some kind of affinity, and which Moses himself derives from the Hebrew. Thus To obviate this argument, taken from the etymology of names, we may observe, that those which seem to agree best with the Hebrew tongue, are not so much proper names, which children received at their birth, to distinguish them from all other people, as they are sirnames, which were bestowed upon them, for some particular event or accident that befel them; that by these, they were afterwards known to posterity, and so in process of time, they came to be looked upon as proper names. Adam, for instance, is unquestionably no proper name. (Le Clerc's Dissertations.)-That Adam is not a proper name may be proved from the first two verses of the fifth chapter of Genesis:-"This is the book of the generations of Adam: in the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. Male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Adam, i. e. man ; like homo, the common name in Latin to both sexes. Adam, therefore, is certainly not a proper name, but possibly, was only bestowed on the first man by way of preeminence; for the same reason as the Romans might call him homo, because he was formed ex humo; though no one will say that the casual circumstance of this paranomasia is any reason why the Latin should be the primitive language. The name of Babel itself, which the Hebrew text tells us was so called because God did there 35 balal, i. e. confound the language of all the earth, may, say the compilers of Universal History, vol. i. page 350, more naturally be derived from the Syriac, in which tongue balbel is to confound; and boblo, or bobel, confusion.* This argument has been further enforced, from the significancy of the names of several animals in the Hebrew tongue, which are thought to have been imposed by Adam, because of some peculiar qualities in the animal to which they were given, correspondent to their respective roots. (Bochart.) But since the same may be as justly asserted of most other languages, as the Hebrew, it will conclude nothing. (Universal History.) Besides, say the compilers of Universal History, we are much deceived, if we imagine that the verbs were really the original roots of the Hebrew tongue: on the con. trary, the greatest part of them, at least, were themselves, at first, derived from nouns, though they be now, for grammatical convenience, considered as the roots. Many examples might be given of the verb's being manifestly derived from, and posterior to the noun, in all the oriental tongues; so, in English, dog, duck, &c. were certainly first imposed as names, and afterwards used as verbs, to express actions proper to those creatures. All that is to be inferred from the derivation of names, is this, that these words were, very probably, brought into the Hebrew language, but it does not therefore follow, that the whole Hebrew language descended from the same spring whence they were derived.‡ Further, the names which are assigned by Moses to eastern countries and cities, derived to them immediately from the patriarchs, their original founders, are for the most According to Rich and Beauchamp, the mount of Babel adjoining Della Valle's ruin, is called by the Arabs, Majelibé, or Makloube, signifying overturned, as the eastern writers say Babel was by a tempest from heaven.-Vide Maurice's Observations on the Ruins of Babylon. + Universal History, vol. 1. + Grotius, Huetius, Stackhouse. part, says the Rev. Mr. Maurice, the very names by which they were anciently known over all the east; many of them were afterwards translated, with little variation, by the Greeks, in their systems of geography.* But without the aid of learning, any man, says Bishop Watson, who can barely read his Bible, and has but heard of such people as the Assyrians, the Elamites, the Lydians, the Medes, the Ionians, the Thracians, will readily acknowledge, that they had Assur, and Elam, and Lud, and Madai, and Javau, and Tiras, grandsons of Noah, for their respective founders.+ Moses has traced in one short chapter, (Gen. x.) continues Mr. Maurice, all the inhabitants of the earth, from the Caspian and Persian seas to the extreme Gades, to their original, and recorded at once the period and occasion of their dispersion. This fact, and the conclusions from it, remarks Bishop Tomline, vich are thus incontrovertibly established by the newly-acquired knowledge of the Sanscreet language, were contended for and strongly enforced by Bochart and Stillingfleet, who could only refer to oriental opinions and traditions, as they came to them through the medium of Grecian interpretation. To the late excellent and learned president of the Asiatic. society, we are chiefly indebted for the light recently thrown from the East upon this important subject. Avowing himself to be attached to no system, and as much disposed to reject the Mosaic history, if it were proved to be erroneous, as to believe it if he found it confirmed by sound reasoning and satisfactory evidence, he engaged in those researches to which his talents and situation were equally adapted: and the result of his * Maurice's History of Hindostan, vol. 1. H laborious inquiries into the chronology, history, mytho logy, and languages of the nations, whence infidels have long derived their most formidable objections, was a full conviction, that neither accident nor ingenuity could account for the very numerous instances of similar traditions, and of near coincidence in the names of persons and places which are to be found in the Bible, and in ancient monuments of eastern literature. Whoever, indeed, is acquainted with the writings of Mr. Bryant and Mr. Maurice, and with the Asiatic Researches, published at Calcutta, cannot but have observed, remarks Bishop Tomline, that the accounts of the creation, the fall, the deluge and dispersion + of mankind, recorded by the nations upon the east continent of Asia, bear a strong resemblance to each other, and to the narrative in the sacred history, and evidently contain the fragments of one original truth, which was broken by the dispersion of the patriarchal families, and corrupted by length of time, allegory, and idolatry. From this universal concurrence on this head, one of these things. is necessarily true; either that all these traditions must have been taken from the author of the book of * Asiatic Researches and Maurice's History. + The following curious and valuable commentary on the tenth chapter of Genesis, which records the primitive settlements of the three families, is furnished by Abulfaragi, in his History of the Dynasties:"In the 140th Phaleg, the earth was divided, by a second division among the sons of Noah. To the sons of Shem was allotted the middle of the earth, namely, Palestine, Syria, Assyria, Samarra, (a town of Babylonian or Chaldean Irae), Babel, Persia, and Hegiaz (or Arabian Petrea). To the sons of Ham-Teman, (or Idumea, Gen. 49th chapter, 7th verse), Africa, Nigritia, Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia, Scindia, and India, for western and eastern India), on both sides of the Indus. To the sons of Japheth, also, Garbia, (the North), Spain, France, the countries of the Greeks, Sclavonians, Bulgarians, Turks, and Armenians."-Dr. Hales. Genesis, who made up his history from some or all such traditions as were already extant; or lastly, that he received his knowledge of past events by revelation. Were then all these traditions taken from the Mosaic history? It has been shown by Sir William Jones and Mr. Maurice, that they were received too generally and too early to make this supposition even possible; for they existed in different parts of the world in the very age when Moses lived. Was the Mosaic history composed from the traditions then existing? It is certain that the Chaldeans, the Persians, the most ancient inhabitants of India, and the Egyptians, all possessed the same story; but they had, by the time of Moses, wrapt it up in their own mysteries, and disguised it by their own fanciful conceits.* CHAP. XI. No notice in the sacred records respecting the primitive tongue-arguments of various writers stated-probability that all the people of the earth journeyed and settled in the plains of Shinar-division of the people of all the earth-remark of Shuckford respecting the Babylonian and Hebrew language-answered by a passage in Jeremiah, &c.-alphabetic writing-writings of Job-language of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. IT is no where stated in the sacred records, that the language of Adam has been preserved; neither, as we have already remarked, are the opinions of the learned on the subject found to agree. Some writers assert that the confusion of tongues at the building of the tower of Babel was only partial, and that the primitive language *Bishop Tomline-Christian Theology, vol. 1. |