other writer in the canonical
Scriptures, from Genesis to Malachi.
Negroes are, therefore, excluded from mention in the Old Testament ; together with Finns,
TJralians, Mongols, Tartars, Malays, Polynesians, Esquimaux, American-Indians, &c., &c.
The map of Xth Genesis, under the heads “ Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” merely covers
those families of mankind classified by the Egyptians, in the days of S e t h e i -M eneptha,
15th-16th centuries b . c., into the y e llow , the red, and the w h ite human types.
Such is our conclusion. Science and reason confirm it. Xth Genesis proves it. Nevertheless,
few persons beyond the circle of education exempt from ecclesiastical' prejudice,
will, for some time to come, accept this result ! Why ?
[Our manuscripts comprise critical answers to this query viewed in all its bearings upon
the Anle-Diluvian Patriarchs, and upon the two pedigrees of S t . J o s e p h recorded in Matthew
and Luke. Inasmuch, however, "as their production here would necessitate a second
volume to this work, we postpone their publication; remembering St. Paul’s sage admonishments
to Timothy and to Titus — “ not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies”
— “ but avoid foolish questions and g en e a lo g ie s .(1 Tim. i. 4; Titus iii. 9: Sharpe’s New
Testament, “ translated from Griesbach’s Text;” London, 1844, pp. 380, 392-3).—G. R. G.]
C H A P T E R XV.
B I B L I C A L E T H N O G R A P H Y .
Section E .—T e rm s, u n iv e r sa l a n d sp e c if ic .
T h e r e is nothing in the language of the Bible which illustrates
more strongly the danger of a too rigid enforcement of literal construction
than tiie very loose manner in which universal terms are
employed. Those who have studied the phraseology of Scripture
need not he told that these terms are used to signify only a very large
amount in number, or quantity. All, every one, the whole, and such
like expressions, are often used to denote a great many, or a large
portion, &c. Examples may he found on almost every page of the
Old Testament, but we will first select a few from the many scattered
through the New. And we beg the reader to hear in mind the fact
already established, viz., that neither the writers of the Old or New
Testament knew anything of the geography of the earth much beyond
the limits, of the Roman empire, nor had they any idea of the spheroidal
shape of the globe. Be it noted also that, in order to avoid
stakes of the Enghsh a u th o r iz e d v e r s io n , our quotations are
borrowed from Sharpe’s New Testament as closest to the original
Greek.
In the account given by Matthew (iv. 8, 9) of the temptation of
Christ, we have these words:
“ Again the Devil taket-h him on to a very high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms
g f the world, and their glory; and saith unto him; ‘All these will I give thee, if thou
wilt fail down and worship me.’ ”
Before accepting such words as “ all the kingdoms of the world”
in a literal sense, it may he well to peruse the commentary of Strauss,
in his Life of Jesus:—
“ But that which is the veritable stumbling-block, is thepersonal apparition of the Devil
with his temptations. If even there could be a personal Devil, ’tis said, he cannot appear
visibly; and, if evenAe could, he would not have behaved himself as our Gospels recount
it The three temptations are operated in three different places, and even far apart. It
asked, how Jesus passed with the Devil from one to the other ? . . . The expressions, the
m l takes him,. " places him, in Matthew—the expressions, fetching, he conducted, he placed,
in Luke, indicate incontestably a displacement operated by the Devil himself; furthermore,
e (iv. 5) saying that the Devil showed Jesus ‘ all the kingdoms of the world in a moment
of time; this trait indicates something magical. . . . Where is the mountain from the
summit of which one can discovernU the kingdoms of the earth ? gome interpreters reply
at f ly the world, c o sm o s , one must understand Palestine^ only, and by the kingdoms.