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 Sabæan 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.
BALAAM'S ASS.
BIBLE ROMANCES.--IX.
By G. W. FOOTE.
The ass has figured extensively in romance. His long ears and peculiar
bray are explained by a story which goes back to the Flood. On that
occasion, it is said, the male donkey was inadvertently left outside the
ark, but being a good swimmer, he nevertheless managed to preserve his
life. After many desperate efforts he at last succeeded in calling out
the patriarch's name, as nearly as the vocal organs of a jackass would
allow. "No-ah, No-ah," cried the forlorn beast. Noah's attention was at
last aroused, and on looking out of window to see who was calling, he
perceived the poor jackass almost spent and faintly battling with the
waves. Quickly opening the window, he caught Neddy by the two ears
and hauled him in. This he did with such vigor that Neddy's aural
appendages were considerably elongated; and ever since donkeys have had
long ears, and brayed "No-ah, No-ah" at the approach of wet weather. For
the sake of Christians who are not well acquainted with God's Word, we
add that this story is not in the Bible.
Classical scholars and students of modern literature know how the ass
has been treated by poets and romancers. The stolid animal has generally
been made the subject of comedy. Drunken and impotent Silenus, in the
Pagan mythology, joins in the professions of Bacchus on a sober ass, and
the patient animal staggers beneath the heavy burden of a fat-paunched
tipsy god. Apulius and Lucian transform the hero of their common
story into an ass, and in that shape he encounters the most surprising
experiences. Voltaire makes an ass play a wonderful part in his
"Pucelle." And in all these cases it is worth noticing how the profane
wits remember the ass's relation to Priapian mysteries, from his fabled
interruption of the garden-god's attempt on the nymph Lotis downwards,
and assign to him marvellous amatory adventures. Erasmus, in his "Praise
of Folly," does not forget the ass, with whom he compares the majority
of men for stupidity, obstinacy, and lubricity; nor is the noble
animal forgotten by Rabelais, who cracks many a joke and points many a
witticism at his expense.
Our own genial humorist, Charles Lamb, confesses however to a deep
tenderness for Neddy, and dwells with delight on the protection which
his thick hide affords against the cruel usuage of man. He has, says
Lamb, "a tegument impervious to ordinary stripes. The malice of a child
or a weak hand can make feeble impressions on him. His back offers no
mark to a puny foeman. To a common whip or switch his hide presents an
absolute-insensibility. You might as well pretend to scourge a schoolboy
with a tough pair of leather breeches on." Lamb also quotes the
following passage from a tract printed in 1595, entitled "The Noblenesse
of the Asse; a Work Rare, Learned, and Excellent": "He refuseth no
burden; he goes whither he is sent, without any contradiction. He lifts
not his foote against any one; he bytes not; he is no fugitive, nor
malicious affected. He doth all-things in good sort, and to his liking
that hath cause to employ him. If strokes be given him, he cares not for
them." True, the ass is not much given to kicking or biting, but he has
an awkward knack of quietly lying down when he is indisposed to work,
and of rolling over with equal quietude if a rider happens to be on his
back. But the old author is so enchanted with the "asse" that he does
not stay to notice this scurvy trick. He even goes on to express his
liking for the ass's bray, calling Neddy "a rare musitian," and saying
that "to heare the musicke of five or six voices changed to so many of
asses is amongst them to heare a song of world without end."
Sterne, in his "Sentimental Journey," has a chapter entitled "The
Dead Ass," wherein the animal is lifted into the sphere of pathos. And
lastly, Coleridge has some very pious musings on an ass, wherein the
animal is lifted into the sphere of religion.
Now, dear reader, you begin to see the drift of this long exordium,
although my purpose was indeed twofold. First, I wished, after the
example of my betters in literature, to give you a slight glimpse of the
immense extent of my learning. Secondly, I wished to lead you through
the various stages of literary treatment of the ass, from the comic
to the pathetic, and finally to-the religious, in order that you might
approach in a proper frame of mind the consideration of Balaam's ass,
who is the most remarkable of all the four-legged asses mentioned in the
Bible. There were others. Asses were being sought by Saul, the son
of Kish, when he found a kingdom of subjects instead. Jesus rode into
Jerusalem on an ass, and also apparently on a colt, having probably
one leg over each. With the jawbone of an ass Samson slew a thousand
Philistines; and if the rest of the animal accorded with that particular
bone, he must have been a tough ass indeed. But all these are of little
interest or importance beside the wonderful ass of the prophet
Balaam, whose history is contained, with that of his master, in the
twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth chapters of the Book of
Numbers.
