piggledy.” Poor, dreary, and mis-timed though such jocularity may seem to us and
inconsonant “with the sanctity of the Tolume in which it is now found, nevertheless no
Orientalist will dispute the assertion, that similar rebuses, or riddles, are the delight of
Eastern narrators j662 while, by the Talmudio Rabbis, this pun was supposed to cover awful
mysteries. Few persons are aware that, as the Text says nothing about the destruction of
either city or tower, theologians derive their notions in this respeot, not from the Bible
but from the spurious and modern tales of Hestieeus, of Polyhistor, of Eupolemus, and of
the “ Sibylline Oracles.” The classical texts maybe found in Cory’s Ancient Fragments
The reader, who has comprehended the principles of criticism, established further on in
the Archaeological Introduction to Xth Genesis, can now seize the historical value of this document
{Gen. xi. 1—9) in a moment.
1st. It has no connection with what precedes or succeeds it; but breaks in, parenthetically,
between what is now printed as the 32d verse of Chap. X. and the 10th of
Chap. X I .: its apparent relation to either originating solely through modern, arbitrary,
and therefore unauthorized, divisions into chapters and verses.
2d. Age and authorship unknown, its antiquity cannot ascend beyond the seventh—eighth
century b . c . , because its divine ascriptions are Jehovistic; nor could it well have been
embodied into the book called “ Genesis,” earlier than about b . c . 420, by the Esdraic
School; becaure, the mention of “ the land of Shinar”—of “ brick they had for stone
(or rather L-ABNi, for building) and bitumen they had for mortar” 663 of the ltcity;~
therefore the name of it was BaBeL (Babylon) ”—carries us at once to plains betweeu
the Shinar hills and the Euphrates-river; to the bricks of Chaldsean mounds; to the
bituminous springs of S it (S is of Herodotus, and hieroglyphic IS ) ; e6* and to the Babylon
of Nebuchadnezzar; than whom, although the name of a place called BBL is as
old as Thotmes III. of the XVIIIth Theban dynasty, 1500—1600 B. c., nothing cuneiform
yet found at Babylon is anterior-665
3d. What connections B&B-eL666 “ Gate of the Sun ” (like the Chinese “ celestial gates;”
or their Mongol derivative, the Ottoman “ Sublime Porte”), may have with this name’s
origin: whether Belus the king; Baai the god; or “ Bel and the ’dragon; ” are to be
taken into consideration: — these curious inquiries, if familiar to our studies, are
foreign to our present purposes and objects. But, “ in sober sadness,” let us ask-
Can such words as KuL-Ha-AReTs (the whole earth) be accepted, by ethnological
science in the nineteenth century, when contained in such an unhistorical dociuneiiti
At any rate, “ Types of Mankind ” must respectfully leave them aside.
“ Isis! dea infelix, Nili remanebis ad amneni
Sola, carens et vooel”
The ignorant of all races and ages, especially inland-populations such as the Jews were,
when a foreign tongue strikes their auricular nerves, do not suppose that the speaker is
uttering sense, but believe that he is merely exercising his vocal muscles instinctively, in
the same manner that geese “ talk.” The writer of Matthew is not free from this illusion;
because, where our authorized mistranslation has “ Use not vain repetitions, as the heathen
do the original Greek reads — “ And when ye pray, babble not as the heathen do ” (Mat.
▼i* 7 :—Sharpe, N. T p. 10). In the idea of the Hebrews, vouched for, according to D&
Sola, even by such mighty commentators as Kashi and Mendelssohn,667 the “ One language”
at Babel was merely the “ lingua sancta;” that is to say, all mankind there talked
Hebrew at first; but (after the dispersion thence, when their speech was “ confounded”)»
only S h em ’s sons miraculously preserved the Hebrew tongue immaculate; “ the rest of
mankind” JSAHEtL-babbled in gibberish!
The above hints are furnished to others. We feel as charitably disposed as Josephus did
when writing.#*-'“ Now, as to myself, I have so described these matters as I have found
them and read them; but if any one is inclined to another opinion about them, let him
enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me.” 668
Section P. — St r u c t u r e of G e n e s is I., H., a n d TTT
Far more important, at an ethnological point of view, are the first
three chapters of the hook called “ Genesis;” and to them we can
here devote but a paragraph or two.
Our Archseological Introduction, in Part III., has pointed out their
Esdraic age, and the Persic origin of some of the mythes they
contain. All modem divisions into chapters and verses, of course,
are to be abstracted; being mere European addenda. Jewish divisions
of the book of Genesis are entirely different. They are twelve
in number; of which the first SeDE — Chapter I. to Chapter VI.,
verse 9 —is called the “Bereshith,” beginning.®1
To understand this “ structural analysis of the book of Genesis,”
according to exegetical principles now universally recognized by
Hebraists, we refer the reader to a masterly critique by Luke
Burke,672 and to the solid evidences supplied by De Wette.673. The
more salient characteristics distinguishing the two documents are
the words ELoHIM, in king James’s version replaced by “ God
and IeHOuaH, for which our appellative “Lord” is substituted;
neither of these two Hebrew divine names being translated; as the
writer will demonstrate in some future treatise. The relative order
of these documents becomes intelligible to the reader by being placed
in juxtaposition. Our purpose now being merely the exhibition of
some structural peculiarities not generally known, it is unnecessary
to retranslate the whole three chapters, and impossible to justify
herein our verbal interpretations. With Cahen’s Bible, the reader
can easily fill up gaps for himself in the former case: adequate
explanations in the latter would require the publication of a volume
of results which, obtained through ten years’ incessant travel and
study, G. E. G.’s manuscripts embrace. To the anthropologist, however,
it will be satisfactory to behold the true place of the word
A-DaM in these texts — Dlff, says Cahen, “ l’espece humaine, sin-
gulier collectif.” And, as concerns other questions, we must he content
for the present to submit an observation written by the great
Hellenist, E. Payne Knight, to his colleagues Sir Joseph Bankes and
Sir W. Hamilton: —
It must be observed that, when the ancients speak of Creation and destruction, they
mean only formation and dissolution; it being universally allowed, through all systems of
religion or sects of philosophy, that nothing could come from nothing, and that no power whatever
could annihilate that which really existed. The bold and magnificent idea of a creation
from nothing was reserved for the more vigorous faith, and more enlightened minds of the
moderns; who need seek no authority to confirm their belief; for, as that which is self-
evident admits of no proof, so that which is in itself impossible admits of no refutation ” 67*
71