These apparently exact topographical data have ex- cited the zeal of historians and theologians, who have vied with each other in efforts to point out the precise geographical site of the garden. It is unnecessary here to adduce all the views proposed. Most of them are collected in INIorini Diss, de Pa7adiso Tenrsti-i (in the Leyden edition of Bochart, Ojip. ii, 9 sq., and in Ugolino, Thesaur. vii) ; in the Allgemeine Welthistor. i, 117 sq.; in Hottinger, Enneas Dissert, p. 64 sq. ; in Eichhorn's Urgesch. by Gabler, II, i, 76 sq. ; in Bellerman's Handb. i, 143 sq. ; and in Schulthess, Das Paradies, das irdische u. iiber irdische, historische, mythische, it. mystische (Zur. 1816). Comp. also Rosenmliller, Alterih. I, i, 172 sq. ; jMarck, Hist. Paradis. Jllustrat. (Amsterd. 1705). It was most natural, in order to have a fixed starting- point, to begin with the sufficiently known position of the rivers Euphrates (H^S) and Tigris (Sp'^v). All hj'potheses which do not do this are manifestly ground- less, and we may omit their consideration (for example, that set forth by Latreille, in his Memoires sur diver's svjets de Vhist. nat. des insect, de Geogr. ancienne, etc. [Paris, 1819] ; that of Kannegiesser, Grundriss der Al- terthumsunssensch. [Halle, 1815] ; and likewise that of Hasse, Preussens Anspriiche ans Bcrnsteinland [Kcinigs- berg, 1709], who supposes Eden to have been on the coast of Prussia !). But a difficulty arises in attempt- ing to find two other rivers, which, with the Tigris and Euphrates, could once have come from one source. This but few have endeavored with care to solve; as Calvin {Comment, in Genesim), Huetius {De situ juiradisi, in Ugolino, Thesaur. vii), Bochart {Opera, ii, 29 sq., and in Ugolino, Thesaur. vii), Morinus, J. Vorst (in Ugolino as above). All these have understood the tenth verse to mean that the river in question parted, as it passed from the garden, into four rivers, two flowing northward and two southward. According to this view, we are to un- derstand by the Pishon and Gihon the two chief mouths of the Shat el-Arab, the united Tigris and Euphrates; Huetius and Bochart specifying Pishon as the western and Gihon as the eastern, on etymological grounds. Calvin, Grotius, and Hottinger, on the contrary, make Pishon the Pasitigris, while they differ in identifying the others. The land of Cush was sujiposed by these interpreters to be the Chusistan of the Persians; or the name was found in the Cissii {Kicaioi), as Strabo calls the people of Susiana (xv, 728. See Grotius on Gen. ii, 10). Havilah would then be the adjacent parts of Ara- bia, where Strabo places the Chaulotaioi (xvi, 767), and Eden must be sought in the neighborhood of Korna (31° C 28" N. lat., 47° 29' 18" E.long. from Greenwich), where the Euphrates and Tigris unite. But much may be urged against this view: 1, The word Cush, which often occurs in the Old Testament in the sense of jEthi- opia (as Nah. iii, 9 ; Psa. Ixviii, 31. Comp. Gesen. Thesaur. s. v. 1l3l3), is here applied to an entirely dif- ferent and remote land ; 2, the two chief moutlis of the Shat el-Arab seem to have been scarcely knoAvn to the ancients, and were not important enough at best to be named with the Tigris and Euphrates ; 3, nor is this the most natural interpretation of the tenth verse, as it not only fails to explain the term heads (D'^dS'^) properly, but makes the manner of expression in general very awkward. Still more could be said against the view of J. Hopkinson (DescrijMo Paradisi [Leyd. 1593] ; also
PARADISE
654
PARADISE
in Ugolino's Thesaur. vii). lie places the site of Para- dise around Babylon, and, by the four streams proceed- ing from one, understands the two channels of the Eu- phrates, Nahar Malca and Maarsares (comp. Mannert, Y, ii, 342 sq.) ; the former of which runs towards the east, being Pishon; while the latter turns westward, the Gi- hon. On this scheme Susiana must be considered as Havilah, and Arabia is the land of Cush. Thus this author affords a more natural interpretation of Gen. ii, 10 than those before quoted; but his view seems open to fatal objections: (1.) It is very improbable that the tradition of Paradise should connect in its topography two artificial canals with the Euphrates and Tigris, for even if thev were supposed to be natural streams, yet they could not be prominent features of a country which abounds in canals and sluices. (2.) The fact that the Nahar Malca, whose course, indeed, is not clearly laid down, empties into the Tigris, which forms for a great distance the boundary of Susiana, is not a sufficient ex- planation of the phrase " compasseth the whole land of Havilah." (3.) There is no other reason for identifying Susiana with Havilah than because the Nahar Malca is assumed to be Pishon, (4.) The expression "from thencb^^ (p'd'Ci, Gen. ii, 10) refers more naturally to the garden (■i5t^) than to the land of Eden (■)'^^'). Erasmus Rask also places Paradise at Babylon (in Illgen's Zeit- schrifl, VI, ii, 94 sq.). He makes the Shat el-Arab the original river of Eden (Gen. ii, 10) ; the Pishon is the Karun, the Pasitigris of the ancients; and the Gihon he finds in the Karasu, the ancient Gj-ndes. The last two empty into the Shat el-Arab south of Korna. Cush is in his view Chusistan ; Havilah is the coast bej'ond the mouth of tlie Shat el- Arab. I'aradise would then stand on the western side of the latter stream, between Korna and Basra, some distance from the sea. It is plain that too much is assumed in this scheme, and that it is opposed by what we have remarked above as to the meaning of Cush.