Jonathan Edwards · 326 of 409

Genesis · Part 6

The country at first assigned to Nimrod, the youngest son of Cush, was probably the country on the east of Gihon, the eastern branch of the common channel of Euphrates and Tigris, after its second division, before it emptied itself into the Persian gulf, next to his brother Havilah, his brethren having possessed Arabia. This part next to Arabia was assigned to him, and so being the portion of one of the sons of Cush, was called the land of Cush, as it is by Moses when speaking of the river Gihon, “The same is it which compasses the whole land of Cush;” which country was formerly, by the Greeks and Latins, called by the name of Susiana, and is now called Chuzestan. The Nubian geographer, and some other Arabians, call it Churestan. The inhabitants of the land call it absolutely and plainly Chus, if we will believe Marius Niger. The same region is called Cuthah, 2 Kings xvii. 24. speaking of the people transported thence into Samaria, by Salmanezer. The word Cuthah, or Cuth, undoubtedly came from the word Cush, or Cus, the last letter of which is often changed by the Chaldeans into a T, or Th, as Dion hath observed; so they called Theor, for Sor, and Attyria, for Assyria. There are yet many marks of the word Cush found in the same province. We find there the Cassians, neighbours of the Uxians, according to the position of Pliny, Ptolemy, and Arrian. There is also a little province of Susiana, viz. Cissia, and the people Cissians. The poet Eschylus takes notice of a city of that name, situated in the same land, and what is remarkable, he does distinguish it by its antiquity.

This country was probably named Cush before Nimrod was born, or at least when he was young, before he distinguished himself in the world, from Cush his father living here, in that part of the face of the earth, that fell to the lot of him and his posterity, that was nearest to the original settlement of Noah and his sons, and was the pleasantest and most beautiful, like Eden, on which it bordered. While Cush sent forth his elder sons to settle Arabia, it is likely that he staid here himself with his youngest son, who was probably very young when the earth was divided.

But Nimrod, when he found his strength and ability for war, and being grown famous for his extraordinary valour in destroying wild beasts, was not contented with the lot assigned him; but invades first the neighbouring part of the nation of Shem, which upon the division of the earth fell to the lot of the family of Arphaxad, and so makes himself master of the lower part of the land of Shinar, being a most pleasant and fruitful country, and pitching on that very place where the city and tower of Babel had been, began to build the capital city of his kingdom. Moses says, “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.” As to Erech, it is probably the same that occurs in Ptolemy under the name of Arecca, and which is placed by him at the last or most southern turning of the common channel of the Tigris and Euphrates. The fields hereof are mentioned by Tibullus, on account of its springs of Naphtha. The Archevites, mentioned Ezra iv. 9. are thought to be some that were removed from Erech to Samaria. What in the Hebrew is Acchad, is by the Seventy Interpreters writ Archad, whence some footsteps of this name are probably thought to be preserved in the river Argades mentioned by Ctesias, as a river near Sittace, lying at some distance from the river Tigris, and giving name formerly to Sittacene, a country lying between Babylon and Susa, and because it was very usual, particularly in those parts, to have rivers take their name from some considerable city they run by; hence it is not improbably conjectured, that the city Sittace was formerly called Argad, or Acehad, and took the name of Sittace from the plenty of Psitlacias, or Pistacias, a sort of nut, that grew in the country. Strabo mentions a region in those parts under the name of Artacene, which might be framed from Archad. As to the other city belonging to the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom, viz. Calneh, and which is called, Isa. x. 9. Calno, and Ezek. xxvii. 23. Cauneh. It is mentioned as a considerable place, Amos vi. 2. “Pass ye up into Calneh and see.” It is said by the Chaldee interpreters, as also by Eusebius and Jerome, to be the same with Ctesiphon, standing upon the Tigris, about three miles distant from Seleucia, and for some time the capital city of the Parthians. That this opinion concerning the situation of Calneh is true, is mightily confirmed from the country about Ctesiphon being by the Greeks called Chalnoitis; and since we are expressly told by Ammianus Marcellinus, that Pacnus, a king of the Parthians, changed the name of the city Ctesiphon, when he gave it that name, we may reasonably suppose that its old name was Calneh, or Cholone, and that from it the adjacent country took the name of Cholonitis.

