bible romances.—viii.
by g. w. foote.
the bible, it is frequently asserted, was never meant to teach us science, but to instruct us in religion and morality; and therefore we must not look to it for a faithful account of what happened in the external world, but only for a record of the inner experiences of mankind. astronomy will inform us how the heavenly bodies came into existence, and by what laws their motions are governed; geology will acquaint us with the way in which the earth's crust was formed, and with the length of time occupied by the various stages of the process; and biology will tell us all about the origin and development of living things. god has given us reason, by exercising which we may gather knowledge and establish sciences, so as to explain the past, illustrate the present, and predict the future; and as reason is sufficient for all this, there is no need of a divine revelation in such matters. but as reason is insufficient to teach the will of god and the laws of morality, a divine revelation of these is necessary, and the bible contains it.
this plausible contention cannot, however, be maintained. the bible is not silent with respect to astronomy, geology, or biology. it makes frequent and precise statements concerning them, and in nearly every instance it contradicts scientific truth as we have amply proved in previous numbers of this series.
the eleventh chapter of genesis gives an explanation of the diversity of languages on the earth. it does this in the truest spirit of romance. philologists like max müller and whitney must regard the story of the tower of babel, and the confusion of tongues, as a capital joke. a great many parsons may still believe it, but they are not expected to know much.
one fact alone is enough to put the philology of genesis out of court. the native languages of america are all closely related to each other, but they have no affinity with any language of the old world. it is therefore clear that they could not have been imported into the new world by emigrants from the plains of central asia. the genesaic theory is thus proved to be not of universal application, and consequently invalid.
let us come to the bible story. some time after the flood, and before the birth of abraham, "the whole earth was of one language and one speech;" or, as colenso translates the original, "of one lip, and of one language." this primitive tongue must have been hebrew. god spoke it in eden when he conversed with our first parents, and probably it is spoken in heaven to this day. for all we know it may be spoken in hell too. it probably is, for the devil and his angels lived in heaven before they were turned into hell, and we may conclude that they took their native language with them. it was spoken by adam when he named his wife in paradise; by eve, after the expulsion when she gave names to her sons, cain and seth; by lamech, shortly before the flood, when he explained the name of noah; and indeed, as colenso observes, "it is obvious that the names of the whole series of patriarchs from adam to noah, and from noah onwards, are in almost every instance pure hebrew names." delitzsch, however, thinks it comparatively more probable that the syriac or nabataan tongue, preserved after the dispersion at babylon, was the one originally spoken. yet he dismisses the possibility of demonstrating it. he supposes that the names of adam and the other patriarchs have been altered, but not so as to lose any of their original meaning; in other words, that they have been, by god's grace, translated with perfect accuracy from the primeval speech. but colenso very justly remarks that the original documents do not allude to a process of translation, and that we have no right to assume it. he also adds that "if the authority of scripture is sufficient to prove the fact of a primeval language, it must also prove that this language was hebrew."
yet the bible is wrong, for hebrew could not have been the primitive speech. it is only a semitic dialect, a branch of the semitic stem. sanscrit is another stem, equally ancient; and according to max müller and bunsen, both are modifications of an earlier and simpler language. neither has the least affinity with chinese, which again, like them, differs radically from the native dialects of america. as hosea biglow sings,
"john p. robinson, he
says they didn't know everything down in judee."
and most certainly they did not know the true origin and development of the various languages spoken by the nations of the earth.
the people who dwelt on the earth after the deluge, and all spoke one language, journeyed from the east, found a plain in, the land of shinar, and dwelt there. shinar is another name for babylon. after dwelling there no one knows exactly how long, "they said one to another, go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. and they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter." the writer of this story was very fond of short cuts. it took men a long time to learn the art of making bricks; and the idea of their suddenly saying to each other "let us make brick," and at once proceeding to do so, is a wild absurdity.
having made a lot of bricks, they naturally wished to do something with them. so "they said, go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." how could making a name, for the information of nobody but themselves, prevent their dispersion? and how could they resolve to build a "city," when they had never seen one, and had no knowledge of what it was like? cities are not built in this manner. "rome wasn't built in a day" is a proverb which applies to all other places as well. london, paris, and rome, are the growth of centuries, and the same must have been true of ancient capitals.
