IN reviewing the foregoing myths and poetical narratives, if we suppose ourselves in the province of Babylon, or to speak more generally in Mesopotamia, which the Hebrew people were wont to regard as their former home and the original locality from whence their ancestors migrated, we see clearly that these myths may be considered, to some extent, as a common inheritance of all the Semitic races; since they are here placed at the commencement as an introduction to a special Israelitish legend, and according to their compiler's intention, they must precede the commencement of real history. It is likewise clear, from the historical references contained in the narrative, and the allusions to various legends belonging to central Asia, as well as from the connection of several early myths with the Parsee system of religion, and other characteristics which have been identified with real events, that sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that an earlier period than the Babylonian Exile cannot be assigned for the compilation of this narrative in its present form. It is also manifest that all these poetical legends disdain to assign to the Hebrew nation an origin in their own land, or even to trace their beginning as a people to some remote country in the East and to the effect of mere chance. The district of Iran in central Asia bounds the oriental knowledge of the Hebrew writer, and the earliest inhabitants of the world are described as proceeding from Eden in a fixed westward direction. And this one great feature, which no ancient legendary literature of any other people in the course of their wanderings so clearly indicates, and which as a thread connects the single myths of the Hebrews one with another, is of the highest value to the student of primæval and national history; while, on the other hand, the same important use cannot be made of the poetical narrative of the patriarchs in the second part of Genesis, nor does there seem to be any great practical value in the dogmatic lore which has been either introduced into these early myths or elaborated from them. If we suppose it possible that this recollection of the origin of their nation had been preserved among the cultivated Phoenicians, or, which is more probable, among the Chaldæans who remained in their ancient Mesopotamian dwelling-place, we may regard the migration of the Hebrews as an historical truth, which has been confirmed by the more comprehensive study of languages in later times; nor had this fact even escaped the notice of the compiler of Genesis, for he plainly enough points to Arphaxad', when alluding to the separation of the two great families of language, whose natural boundary was formed by the river Tigris. To this locality (Arphaxad) may be traced the origin of the Sanscrit language, the knowledge of which was extended by the Assyrians as far as the district of Babylon; its structure is so perfect, that it is distinguished from the Semitic languages by the monosyllabic character of its roots, and the rich mutability of its vowels ; words of Semitic origin being characterized by dissyllabic roots and fixed vowels. It was however conjectured2 long ago by Gesenius, that the etymological development of the Hebrew language, as well as that of other Semitic tongues, appears to point to an earlier monosyllabic character, whereby many of what are called primitives corresponded in a striking manner with Sanscrit roots; for example,Heb. esh, fire; Sans. ush, to burn; Heb. ish, man, Sans. isa; 1 See note on chap. x. 24, 25. 2 [Among many fantasies, our own Parkhurst rightly pointed out this.] Heb. na ar, youth, Sans. nara; Heb. echad, one, Sans. eka; Heb. shen', tooth, Sans. danta; Heb. shesh, six, Sans. shash; Heb. sha'ar, Chald. tra', door, Sans. dvár; Heb. Keren, horn, Sans. karna; Heb. sela, rock, Sans. silá; Heb. ap, also, Sans. api; and many others2. Gesenius, in his latest lexicographic labours, has pursued this etymological development, which may be carried still further with increasing certainty as the knowledge of Sanscrit advances; in all cases the two essential consonants, with which in the Semitic languages the idea forming the base of the root is connected, were separated by Gesenius from the mutable and transient accessory sounds; and the relation of the two families of language to one another may be shown in a few examples. In the root bal, mal, fal, is contained the idea of the shrivelling and drying of withering plants; and this sensuous idea is always so much connected with the root, that it must necessarily be primitive or originally its base: the breathing only varies, by which the root is modified; abal, amal, afal and nabal, referring to withering leaves of a loosened texture; compare the Sanscrit pala, straw after threshing, and bali, wrinkle, fold; Heb. nafal, to fall; Gr. opaλλw, to cause to fall; Sanscrit phal, to move forwards, to split; Heb. balah is used in speaking of worn-out and rotten clothes; compare Taλalos, ancient. The Hebrew yibol is applied to the undulating motion of water; Sancrit val, 'volvere,' means 1 The Chaldee often has t for the Hebrew sh initial. in 2 See Gesenius, Lehrgeb. pp. 183, 187, and the Introduction to the third edition of his Dictionary. to roll; and the Hebrew balal, which is an amplification of the same root, expresses the idea of intermixing and rolling over and over. In the case of monosyllabic roots, or those with vowellike consonants, the correspondence with the Sanscrit be easily traced, as in the following instances:Heb. baal, to rule, Sans. pal; may Arab. sas, to order, Sans. sas; Heb. mut, to die, Sans. mri1; Heb. lu', to swallow up, Sans. lih; Heb. 'ur, in Niphal, to watch, Sans. jágri; Heb. luc, to stammer, Sans. lud, and to move the tongue,' also lal. Verbal roots, with a soft breathing or an accessory terminal sound, may thus be exemplified. Heb. 'adab, and da'ab, 'tabuit,' Sans. tap; Heb. 'akar, and kur, to bore through, Sans. khur ; Heb. 'azal, to go, Sans. sal; Heb. 'achar, to tarry, Sans. chir; Heb. 'at' am, to obstruct, Sans. dam; Heb. 'agal, to flow together, Sans. jal; Heb. 'atah, to come, Sans. at; Heb. yasha, to be, Sans. as; Arab. mashi, to walk, Sans. mask; 1 See Lex. Man. Heb. tanah, to give, Sans. dân; Arab. ja', to come, Sans. gá; Heb. ga a, to low, compare gau, (a cow). Double consonants are made clearer in the Semitic languages. Heb. charash, to plough, Sans. krish; Arab. walaj, to go, Sans. valg; Heb. kafaf, Greek κáμπw, Sans. kap; Heb. parak Arab. faraj to break, Sans. bhraj; Heb. masak, to mix, Sans. maksh; Heb. shamar, to keep, Sans. smri, smar; Heb. baram, to hum, Sans. bhram, of bees; and so on. Originally, without doubt, the two families of languages were distinct, and the Semitic branch should be regarded as a later extension of the language, which must have arisen in that country (Arphaxad) referred to in Genesis. for the division of nations. There was also in the course of time a tendency to the union of the two groups of languages, when they came into contact, as is shown in the later Pehlvi, in which not only a foreign suffix mat or man is added to what is in reality a Semitic noun', but the 1 See Symbolæ ad interpret. S. Cod. ex lingua Persica, p. 10. |