And whereas it is said, Gen. x. 11, 12. in our translation, “Out of this land went forth Ashur, and built Nineveh, and the city of Rehoboth, and Colah, and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah, the same is a great city.” It might have been rendered as agreeably to the original, and much more agreeably to the preceding verses, and the drift of the historian, Out of that land he went forth into Ashur, and built Nineveh, &c.; for Moses in the preceding verse having told us what was the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom in the land of Shinar, then goes on to tell us how he extended it further afterwards to other cities beyond the land of Shinar into the land of Ashur.

Nineveh was a city that lay on the river Tigris, somewhat above the mouth of the river Lycus, where it runs into the Tigris.

Rehoboth is a word in the Hebrew tongue that signifies streets; and there being a city or town called Birtha by Ptolemy, and the said name denoting in the Chaldee tongue the same as Rehoboth does in the Hebrew, hence it is thought to be the same city, and it is not to be doubted but the Birtha mentioned by Ptolemy is the same which Ammianus Marcellinus calls Virta. It was seated on the river Tigris about the mouth of the river Lycus.

As for Calah, or Calach, since we find in Strabo a country about the head of the river Lycus called Calachene, it is very probable the said country took this name from Calach which was once its capital city. Ptolemy also mentions a country called Calacine in those parts; and whereas Pliny mentions a people called Classita, through whose country the Lycus runs, it is likely that Classita is a corruption for Chalachita. To this city and country in all probability it was that Salmanezer translated some of the ten tribes, 2 Kings xvii. 6. He placed them in Chalach, as it is in the original.

Resen, the other city mentioned by Moses, is supposed to be the same with a city mentioned by Xenophon under the name of Larissa, lying on the Tigris, and being as Moses says between Nineveh and Calah, and was also said by Xenophon to have been strong and great, (but then in ruins,) being two parasangs, that is, eight miles, in compass, and its walls a hundred feet high and twenty-five feet broad, which agrees with what Moses says of Resen, “The same was a great city.” Larissa was a Greek name, we find a city so called in Thessaly. There was another which the Greeks called by the same name in Syria, which the Syrians themselves called Sizora. It is therefore easy to suppose that the Greeks might change Resen into Larissa. It is likely that the Greeks asking, What city those were the ruins of? the Assyrians might answer, Laresen, i. e. of Resen, which word Xenophon expressed by Larissa, like the names of several Greek cities.

We proceed now to Mizraim, who by Moses is named second among the sons of Ham. And where he at first settled himself, we need not doubt, since the Hebrew text generally denotes Egypt by the name of the land of Mizraim, or simply Mizraim. I proceed therefore to the descendants of Mizraim. The names whereby these are denoted by Moses, are plurals. They are thus enumerated by Moses: “Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.

To begin with Ludim, whereby are denoted the Ethiopians in Africa, and who alone are commonly so called both in ancient and modern writers. That these Ethiopians are denoted in Scripture by the name of Ludim, and their country Ethiopia by the name of Lud, the learned Bochart has proved at large, by no fewer than ten distinct arguments: I shall mention only those that are drawn from the sacred Scriptures, as from Isa. lxvi. 19. and Jer. xlvi. 9. where Lud or Ludim are said to be very skilful in drawing their bow, which agrees punctually with the character given of the Ethiopians by many ancient writers.

As to Anamim, Bochart thinks the inhabitants of the country about Jupiter Ammon’s temple might be denoted from this Anamim. The same learned person thinks the Nasamones took their rise and name, as also the Amantes, and Garamantes, and Hammomantes, mentioned by old writers, on the adjacent parts.

The Lehabim came next both in the text and in situation; for it is very probable that Lehabim and Lubim are one, and that from hence was derived originally the name of Libya, which, though at length extended to the whole African continent, yet at first belonged only to the country Cyrenaica. Now this country lying next over against Greece, hence the name of Lehab, or Lub, originally belonging to this tract only, was moulded into Libya, and given to the whole continent over against them on the other side of the Mediterranean sea, just as the name of Africa, properly pertaining only to that part of this continent which lies over against Italy, was therefore by the Latins extended to all the continent; or, to come to our own times, much after the same manner as we extend the name of Holland to all the Dutch provinces, and the name of Flanders to all the Spanish provinces, in the Netherlands, whereas they properly denote only the two particular provinces in the Spanish and Dutch Netherlands that lie next over against the island of Great Britain.