the reason assigned by scripture for the work of these primitive builders is plainly inadequate. a more probable reason is that they mistrusted god's promise never again to destroy the earth with a flood, and therefore determined to build a high tower, so that, if another deluge came, they might ascend above the waters, or, if need be step clean into heaven itself. their lack of faith is not surprising. we find the same characteristic on the part of believers in our own day. they believe in god's promises only so far as it suits their interest and convenience. scripture says, "whoso giveth unto the poor lendeth unto the lord." yet there are thousands of rich christians who seem to mistrust the security.
how high did these primitive builders think heaven was? according to colenso, they said, "come, let us build for us a city, and a tower with its head in heaven." did they really think they would ever succeed in building so high? perhaps they did, for their natural philosophy was extremely limited. they doubtless imagined the blue vault of heaven as a solid thing, in which were stuck the sun, moon, and stars, and no higher than the sailing clouds.
their simple ignorance is intelligible, but how can we explain the ignorance of god? their project alarmed him. he actually "came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded." heaven was too distant for him to see from with accuracy, and telescopes were not then invented. a close inspection led him to believe that his ambitious children would succeed in their enterprise. they thought they might build into heaven, and he thought so too. what was to be done? if they once got into heaven, it might be very difficult to turn them out again. it took several days' hard fighting to expel satan and the rebellious angels on a previous occasion, and these newcomers might be still more obstinate. in this dangerous extremity, "the lord said [unto whom is unknown], behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do. go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."
why did the lord resolve to take all this trouble? had he forgotten the law of gravitation and the principles of architecture? was he, who made the heaven and the earth, ignorant of the distance between them? he had only to let the people go on building, and they would eventually confound themselves; for, after reaching a certain height, the tower would tumble about their ears. gravitation would defeat the cohesion of morter why did not god leave them alone? why did he take so much unnecessary trouble? the answer is that this "lord" was only "jehovah" of the jews, a tribal god, who naturally knew no more about the facts and laws of science than his worshippers who made him.
the lord carried out his resolution. he "confounded their language," so that no man could understand his neighbors. probably this judgment was executed in the night; and when they awoke in the morning, instead of using the old familiar tongue, one man spoke chinese, another sanscrit, another coptic, another american, another dutch, another double dutch, and so on to the end of the chapter.
according to the bible, this is the true philology. no language on the earth is more than four thousand years old, and every one was miraculously originated at babel. is there a single philologist living who believes this? we do not know one.
the result of this confusion of tongues was that the people "left off to build the city," and were "scattered, abroad on the face of all the earth." but why did they disperse? their common weakness should have kept them together. society is founded upon our wants. our necessity, and not our self-sufficience, causes association and mutual helpfulness. had these people kept company for a short time, they would have understood each other again. a few common words would have come into general use, and the building of the tower might have been resumed.
how was their language "confounded?" did god destroy their verbal memory? did he paralyse a part of their brain, so that, although they remembered the words, they could not speak them? did he affect the organs of articulation, so that the sounds of the primeval language could not be reproduced? will some theologian kindly explain this mystery? language is not a gift, but a growth. different tribes and nations have had different experiences, different wants, and different surroundings, and the result is a difference in their languages, as well as in their religious ideas, political organisations, and social customs.
before we leave this portion of the subject, we beg to introduce milton again. in the last book of "paradise lost" he adds from his fertile imagination to the bible story, and supplies a few deficiencies about which the mind is naturally curious. he makes the archangel michael tell poor adam and eve, as part of his panoramic description of future times, that a mighty hunter shall arise, claiming dominion over his fellows, and gather under him a band of adherents. this is clearly nimrod. milton separates him and his subjects from the rest of mankind, and represents them as the people who settled on "the plain in the land of shinar."
according to our great poet, therefore, the confusion of tongues applied only to them, and the other inhabitants of the earth retained the primeval language in all its original purity. this detachment, says michael—
marching from eden towards the west, shall find
the plain, wherein a black bituminous gurge,
boils out from underground, the mouth of hell:
of brick, and of that stuff they cast to build
a city and a tower, whose top may reach to heaven;
and get themselves a name, lest, far dispersed
in foreign lands, their memory be lost,
regardless whether good or evil fame.
