3. When we come down to a later period in the nar- rative, where we have the opportunity of testing the accuracy of the historian, we find it in many of the most important particulars abundantly corroborated.
(1.) Whatever interpretation we may be disposed to put on the story of the confusion of tongues, and the subsequent dispersion of mankind, there is no good ground for setting it aside. Indeed, if the reading of a cjlinder recently discovered at Birs Nimriid may be trusted, there is independent evidence corroborative of the Biblical account. But, at any rate, the other ver- sions of this event are far less probable (see these in Josephus, Ant. i, 4, 3 ; Euseb. Prcvp. Ev. ix, 14). The later myths concerning the wars of the Titans with the gods are apparently based upon this stor}', or rather upon perversions of it. But it is quite impossible to suppose, as Kalisch does (^Genesis, p. 313), that "the Hebrew historian converted that very legend into a medium for solving a great and important problem." There is not the smallest appearance of any such de- sign. The legend is a perversion of the history, not the history a comment upon the legend. The inci- dental remark concerning the famous giants, the prog- eny of the " sons of God" and the "sons of men" (Gen. vi, 4), seems to be the true ke}' to the demigod heroes of ancient mythology.
('2.) As to the fact implied in this dispersion, that all languages had one origin, philological research has not as yet been carried far enough to lead to any very cer- tain result. Many of the greatest philologists (Bopp, Lepsius, Burnouf, etc. ; Kenan, Histoire des Langues Semidque.i, 1. v, c. '2, 3) contend for real affinities be- tween the Indo-European and the Shemitic tongues. On the other hand, languages like the Coptic (not t<i mention many others) seem at present to stand out in complete isolation. The most that has been ef- fected is a classification of languages into three great families. Tliis classification, however, is in exact ac- cordance with the threefold division of the race in Shem, Ham, and Japhet, of which Genesis tells us. See I'HiLOLOCiY (Cojipauative).
(3.) Another fact which rests on the authority of the earlier chapters of Genesis, the derivation of the whole human race from a single pair, has been abundantly confirmed by recent investigations. For the full proof of this, it is sufficient to refer to Prichard's Physical lliatory of Mankind, in wdiich the subject is discussed with great care and ability. See Adaji.
(4.) One of the strongest proofs of the bond-fide his- torical character of the earlier portion of Genesis is to be found in the valuable ethnological catalogue con- tained in chap. x. Knobel, who has devoted a volume {Die VoVcertafel dcr Genesis) to the elucidation of this document, has succeeded in establishing its main accu- racy beyond doubt, although, in accordance with his theory as to the age of the Pentateuch, he assigns to it no greater antiquity than between 1200 and 1000 B.C. Sec Ethxologi.
GENESIS
782
GENESIS
Of the minute accuracy of this table vre have abun- dant proof: for instance (Gen. x, 4), Tarshish is called tlie son of Javan. This indicates that the ancient in- habitants of Tarshish or Tartessus in Spain were erro- neously considered to be a Pha:nician colony like those of other towns in its neighborhood, and that they sprang from Javan, that is, Greece. That they were of Greek origin is clear from the account of Herodotus (i, 1G3). Also (ver. 8), Nimrod, the ruler of Babel, is called the son of Cush, wliicli is in remarkable unison with the mythological tales concerning Bel and his Egyptian descent (comp. Diodor. Sic. i, 28, 81 ; Pau- sanias, iv, 23, 5). ISidon alone is mentioned (ver. 15), but not Tyrits (comp. xlix, 13), which arose only in the time of Joshua (Josh, xix, 29) ; and tliat Sidon was an older town than Tyrus, by which it was afterwards eclipsed, is certified by a number of ancient reports (comp. Hengstenberg, De Rehus Tp'ioruin, p. G, 7).
4. With the patriarchal history (xii sq.) begins a historical sketch of a peculiar character. The circum- stantial details in it allow us to examine more closely the historical character of these accounts. The nu- merous descriptions of the mode of life in those daj-s furnish us with a very vivid picture. We meet ever^-- where a sublime simplicity quite worthy of patriarchal life, and never to be found again in later history. One cannot suppose that it would have been possible in a later period, estranged from ancient simplicity, to in- vent such a picture.
The authencity of the patriarchal history could be attacked only by analogy, the true historical test of negative criticism ; but the patriarchal history- has no analogy ; while a great historical fact, the Mosaical theocracy itself, might here be adduced in favor of the truth of Genesis. The theocracy stniuls without anal- ogy in the history of the human race, and is, neverthe- less, true above all historical doubt. But this theoc- racy cannot have entered into history without prepar- atory events. Tlie facts which led to the introduction of the theocracy are contained in the accounts of Gene- sis. Moreover, this preparation of the theocracy could not consist in the ordinary providential guidance. T lie race of patriarchs advances to a marvellous destina- tion : the road also leading to this destination must be peculiar and extraordinary. The opponents of Gene- sis forget that the marvellous events of patriarchal his- tory which offend them most, partake of that charac- ter of the whole bj' which alone this history becomes commensurate and possible.