The Naphtuhim are probably enough placed by Bochart in the country adjoining to Cyrenaica, or Libya, properly so called, towards Egypt, viz. in Marmorica; for here we find in Ptolemy some remainder of the name in a place called Aptuchi Fanum. And in the heathen fables, Aptuchus, or Aphtuchus, or Autuchus, is said to be the son of Cyrene, from whom the city and country of Cyrene took its name.

The Pathrusim, or descendants of Pathros, are mentioned next by Moses, whereby are to be understood the inhabitants of the Upper Egypt, or Thebais, where Ptolemy places Pathyris, an inland town not far from Thebes; and agreeably hereto, the Septuagint translation renders the Hebrew Pathros by the Greek Pathyris.

The Casluhim are thought to have first settled in the country on the other side of Egypt, called Casioti, where is a mountain called Casius; and this situation of them is confirmed by what Moses says concerning them, viz. that from them sprang the Philistines, who in process of time made themselves masters of the adjoining tract of the land of Canaan.

That the Caphtorim were situated near to the Casluhim, is inferred not only from Moses’s putting them next one to another in the forecited place of Gen. x. but also from this, that the Philistines, who are, in Gen. x. 13. said to be descended of the Casluhim, are elsewhere denoted by the name of Caphtorim, as Deut. ii. 23. Jer. xlvii. 4. and Amos ix. 7. which perhaps cannot be better accounted for than by supposing the Casluhim and Caphtorim to be neighbours, and so in time to have been mutually intermixed, or to be looked upon as one and the same people. Now the name Caphtor seems to be preserved in an old city of Egypt called Captus, from which, as the name of Captetes is still given to the Christians of Egypt, (whence the translation of the Bible used by them is called also the Coptick translation,) so it is not unlikely that the common name of Egypt was derived from it, it being called Ægyptus, for Ægoptus, as if one should say in Greek Greek or Hebrew the land of Koptus. And it is a good remark of the learned Mede, that the Greek Greek or Hebrew, or Æa, is likely derived from the Hebrew Greek or Hebrew, ai, or Ei; to which may be very pertinently subjoined this remark, that in Jer. xlvii. 4. what we render the country of Caphtor, is in the Hebrew text termed Ai Caphtor, which are the two words which we suppose the Greeks to have moulded into the name Greek or Hebrew. Our translators observe on the forementioned place in Jeremy, that the Hebrew word translated the country in the text denotes also an isle, as it is rendered in the margin, agreeably to which it is observable that the city of Captus stood on a small island, so that upon the whole we need not doubt thereabout to fix the first settlement of the Caphtorim.

Of the four original nations descended from Ham, there remains now only that of Phut to be spoken of; and the first settlement of this is with good reason supposed to be in the parts of the Libyan or African continent, which join on next to those possessed by the descendants of Mizraim. For in Africa, properly so called, below Adrumentum, was a city named Putea, mentioned by Pliny; and in Mauritania there is a river mentioned by Ptolemy called Phut. St. Jerome is very full to the point, telling us that there is a river in Mauritania which was until his own time called Phut, and from which the adjacent country was called Regio Phytensis, the country of Phut. Mr. Bedford supposes it was the river Niger that was called by this name, and that the posterity of Phut settled themselves chiefly on that river, (as the first inhabitants of the earth were wont to choose the neighbourhood of rivers for their settlements,) and from thence spread themselves into other parts.

[415] Gen. x. l. These things are evidences that all mankind are originally from one head or fountain, and of one blood, viz. 1. That all agreed in the same custom of sacrifices, which could be from nothing else than tradition from their progenitors. 2. Their all agreeing in counting by decads, or stopping at ten in their numerical computations, which Aristotle says, all men, both Barbarians and Greeks, did use. 3. Their having every where anciently the same number of letters, and the same names (or little varied) of them. 4. The remarkable affinity of all ancient languages. 5. Their dividing time into weeks, or systems of seven days, of which practice to have been general there are many plain testimonies. 6. Their beginning the day or revolution of twenty-four hours with the night. Yea, perhaps, if one consider it, the whole business concerning matrimony. Thus, Dr. Barrow, vol. ii. of his Works, p. 93.