but god, who oft descends to visit men
unseen, and through their habitations walks
to mark their doings, them beholding soon,
comes down to see their city, ere the tower
obstruct heav'n-tow'rs, and in derision sets
upon their tongue a various spirit to rase
quite out their native language, and instead
to sow a jangling noise of words unknown.
forthwith a hideous gabble rises loud
among the builders; each to other calls
not understood, till hoarse, and all in rage,
as mock'd, they storm: great laughter was in heaven,
and looking down, to see the hubbub strange
and hear the din; thus was the building left
ridiculous, and the work confusion named.
if the tower of babel was built over the mouth of hell it would be wise to explore its site and make proper excavations, so as to settle the geography and physical character of the bottomless-pit. the churches are sadly in want of a little information about hell, and here is an opportunity for them to acquire it, we hope the explorers will all be selected for their extreme piety, so that they may be as fire-proof as shadrach, meshach, and abednego, and happily escape cremation.
because the lord "did there confound their language" the place was "called babel." the hebrew root, balal to confound, is not, however, that from which the word "babel" is derived, it is a compound of "bel," and may mean the "house of bel," "court of bel," or "gate of bel." some, including professor rawlinson, suppose it be a compound of "el" or "il," in which case "bab-el" means the "gate of god."
it is evident that the story of the tower of babal was borrowed by the jehovist author of this part of genesis from the tradition of the famous unfinished temple of belus, one of the wonders of antiquity. "birs nimroud" is thus described by kalisch:—
"the huge heap, in which bricks, stone, marble, and basalt, are irregularly mixed, covers a surface of 49,000 feet; while the chief mound is nearly 300 feet high, and from 200 to 400 feet in width, commanding an extensive view over a country of utter desolation. the tower consisted of seven distinct stages or square platforms, built of kiln-burnt bricks, each about twenty feet high, gradually diminishing in diameter. the upper part of the brickwork has a vitrefied appearance; for it is supposed that the babylonians, in order to render their edifices more durable, submitted them to the heat of the furnace; and large fragments of such vitrefied and calcined materials are also intermixed with the rubbish at the base. this circumstance may have given rise to, or at least countenanced, the legend of the destruction of the tower by heavenly fire, still extensively adopted among the arabians. the terraces were devoted to the planets, and were differently colored in accordance with the notions of sab?an astrology—the lowest, saturn's, black; the second, jupiter's, orange; the third, mars, red; the fourth, the sun's, yellow; the fifth, venus's, white; the sixth, mercury's, blue; the seventh, the moon's, green. merodach-adan-akhi is stated to have begun it b.c. 1100. it was finished five centuries afterwards by nebuchadnezzar, who left a part of its history on two cylinders, which have lately been excavated on the spot, and thus deciphered by rawlinson. 'the building, named the planisphere, which was the wonder of babylon, i have made and finished. with bricks, enriched with lapis lazuli, i have exalted its head. behold now the building, named "the stages of the seven spheres," which was the wonder of borsippa, had been built by a former king. he had completed forty-two cubits of height: but he did not finish the head. from the lapse of time it became ruined. they had not taken care of the exit of the waters; so the rain and wet had penetrated into the brickwork. the casing of burnt brick lay scattered in heaps. then merodach, my great lord, inclined my heart to repair the building. i did not change its site, nor did i destroy its foundation-platform. but, in a fortunate month, and upon an auspicious day, i undertook the building of the raw-brick terrace and the burnt-brick casing of the temple. i strengthened its foundation, and i placed a titular record on the part which i had rebuilt. i set my hand to build it up, and to exalt its summit. as it had been in ancient times, so i built up its structure. as it had been in former days, thus i exalted its head.'"
professor rawlinson assigns b.c. 2300 as the date of the building of the temple. but as colenso remarks, his reasoning is very loose. his date, however, is antecedent to the supposed time of the building of babel, and according to his own chronology the latter may have been a tradition of the former. add to this that the ruins of birs nimroud are extant, while there is no vestige of the ruins of babel. according to kalisch's chronology, birs nimroud was built long after the supposed time of moses; and if he wrote the pentateuch our position cannot be maintained. but he did not write the pentateuch or any portion of it. the writer of the jehovist portion of genesis, which contains the story of the tower of babel, certainly did not flourish before the time of solomon, about b.c. 1015—975. here, then, is an interval of a century. that is a short period for the growth of a legend. yet, as colenso observes, "as the tower was apparently an observatory, and the fact of its being dedicated to the seven ancient planets shows that astronomical observations had made considerable progress among the chaldeans at the time when it was built, the traditions connected with it may have embodied stories of a much earlier date, to which the new building gave fresh currency."
