« ZurückWeiter »
“It is now clear to all students of the Bible that the first and second chapters of Genesis contain two narratives of the Creation, side by side, differing from each other in almost every particular of time and place, and order.
“It is now known that the vast epochs demanded by scientific observation are incompatible both with the 6,000 years of the Mosaic Chronology and the six days of the Mosaic Creation."
-Dean Stanley's Sermon on the Death of Sir Charles Lyell.
THE SECOND EDITION.
I have added a short chapter on the Bible and the Koran which will, I hope, make the difference, as it seems to me, in the religious development of the Semitic and Aryan races, clear to the reader. I have also revised the transcription of the Hebrew text and made a very few, mostly verbal, corrections elsewhere. 1 have read as carefully as possible all adverse criticisms, where they touched upon matters of fact or probability, without finding any reason to alter the conclusions with regard to Genesis reached in this work. I have tried to avoid giving any offence in my treatment of the subject; and I think that those who uphold the literal truth of the account in Genesis must fail to appreciate the true value of the Hebrew Scriptures, which does not lie in the direction of an inquiry into the origin and structure of the earth and its inhabitants. My thanks are due to Mr. Mark. S. Hubbell for his editorial labors in the issuance of this edition.
A. R. G.
In my studies I have consulted the following authors:
Davidson, Introduction to the Old Testament and Apocrypha; Keil, Manual of Introduction to the Old Testament; Kuenen, Religion of Israel, and Bible for Learners ; Colenso on the Pentateuch; Bleek, Introduction to the Old Testament; Samuel Sharpe, History of the Hebrew Nation and Literature; Havernick, Introduction to the Old Testament; A. Geiger, Urschrift u. Uebers. der Bibel; Goldziher, Mythology among the Hebrews; George Smith, Chaldean Account of Genesis, with explanation and continuation by Frederick Delitzsch, (German); Cory, Ancient Fragments; H. C. Rawlinson, Essay on the Early History of Babylonia, in Geo. Rawlinson's Herodotus, Vol. I.; J. G. von Herder, Aelteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlechtes and the same, Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit; Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible. For mythological facts the works of Spiegel, Simrock, Max Müller, Fiske and others have been used. In this place I take pleasure in acknowledging my indebtedness to the original labors of Professor Adolf Duschak, an accomplished Hebrew scholar, and my teacher in the language.
Distribution of the Semitic languages.
I may give here a brief notice of the historical distribution of the Semitic languages. To the north their boundaries were the Armenian Mountains, and a line drawn through the middle of the peninsula of Asia Minor; to the east, the Tigris river; to the south, the Indian Ocean and the Desert of Sahara; to the west, the Mediterranean. With a slight shifting, this is the present distribution. The Arabic has spread to the south, far into the interior of Africa, and Egypt speaks Arabic through the influence of Mohammedanism. Wherever the Koran is read, Arabic is spoken. The Bible is read, on the contrary, in the vernacular, and it is only the Jews who everywhere read the Old Testament still in the Hebrew. The name “Semitic" was first used by Eichhorn, and is derived from Shem. It is really a misnomer, because in the descendants of Shem are included races that speak Aryan languages. Shem is mythical ; but the name has an ethnological sense which does not coincide with its linguistic value. On the other hand, the Phænicians and Canaanites, according to the Old Testament, are descendants of Ham, and yet speak a Semitic tongue.
The first branch of the Semitic languages comprises the living Arabic, which is a descendant of the classical Arabic, and the Ethiopian, which is a descendant of the Himyaritic. The second branch is the Aramæan, Aramaic was the popular language in Palestine at the time of Christ. This branch embraces also the Syriac and the Chaldee. The Samaritan is really a mongrel of Hebrew and Chaldee. The third branch is the Hebrew. In Ezra and Daniel are passages in Chaldee, and there are some Chaldee words also in Genesis. In the Old Testament are also a few words, as in the Book
of Kings, which have been traced back to the Sanskrit.
knowledge of the these languages may be here cited. The Moallakat Semitic langu(i.e. the collection), the oldest collection of Arabic ages. songs of all kinds, lyric and religious, dates a century before Mohammed. After this the Koran with its commentaries forms the chief source of our knowledge of this branch ofthe Semitic language. In the Aramaic branch the sources are the Chaldee portions of Ezra and Daniel, the former dating from the beginning of the fifth century before Christ, and the latter from the time of the Maccabees, 160 B. C. For the Samaritan we have the Samaritan Pentateuch, which differs textually from the Hebrew in many points, but which has not much value, however, as a corrective of the Hebrew text, because the changes have a partisan and dogmatic origin. Then we have the Syriac translation called Peshito, dating from the second century after Christ. We have also the Chaldee translation of the Old Testament of uncertain date, or rather of gradual growth. When the Jews returned from Babylon, it was the custom in the synagogues for the Reader * to read a Chapter of the Old Testament in the Hebrew, after which a regularly appointed translator rendered it into the vernacular Chaldee spoken by the people after the Captivity. These translations were in many cases far from literal, the translation giving often merely the sense of the Hebrew text. Passages which were too
* Something similar is stated by Sale to have occurred with the Koran. The want of vowels in the Arabic character writing made Readers absolutely necessary. The differences in reading between these Readers occasioned variations in the later copies of the Koran, as they came to be written with vowels.