[405] Gen. x. 1, 2. Concerning Japhet, the son of Noah. Neptune is the same with Japhet, who is called the god of the sea, because mountains, places, islands, and the great peninsulas of Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and Spain, were peopled by his posterity. The name Neptune is derived from the same radix that Japhet is, even from Greek or Hebrew, to enlarge, whence Greek or Hebrew, Japhet, and Greek or Hebrew, Nephta, in niphal, according to the allusion of Noah, Japht Elohim Japhet, Gen. ix. 27.“God shall enlarge Japhet:” proportionably whereunto Neptune was called by the Greek Greek or Hebrew, which grammarians in vain attempt to deduce from the Greek tongue, seeing, as Herodotus in Euterpe asserts, the name Poseidon was at first used by none but the Libyans or Africans, who always honoured this god. Poseidon is the same with the Punic word Greek or Hebrew, Pesitan, which signifies expanse, or broad, from Greek or Hebrew, Pasat, to dilate or expand. Japhet’s name, and what is said of him, God shall enlarge Japhet, well suits with Neptune’s character among the heathen, who is styled, Late imperans and Late-sonans, as also one that has a large breast. The genealogy of Neptune confirms that he is Japhet: he is the son of Saturn, i. e. Noah. See note on Gen. i. 27. Gale’s Court of the Gen. p. 1. b. 2. c. 6. p. 73, 74.

[400] Gen. x. 6. Now what the heathen said of Jupiter is evidently taken from Ham, the son of Noah. Noah is the Saturn of the heathen, as is evident by note on Gen. i. 27. It is fabled that Saturn had three sons, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, who divided the world between them. Sanchoniathon says, “The son of Saturn was Zeus Belus, or Baal, the chief god among the Phœnicians. It was a name assumed by Jehovah, the God of Israel, before abused to superstition, as appears by Hosea ii. 16. It is elsewhere written Greek or Hebrew Beel, or Greek or Hebrew which answers to the Hebrew Baal Shamaiim, the Lord of heaven. Greek or Hebrew is derived from Greek or Hebrew, which signifies to be hot, and answereth exactly to the Hebrew Cham, from the radix Chamam, to wax hot. Herodotus tells us that the Egyptians called Jupiter, Ammon, from their progenitor Ham; whence Egypt is called Ps. cv. 23, 27the land of Ham,” Ps. cv. 23, 27. Also Plutarch testifies that Egypt in the Sacreds of Isis, was termed Greek or Hebrew whence this, but from Cham? And Africa of old was called Hammonia. The Africans were wont to worship Ham under the name of Hanmon. These things are more largely treated of by Cudworth, p. 337, 338, 339.

Again: Sanchoniathon terms Jupiter, Sydyk, or as Damascius in Photius, Sadyk. Now this name is evidently taken from the Hebrew Saddik, the just, which is a name given to God, as also to the first patriarchs, whence Melchizedek. The name Jupiter is evidently the same with la Pater, or Greek or Hebrew, that is, Father Jah, or Jeu. That God’s name, Jah, was well known to the Phœnicians, who communicated the same to the Grecians, is evident by what Porphyry says of Sanchoniathon’s deriving the materials of his history from Jerombatus, the priest of the god Greek or Hebrew. So Diodorus tells us that Moses inscribed his law to the god called Jao. So the oblique cases of Jupiter are from God’s name, Jehovah, as Jovi, Jove, &c. The same name, Jai, in the oracle of Clarius Apollo, is given to Bacchus again. Jupiter was Sabasius, from that title of God, Jehovah, Sabaoth. (This Cudworth also notices, p. 259, 260.) The fable of Jupiter’s cutting off his fathers genitalia, seems to arise from Ham’s seeing his father’s nakedness. Again, in the metamorphosis of the gods of Egypt, it is said that Jupiter was turned into a ram; which fable Bochart supposes to have had its rise from the cognation between the Hebrew words Greek or Hebrew or Greek or Hebrew, and Greek or Hebrew a ram, the plural number of both which is the same, Elim. The tradition of Bacchus being produced out of Jupiter’s thigh, seems to come from that known expression to signify the natural proceeding of posterity from a father, their coming out of his loins. Gale’s Court of the Gen. p. 1. b. ii. l. 1. p. 10, 11, 12, 13.

