killed another on purpose or by accident. In either case he had forfeited his life. Even an animal, that had killed a man, must be stoned.1

This last practice appears very absurd to us; but it was not confined to a high antiquity. In Christian countries, and even in Western Europe, many an animal has been brought to justice at the hands of the hangman; for killing a man. As late as in 1486, the hangman of Yprès, in Flanders, was ordered to execute a boar upon the scaffold, because it had killed a child.

So, if a man had killed any one, on purpose or by accident, he had forfeited his own life. The blood that had been shed cried out for a recompense, and it was the duty of the nearest relative to demand the debt by slaying the murderer. For this reason he was called the blood-redeemer, for the Hebrew word must be so translated, not blood-avenger. The redeemer was not only allowed but obliged to destroy the murderer. He was not allowed to follow the practice of other nations, sometimes adopted doubtless in Israel too, and accept a ransom in money. To do so was a sin; for when blood was shed it defiled the land, and the stain could only be washed out by the blood of the murderer; 2 for man was made after the image of God, and was therefore inviolable. The god of Israel was a stern god, and no one who marred his likeness could escape his punishment.

The difference, however, between a man who had killed his neighbor intentionally and one who had accidentally caused the death of some one-possibly his dearest friend was so obvious that a natural feeling of fairness required some softening of this stern law. There were certain places of refuge, therefore. In the earliest times this privilege belonged to the temples, and the altar especially protected the murderer. Afterwards, when the number of sanctuaries was limited, there were certain cities of refuge in which any one who had killed a man, without any guilt on his own part, might sojourn. But if any one had committed a murder out of hatred, it was no use his escaping to one of these cities, for he was given up to the blood-redeemer, and was killed by him. His life was protected only if he was guiltless, and in that case he might go back in safety to his own home, on the death of the high-priest.3

The expression: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by

1 Exodus xxi. 28-32.

8 Deuteronomy xix. 1-13.

2 Numbers xxxv. 31-34. Numbers xxxv. 9-34.

man shall his blood be shed, because he is made after the image of God," is frequently quoted in defence of capital punishment as the legal penalty for murder. Of course, if we are to frame our penal code after the model of that of Israel, this is all fair; but in that case we are bound to execute any animal that has killed a man: for if we recognize a certain commandment as divine, and therefore binding upon us as well as those to whom it was given, we have no right to observe one half of it and throw the other half to the winds. But this is the way in which the words of the Bible are abused. However useful the law that the murderer must be punished by death may have been in ancient times, it must not be accepted and observed as a divine law by us.

The later Rabbis increased the commandments about btaining from blood and the inviolability of human life to the number of seven. To these they added: obedience to the authorities, and prohibition of blasphemy, idolatry, incest, and theft. They called these the Noachic commandments, and considered that every one, whether Jew or heathen, was bound to observe them, inasmuch as they had been issued before the promulgation of the Mosaic law. For this reason they were imposed upon the so-called "proselytes of the gate," that is, the heathens who had half gone over to Judaism. All this, however, only dates from a period centuries later than the Babylonian captivity.

Such was man's side of the covenant, and God, on his part, promised that he would never send a flood of waters upon the earth again. As a token of this covenant he made the rainbow that, whenever he gathered the clouds together over the earth, it might appear to remind him of his promise, which was to hold good for ever.

It is not surprising that so splendid a phenomenon as the rainbow made a deep impression upon the peoples of antiquity. The cause of its appearance was not in the least degree understood, but it was observed that it was connected in some way with the rain. This gave rise to all sorts of speculations, and the rainbow, consequently, plays a part in the mythologies of many nations. It is often called the bridge by which the gods come down from heaven to earth, or by which the souls of the departed reach the abode of bliss. This idea is not found among the Israelites. In our story the "bow of God," is the sign of the covenant; but that does not mean that it was intended to reassure mankind.

According to the Israelites, the rainbow no more served this purpose than did the sign of which Yahweh spoke to Cain; but just as the latter was meant to warn any one who was about to raise his hand against Cain or the Cainites,1 so the former was meant to remind God of his promise. What childlike ideas of God people had in ancient times! As if the memory of the deity needed to be refreshed in this way.

In their expectations as to the future, then, the two authors who tell us about the flood are quite agreed. They do not expect that such an all-destroying flood will ever come upon the earth again; but they cherish this belief upon very different grounds: or rather, they ascribe very different motives to their god in giving this promise. According to the one, God's motive is humiliating enough to man: viz., that he is really incorrigible; while the other rises to a higher point of view, and ascribes to God good-will towards all that lives, both man and beast; while the life of man, who is made after his image, is inviolable. In this he approaches to some extent the position of Jesus, who dared to call God, Father, and reverenced in man, in spite of all his shortcomings and all his want of holiness, the child of God.