the temple of jupiter belus with its tower was partially destroyed by xerxes b.c. 490; upon which, says kalisch, "the fraudulent priests appropriated to themselves the lands and enormous revenues attached to it, and seem, from this reason, to have been averse to its restoration." a part of the edifice still existed more than five centuries later, and was mentioned by pliny. but the other part was, in the time of alexander the great, a vast heap of ruins. he determined to rebuild it, but desisted from the enterprise, when he found that ten thousand workmen could not remove the rubbish in two months. benjamin of tudela described it in the twelfth century, after which, for more than six hundred years, it remained unnoticed and unknown. the ruins were rediscovered by niebuhr in 1756; subsequent explorers more accurately described them; and they were thoroughly examined, and their monumental records deciphered, about thirty years ago.
the myth attaching to it is not unique. as kalisch observes, "most of the ancient nations possessed myths concerning impious giants, who attempted to storm heaven, either to share it with the immortal gods, or to expel them from it." and even the orthodox delitzsch allows that "the mexicans have a legend of a tower-building, as well as of a flood. xelhua, one of the seven giants rescued in the flood, built the great pyramid of cholula, in order to reach heaven, until the gods, angry at his audacity, threw fire upon the building, and broke it down, whereupon every separate family received a language of its own." to lessen the force of this, delitzsch says that the mexican legend has been much colored by its narrators, chiefly dominicans and jesuits; but he is obliged to admit that there is great significance in the fact that the mexican terrace-pyramid closely resembles the construction of the temple of belus. no argument can vitiate the conclusion that as similar myths to that of genesis abounded in ancient times, it is highly illogical to attach particular importance to any one of them. if one is historic, all are historic. we are justified in holding that the jewish story of the tower of babel is only a modification of the older story of the temple of belus.
we will conclude this number by mentioning a few facts, not speculations, which are exceedingly curious, and which present grave difficulty to the orthodox believer.
according to the bible, in abraham's time, not four centuries after the deluge, the descendants of noah's three sons had multiplied into the four great kingdoms of shinar (babylon), elam, egypt, and gerar, besides a multitude of smaller nations. does any instructed man believe in the possibility of such multiplication? it is altogether incredible.
some of these nations had reached a high degree of civilisation. indeed, the temples, tombs, pyramids, manners, customs, and arts of egypt betoken a full-grown nation. the sculptures of the fourth dynasty, the earliest extant, and which must be assigned to the date of about 3500 b.c., are almost as perfect as those of her augustan age, two thousand years later. professor rawlinson seeks to obviate this difficulty by appealing to the version of the seventy instead of to the hebrew text, by which he obtains the remote antiquity of 8159 b.c., instead of 2848, for the deluge. but this chronology does not reach within four hundred years of the civilisation denoted by the sculptures referred to! and there must have been milleniums of silent progress in egypt before that period.
on the ancient monuments of egypt the negro head, face, hair, form, and color, are the same as we observe in our own day. consequently, the orthodox believer must hold that, in a few generations, the human family branched out into strongly marked varieties. history discountenances this assumption, and biology plainly disproves it. archdeacon pratt supposes that shem, ham, and japheth "had in them elements differing as widely as the asiatic, the african, and the european, differ from each other." he forgets that they were brothers, sons of the same father and presumably of the same mother! such extraordinary evolution throws darwinism into the shade.
noah lived fifty-eight years after the birth of abraham. shem lived a hundred and ten years after the birth of isaac, and fifty years after the birth of jacob. how was it that neither abraham, isaac, nor jacob knew either of them. they were the most interesting and important men alive at the time. they had seen the world before the flood. one of them had seen people who knew adam. they had lived through the confusion of tongues at babel, and were well acquainted with the whole history of the world. yet they are never once mentioned in scripture during all the centuries they survived their exit from the ark. why is this? noah before his death was the most venerable man existing. he was five hundred years older than any other man. he must have been an object of universal regard. yet we have no record of the second half of his career; no account is given of his burial; no monument was erected to his memory. who will explain this astounding neglect? the bible is a strange book, and they are strange people who believe it.