[410] Gen. xi. 3, 4., &c. Concerning the building of Babel and confusion of tongues. Bochart, in his preface to his Phaleg, about the middle, says, “What follows concerning the tower of Babel, its structure, and the confusion of tongues ensuing thereon, also of its builders being dispersed throughout various parts of the earth, is related in express words by Abydenus and Eupolemus in Cyrillus and Eusebius.” Bochart, in his Phaleg, gives us a description of the tower of Babel, out of Herodotus, parallel to that of the Scripture, and where it is said, Gen. xi. 9. that it was called Babel, because the Lard confounded their language. Hence pagan writers called those of this dispersion, and their successors Greek or Hebrew, men of divided tongues. So Homer, in the Iliad, Greek or Hebrew, generations of men, having divided tongues. Abydenus affirms, that it was a common opinion, that the men whom the earth brought forth gathered themselves together, and builded a great tower, which was Babel, and the gods being angry with it, threw it down. Gale’s Court of Gen. p. 1. b. 3. c. 8. p. 83.

[430] Gen. xi. 3, 4., &c. Concerning the tower of Babel, Cyril, b. 1. against Julian, quotes these words out of Abydenus, “Some say that the first men that sprang out of the earth, grew proud upon their great strength and bulk, and boasted they could do more than the gods, and attempted to build a tower where Babylon now stands; but when it came nigh the heavens, it was overthrown upon them by the gods with the help of the winds; and the ruins are called Babylon. Men, until then, had but one language, but the gods divided it, and then began the war between Saturn and Titan.” Grotius de Verit. b. i. sect. 16. Notes.

Dr. Winder supposes that the crime of the builders of Babel was an obstinate renouncing the orders before given by Noah, and agreed to by his sons, under the divine direction for a general dispersion and division of the earth among the various families of mankind, and that the builders of Babel were not the whole body of mankind, but that part of them which, according to the forementioned orders and regulations, were to be settled in parts that were to be westward of the original settlement where Noah dwelt; and that, after they had dwelt in Shinar, ambition might inspire some of their leaders with the thoughts of setting up a great empire. But that this supposes that there were at that time other tribes elsewhere, against which they might direct their ambitious projects. There appears (says he) to have been something of ambition either for power or fame, or both, in their design; for they said, Let us make us a name.

“There is” (says Dr. Winder, p. 127.) “a most noble authenticated confirmation of the Mosaic history, by this city or country retaining the name Babel, or Confusion, by which every age and nation called this great city, the supposed seat of the first empire, even according to heathen writers, which seems to be a name of infamy and reproach, which its own princes or inhabitants would not have given it without some such notorious undeniable circumstances obliging them to it. What a signal defeat (says he) was here given by Providence to this ambitious plan ”Let us make us a name;” for what they aimed to erect as a monument of their grandeur and glory, God indeed suffered to stand long, but then it was as a monument of their own infamy and folly, the impotency of their rebellion, and their decisive defeat.”