After the story of the flood comes that of Noah's drunkenness and his cursing Canaan. It is from the same hand as the account of the flood in which the name of Yahweh is used, the distinction between clean and unclean animals made, and the sacrifice of Noah mentioned. We shall speak of it afterwards in another connection.

CHAPTER VIII.

NIMROD.

GEN. X. 8-12.

N the mountains of Armenia, there rise, not far from each

The Euphrates, which rises north of the other, takes a wide sweep to the west, round the mountains of Armenia, while the Tigris flows south-east from the first. Then they both 1 See pp. 54, 59.

flow through a plain, a considerable height above the level of the sea, some parts of which, especially near the banks of the rivers, are moderately fertile, though the rest of the territory between the two streams is dry and barren. This region was called by the Greeks Mesopotamia, that is, the country between the rivers. This district, together with that to the east of the Tigris, was formerly inhabited by the Assyrians, whose capital, Nineveh, was situated on the left bank of this river. On issuing from this region the two rivers approach pretty close together and then part again; and so, sometimes nearer and sometimes further from each other, flow on in the same direction until they pour themselves into the Persian Gulf. A fruitful plain stretches down from the place where the two streams approach each other most closely. It is called the plain of Shinear, that is, again "of the two rivers," and was inhabited by the Babylonians.1

From the eighth century before Christ onwards the Israelites came into very close contact with both Assyrians and Babylonians; and it is not surprising, therefore, that they felt an interest in the earliest history of their countries.

The following account is given us by one of them:

Nimrod, the Ethiopian, was the first tyrant upon earth. He was a mighty hunter before the face of Yahweh; and that is the origin of the proverbial expression: "a hunter like Nimrod before Yahweh." He ruled at first over Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinear. Then he went to Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen, which is situated between Nineveh and Calah, this is the great city.

What is told us of Nimrod in this passage does not give us a very favorable impression of him, and we cannot be surprised that the later Jewish writers draw a portrait which is anything but flattering of this first tyrant and mighty hunter. One of them (Flavius Josephus 2) combines the story of the tower of Babel with this notice of Nimrod, and represents him as having tried to carry heaven by storm, and as having been slain by the wrath of God in punishment for his audacity. All this, however, is quite contrary to the intention of the old story, in which nothing is told to the discredit but everything to the honor of Nimrod, and he is represented as one of the benefactors of mankind. There is certainly nothing noble in hunting or shooting defenceless game, either for pleasure or profit, in our day; but to under2 On Josephus, see vol. iii., Introduction viii.

1 See map 1.

stand the story of Nimrod we must imagine a country thinly inhabited and swarming with beasts of prey, with wolves lions, tigers, eagles, and serpents. In such a country a powerful and valiant hunter who risks his life in protecting men and cattle, is beloved by every one. It is but natural

too, that such a man, renowned for his strength and skill, honored for his courage, and the benefits he confers, proud of the power his arms have won for him, and accustomed to brave every danger, should be the leader of his tribesmen in war and the umpire of their disputes in times of peace, and so gradually become their acknowledged ruler. And though a power which rests on the sword is not our ideal, yet even this was a blessing in ancient times; for the political institutions of our day were unknown; and unless there were some one to preserve order by force and by the fear which his person inspired, a whole district might easily fall a prey to strife and disorder. Hence establishing a personal rule was a step in the path of progress and increased civilization. All the influential princes of antiquity were tyrants, mighty hunters in time of peace, and warriors when threatened by the enemy; and the sagas of the most different nations attribute the slaughtering of monsters and giants to their gods and demigods. Such were the deeds of the god Thor in the belief of our forefathers; and of Orion and Herakles (Hercules) according to the Greeks. I do not mean to assert that there really were men who bore these names, and that after their death they were worshipped as gods; but by ascribing such exploits to their gods, the ancients showed 'how much they thought of them, and how highly mighty hunters and tyrants were honored.

Now we understand how Nimrod could be called a mighty hunter "before the face of Yahweh;" for this expression does not mean, as is sometimes said, a hunter who was rebellious against Yahweh, but a hunter upon whom Yahweh looked, that is, whom he appointed to struggle mightily, and to prepare the way for civilization and progress in the countries over which he ruled.

The name of Nimrod has not as yet been discovered upon the ancient monuments of Babylon and Assyria; nor can we even explain its meaning with any certainty. We are, therefore, quite unable to tell whether it was originally the name of a god, a tribe, or a man; but in any case Nimrod is one of those mythical beings in whose fortunes and exploits the history of a country is recorded.

Now let us read the account once more: Cush, that is