Soon after the Wandering Jews in the desert were plagued by "fiery
serpents" for asking Moses to give them a slight change in their
monotonous bill of fare, they warred against the Amorites and pretty
nearly exterminated them. Whereupon Balak the son of Zippor, king of
Moab, grew "sore afraid." He called together the "elders of Midian" with
those of Moab, and said that in his opinion the Jews would lick them all
up as the ox licked up the grass of the field.
Against such a ferocious gang as the Jews, with a bloody God of Battles
to help them, human valor promised little success; so Balak resolved to
solicit supernatural aid. Accordingly he sent messengers unto Balaam the
son of Beor, a renowned and potent soothsayer, desiring him to come and
curse the people of Israel.
The King had implicit confidence in Balaam. "Whom thou blessest," said
he, "is blessed, and whom thou cursest is cursed." This great prophet
must have wrought prodigious wonders in his time to gain so magnificent
a reputation; and if the king's panegyric on him was true, he must have
been a dangerous person to those who annoyed him and made him swear.
The "elders of Moab and the elders of Midian," who were Balak's
messengers, went to Pethor, where Balaam resided. As the reader might
expect, they did not go empty-handed, but took with them "the rewards
of divination." What these were we are not told. No doubt they were very
handsome. The prophetical business requires large profits to compensate
for the absence of quick returns; and in any case it is not to be
supposed that a man who can do what no one else can, will begin work
without a heavy retaining fee. We conclude that Balaam, like nearly
every prophet mentioned in history, had a good eye for the main chance,
and did not trust very much in the bounty of the gods. He was never
hard up for bread and cheese while other people were hard up for divine
assistance, and as that was an ignorant and credulous age, we presume
that his larder was well-stocked. He must, indeed, have had a fine
time, for he was the biggest pot in his own line of business in all that
district.
Balaam knew his business well. It would never do for a prophet, a
soothsayer, a wizard, or a diviner, to give prompt answers to his
applicants, or even to make his answers plain when he does give them.
That would render the profession cheap and rob it of mystery. So Balaam,
therefore, said to the messengers, "Lodge here this night, and I will
bring you word again, as the Lord shall speak unto me."
Now this reference to _the Lord_ is very surprising. The Moabites
worshipped Baal, and no doubt they had the utmost contempt for Jehovah.
Yet Balaam, who was a prophet of their religion, tells them that he will
consult the god of Israel on the subject of their visit! This is one of
the self-contradictions with which the Bible abounds.
The next incident of the story is no less remarkable. God, the infinite
spirit of the universe, paid Balaam a visit; and although he knows
everything, past, present, and to come, he asked the prophet "What
men are these with thee?" Balaam gave a straightforward reply, for he
doubtless knew that prevarication and subterfuge were useless with
God. Said he, "Balak the son of Zippor, King of Moab, has sent unto me,
saying, Behold there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth the
face of the earth: come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be able
to overcome them and drive them out." The precision of Balaam's language
is admirable, and so is its accuracy. He neither desired to keep the
Lord in suspense, nor to leave him in ignorance of necessary details.
God's answer was equally brief and perspicuous: "Thou shalt not go with
them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed."
This interview between God and Balaam, like the following ones, occurred
in the night. The Lord seems to have been always afraid of daylight, or
else to have had a peculiar fondness for the dark. Perhaps he thought
that during the night there was less chance of the conversation being
interrupted, and it is well known that the Lord loves privacy and does
not like conversing with more than one at a time. He agrees with us that
"two's company and three's none."
In the morning Balaam got out of bed and told Balak's messengers to
return and say that the Lord would not let him come; and they at once
set out for the capital.
Balak, however, was not to be so easily put off. He seems to have
regarded the prophet's talk about the Lord's prohibition as "all my
eye." "Perhaps," said he to himself, "my messengers were small fry in
the sight of Balaam, and he is therefore displeased. My presents also
may have been too small I should have recollected that Balaam has a
very exalted opinion of himself, and is renowned for his avarice. What a
stupid I was, to-be sure. However, I'll try again. This time I'll send
a deputation of big guns, and promise him great wealth and high position
in the state. He can't refuse such a tempting offer." Straight-way he
"sent yet again princes, more and more honorable" than those who went
before, and commanded them to urge Balaam to let nothing hinder him from
coming.
Balaam slightly resented this treatment. He told the messengers-that if
Balak would give him his house full of silver and gold, he could not
go beyond the word of the Lord, to do more or less. Yet he apparently
deemed it politic to make another trial. He was, of course, quite aware
that God is unchangeable, but somehow he thought the Lord might alter
his mind. So he bade the messengers to tarry there that night while he
consulted God afresh.
Balaam's expectation was realised. The Lord did change his mind. He
"came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call
thee, rise up and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say
unto thee, that shalt thou do." So the prophet rose up in the morning,
saddled and mounted his wonderful ass, and went off with the princes of
Moab.