[240] Gen. xi. 7. Concerning the confusion of languages. The state of the world of mankind, with respect to variety of language, now and in all past ages that we can learn any thing of from history, does exceedingly confirm this account of the confusion of languages. Without this, it is very unaccountable how there should be so great a variety of language in so little a time, or indeed ever at all. Concerning this, the author of “Revelation Examined with Candour,” observes as follows: “It is true that the English and all living languages are in a perpetual flux; new words are added, and others die, and grow obsolete. But whence does this arise? Not at all from the necessary mutability of human things, but most evidently from the mixture of other tongues. Scholars add new words or terminations from the learned languages, either through affectation of learning or desire of adorning their native tongue with some words of more elegance or significance; and others from a commerce with other countries of different languages, naturally adopt some of their phrases and expositions into their own. And so our language varies; and what then? How does this affect the question concerning the continuance of the same language, where no other was ever taught or heard? The Jews spoke the same language from Moses to the Babylonish captivity: if their polity had continued, would they not speak the same language to this day?” [And here I would insert what Bedford in his Scripture Chronology observes, viz. that “the Arabic continued the same from the time of Job till later ages. The Arabic spoken by Christians in Asia at this day, is the same with that spoken by Mahomet, the impostor, which was much the same with that used in Job’s time; and the Chaldee remained the same from the time of Iaco till the date of the Babylonish Talmud; and the Greek continued the same from the days of Homer to Chrysostom.” See Bedford, p. 291 and 512.] The author of Revelation Examined with Candour, goes on. “Some of the inland inhabitants of Africa are found to speak the same language now which they spoke two thousand years ago (and in all probability the same observation is true of our neighbours, the Welch). Could they keep to one language for two thousand years, and could not the descendants of Noah keep to one language two hundred years? Could they keep their language amidst a variety of so many others about them, and when it is scarcely possible that they should be clear of all commerce with people of different tongues; and could not these keep their language, when it was impossible that they should have any commerce but with one another? Those Africans, to say nothing of the Welch, now keep their own tongue, though there are so many others in the world to taint, and by degrees to abolish it. If there were no other language in the world but theirs, does any man believe they would not continue to speak it for two thousand or ten thousand years more, if the world lasted so long? It is true, as arts increased, and customs changed, new terms and phrases might be added; when then new words would increase and adorn the tongue; but sure no man would say it would destroy it, unless it be believed that new branches, or fruit, or flowers, do daily destroy the tree they shoot out from.”

“The learned author of the letter to Dr. Waterland seems to think, that all other languages sprang as naturally from the Hebrew, as many shoots from the same root, or many branches from the same stock: but I am confident, whoever carefully considers the genius of each of the ancient languages now extant, will find as little reason to believe that they all had their original from the Hebrew, as that all the variety of the forest and fruit-trees in the world were originally but so many shoots and branches from the palm-tree of Judea.

“Besides all this, if we consider that the language of Adam (if we could suppose it imperfect in him, when it was demonstrably inspired by God, yet) had time enough to arrive at full perfection in 1656 years; and that Noah and his sons had time enough to learn it in perfection before the flood; the youngest of his sons being about 100 years old at that time, and himself 600; we cannot with any colour of reason imagine that there could be any necessity of adding so much as one word to it before the building of Babel.” Thus far the author of Religion Examined with Candour.

And besides all this, the greater excellency and regularity of some of the ancient languages so early, when arts were in their first beginning, as the Latin and Greek, the latter of which was in great perfection in the days of Homer, seems to argue something divine in it. If the arts and learning of the nation had so early brought their language to such a pitch of perfection, they had made infinitely greater progress in this than in other things that pertain to human life.

The manner in which God confounded the languages of the posterity of Noah, seems to be by confounding their memory with respect to their former language, but not utterly destroying it; so that they still retained some notion of many of the words and phrases of their former language; hence it is found that other languages have in many words affinity to the Hebrew.

[275] Gen. xiii. 10. “And Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as thou comest unto Zoar.” Zoar here probably is the same city which was elsewhere called Zoan, which was of old the chief city of Egypt. (See No. 254.) The Hebrew letter Greek or Hebrew, Nun, seems easily convertible into Greek or Hebrew, Resch, as in Achon, Achor. Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadrezzar. Zoan was probably at this time the most famous and the royal city in Egypt. It stood in the Delta of Egypt, or that part of it that was near the sea, through which the river Nile ran in many branches, so that it was well watered every where, as the land about Sodom is here said to be; for “it had not only the river Jordan running through it, but the river Arnon from the east, the brook Zered (Numb. xxi. 12.) and the famous fountain Callirhoe (Pliny, lib. 5. c. 16.) from the south, falling into it.” (Complete Body of Divinity, p. 350.) Probably this fountain is the same with the well, which the princes of Israel digged with their staves, Numb. xxi. 16, 17, 18. And probably being a low flat country, which is sometimes called a plain, sometimes a valley, Gen. xiv. 10. was in the time of the swelling of Jordan overflowed, as Egypt was with the Nilus.