b a s il e ia is , the isolated provinces and the tetrarchies of that country: a reply which is
not less ridiculous than the explanation of those who say that the Devil showed to Jesus
the world on a geographical map.” 659
In reference to these diabolical powers we may also be permitted to
rejoice with our readers over the following fact, recently announced
by the Rev. John Oxlee (Rector of Molesworth, Hunts, England) in
his “ Letters to the Lord Archbishop of C an te rb u ry—
“ In the Ghronicon Syriacum of Bar Hebrseus, we have it duly recorded, that, in the year
of the Hegira 455, or of our Lord 1063, certain Curdean hunters, in the desert, brought a
report into Bagdad; how that, as they were hunting in the desert, they saw black tents,
with the voice of lamentation, weeping, and yelling; that, on their approaching them, they
heard a voice saying: ‘ 1'0‘day died B e e l z e b u b , the Prince of the Devils; and every place
where there is not lamentation for three days, we will erase from its very foundation.’
. . . Hence it is apparent, even on the indubitable testimony of the devils themselves,
that Beelzebub, the Prince of the Devils, died a natural death, nearly eight hundred
years ago ; and was lamented and bewailed, with all due honors, by the municip,al authorities
of Bagdad, Mosul, and other cities in the land of Senaar. There, then, let Ms mortal
remains peaceably rest, never more to be disturbed, in the future, by human curiosity.”«!»
We have a repetition of the previous passage in Luke, which should
probably be taken in a figurative or allegorical sense; for although the
evangelists had little idea of the extent or the shape of the earth, yet
it cannot be -maintained that Jesus or the devil were so ignorant as
to suppose that a view of the world could he greatly extended by
ascending a mountain. If we could take this language in a literal
sense, it would at once settle the question as to the amount of geographical
and ethnological knowledge of the evangelists. Here are
some more instances of “ universal terms” used loosely in a vague
or general sense: —
(Mat. xii. 42)— “ The queen of the South . . . . came from the ends of the earth to hear
the wisdom of Solomon.”
(Lukeii. 1 )— “ And it came to pass in those days that a decree went forth from Cssar
Augustus that all the world should be registered.”
(John xxi. 2 5 )— “ And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they
should he written one by one, I do not think that the world itself would contain the
written books.
(Acts ii. 5) — “ And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation
under heaven.”
(Acts xiii. 47 — quoting Isaiah xlix. 6) — “ I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that
thou shouldest be for salvation to the ends of the earth.”
(Rom. x. 18 — quoting Ps. xix, 4) — “ Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and
their words unto the ends of the World.”
These examples will be quite sufficient to show the manner in
which “ universal terms” were used, and the necessity for measuring
their extent by a proper standard. We now prepent a remarkable
text, and the only one in the Hew Testament which alludes directly
to the dogma of unity of races.
(Acts xvii. 2 6 )— “ And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all
the face o f . the earth, and hath determined the appointed seasons, and the bounds of
their habitation.” It will be noted that this saying of Paul is not autographed in his
Epistles; but, as Hennell critically annotates, “ rests mainly on the testimony of
the author of Acts, who himself, intimates that he is the same as the author of the
third Gospel.” 601'
How, can any reason be assigned why a wider signification should
be given to “ universal terms” here than in the previous examples ?
Have we not seen, too, in the quotation just preceding this, the loose
manner in which the same writer (St. Paul) uses -such terms ? Should
not this paragraph, also, deserve the less credit, inasmuch as it has no
parallel ? It should be remembered that when St. Paul stood upon
Mars’s Hill and preached to the men of Athens, his knowledge of
nations and of races did not extend beyond that of his hearers;
and the expression, “ hath made of one Hood all nations of men,” was
certainly meant to apply only to those nations aboi^t which he was
informed; that is, merely the Roman Umpire.
Leaving the Hew Testament we take up the Old, and such passages
as-these meet our eye: —
(1 Kings, xviii. lO)-^ As “ IeHOuaH thy God liveth [most sacred form of Jewish oath],
there is no nation or kingdom, whither my Lord hath not sent to seek thee; and when they
said, 1 He is not there,’ he took an oath [a certificate] of the kingdom, that they found thee
not.” If this text were to be taken literally, Obadiah’s most solemn affidavit is here given
that Ahab’s emissaries had visited China, Norway, Peru, Congo,—in short, circumnavigated
the whole globe, besides traversing it in every direction, during the tenth century b . c ., in
quest of Elijah!
(1 Kings, x. 24) —- “ And all the earth sought the face of Solomon, to hear his wisdom.”
Is this to be accepted verbatim et literatim ? Must no allowance for poetic license be made,
when David says, — “ And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world
“were discovered”, (2 Sam. xxii. 1*6).
Receding to previous chapters (that is, not written during earlier ages, but merely bound
up in books placed anteriorly to Kings and Samuel in the present order of arrangement),
we come to—“ A n d n ow KuL-HAReTs (the WHOLE earth) was of one l i p and of DeBeRIM
AKAaDIM..” — The last two words, plurals in Hebrew, cannot be literally rendered into
English, as ones words ; but the sense is “ one language.”
The whole context refers to an idea purely Chaldcean, and to a preternatural event exclusively
Babylonish; viz., the city and the tower of BaBeL, which IeHOuaH “ descended to
see ” after they were built. The two things, tower and city, are inseparable; and we perceive
that the people “ ceased to build the city,” after they were “ dispersed thence over
the face of the w h o l e e a r t h . ”
{Gen. xi. 1) — “ On that account it was called BaBeL, because IeHOuaH there BeLeL
(confounded) the l i p - (speech) of the w h o l e e a r t h . ” The root BLL means to mingle, to
talk-gibberish; and, conformably to the favorite genius of Semitic d scription, the writer
avails himself of a play upon words—i. e., really “ perpetrates a p u n”—because the monosyllabic
etymon of BaBeL, itself meaning “ confusion,” is the same as that of BeLeL.—We
fright say in English, “ B a b e l -babble” and thus realize part of the alliteration of BaBeL-
BeLeL, while losing half.its double entendre.; because* BaBeL does not mean in English what
it does in Semitish idioms, viz., “ gibberish” as well as confusion. Another mode of convey-
mg an idea of this play upon words would be, to translate BaBeL-BeLeL by “ higgledy