Sorrow shall seize the inhabitants of Palestine.
Then shall the dukes of Edom be amazed,
Dismay shall possess the princes of Moab,
The inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away:
Fear and terror shall fall upon them,
By the greatness of thine arm they shall be petrified,
Till thy people pass over [Jordan] O Lord,
Till the people pass over, whom thou hast redeemed.”
Exodus xv, 14–16.
St. Paul, also, addressing the Athenians, refers to the same decree, as
a well-known tradition in the Heathen world: “God made of one blood
every nation of men to dwell upon the whole face of the earth; having
appointed the predetermined seasons and boundaries of their dwellings,”
Acts xvii, 26. Here he represents mankind as all of “one blood,” race,
or stock, “the sons of Adam” and of Noah in succession; and the seasons
and the boundaries of their respective settlements, as previously
regulated by the divine appointment. And this was conformable to their
own geographical allegory; that Chronus, the god of time, or Saturn,
divided the universe among his three sons, allotting the heaven to
Jupiter, the sea to Neptune, and hell to Pluto. But Chronus represented
Noah, who divided the world among his three sons, allotting the upper
regions of the north to Japheth, the maritime or middle regions to Shem,
and the lower regions of the south to Ham. According to the Armenian
tradition recorded by Abulfaragi, Noah distributed the habitable earth
from north to south between his sons, and gave to Ham the region of the
blacks, to Shem the region of the tawny, _fuscorum_, and to Japheth the
region of the ruddy, _rubrorum_: and he dates the actual division of the
earth in the hundred and fortieth year of Peleg, B. C. 2614, or five
hundred and forty-one years after the deluge, and one hundred and
ninety-one years after the death of Noah, in the following order:--“To
the sons of Shem was allotted the middle of the earth, namely,
Palestine, Syria, Assyria, Samaria, Singar, [or Shinar,] Babel, [or
Babylonia,] Persia, and Hegiaz; [Arabia;] to the sons of Ham, Teimen,
[or Idumea, Jer. xlix, 7,] Africa, Nigritia, Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia,
Scindia, and India; [or India west and east of the river Indus;] to the
sons of Japheth, also, Garbia, [the north,] Spain, France, the countries
of the Greeks, Sclavonians, Bulgarians, Turks, and Armenians.” In this
curious and valuable geographical chart, Armenia, the cradle of the
human race, was allotted to Japheth, by right of primogeniture; and
Samaria and Babel to the sons of Shem; the usurpation of these regions,
therefore, by Nimrod, and of Palestine by Canaan, was in violation of
the divine decree. Though the migration of the primitive families began
at this time, B. C. 2614, or about five hundred and forty-one years
after the deluge, it was a length of time before they all reached their
respective destinations. The “seasons,” as well as the “boundaries” of
their respective settlements were equally the appointment of God; the
nearer countries to the original settlement being planted first, and the
remoter in succession. These primitive settlements seem to have been
scattered and detached from each other according to local convenience.
Even so late as the tenth generation after the flood in Abraham’s days,
there were considerable tracts of land in Palestine unappropriated, on
which he and his nephew, Lot, freely pastured their cattle without
hinderance or molestation. That country was not fully peopled till the
fourth generation after, at the exode of the Israelites from Egypt. And
Herodotus represents Scythia as an uninhabited desert, until Targitorus
planted the first colony there, about a thousand years, at most, before
Darius Hystaspes invaded Scythia, or about B. C. 1508. The orderly
settlements of the three primitive families are recorded in that most
venerable and valuable geographical chart, the tenth chapter of Genesis,
in which it is curious to observe how long the names of the first
settlers have been preserved among their descendants, even down to the
present day:--
1. Japheth, the eldest son of Noah, Gen. x, 21, and his family, are
first noticed, Gen. x, 2–5. The name of the patriarch himself was
preserved among his Grecian descendants, in the proverb, τοῦ Ἰάπετου
ϖρεσβύτερος, _older than Japetus_, denoting the remotest antiquity. The
radical part of the word Ἰάπετ, evidently expresses _Japheth_. (1.)
Gomer, his eldest son, was the father of the Gomerians. These, spreading
from the regions north of Armenia and Bactriana, Ezek. xxxviii, 6,
extended themselves westward over nearly the whole continent of Europe;
still retaining their paternal denomination, with some slight variation,
as Cimmerians, in Asia; Cimbri and Umbri, in Gaul and Italy; and Cymri,
Cambri, and Cumbri, in Wales and Cumberland at the present day. They are
also identified by ancient authors with the Galatæ of Asia Minor, the
Gaels, Gauls, and Celtæ, of Europe, who likewise spread from the Euxine
Sea, to the Western Ocean; and from the Baltic to Italy southward, and
first planted the British Isles. Josephus remarks, that the Galatæ were
called Γομαρείς, _Gomariani_, from their ancestor Gomar. See the
numerous authorities adduced in support of the identity of the Gomerians
and Celts, by that learned and ingenious antiquary, Faber, in his
“Origin of Pagan Idolatry.” Of Gomer’s sons, Ashkenaz appears to have
settled on the coasts of the Euxine Sea, which from him seems to have
received its primary denomination of Ἄξενος, _Axenus_, nearly resembling
Ashkenaz; but forgetting its etymology in process of time, the Greeks
considered it as a compound term in their own language, Α-ξένος,
signifying _inhospitable_; and thence metamorphosed it into Εὖ-ξένος,
_Eu-xenus_, “very hospitable.” His precise settlement is represented in
Scripture as contiguous to Armenia, westward; for the kingdoms of
Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, are noticed together, Jer. li, 27. Riphat,
the second son of Gomer, seems to have given name to the Riphean
mountains of the north of Asia; and Togarmah, the third son, may be
traced in the Trocmi of Strabo, the Trogmi of Cicero, and Trogmades of
the council of Chalcedon, inhabiting the confines of Pontus and
Cappadocia. (2.) Magog, Tubal, and Mesech, sons of Japhet, are noticed
together by Ezekiel, as settled in the north, Ezek. xxxviii, 2, 14, 15.
And as the ancestors of the numerous Sclavonic and Tartar tribes, the
first may be traced in the Mongogians, Monguls, and Moguls; the second,
in the Tobolski, of Siberia; and the third, Mesech, or Mosoc, in the
Moschici, Moscow, and Muscovites. (3.) Madai was the father of the
Medes, who are repeatedly so denominated in Scripture, 2 Kings xvii, 6;
Isa. xiii, 17; Jer. li, 11; Dan. v, 28, &c. (4.) From Javan was
descended the Javanians, or Ἰάονες of the Greeks, and the Yavanas of the
Hindus. Greece itself is called Javan by Daniel, xi, 2; and the people
Ἰάονες by Homer in his “Iliad.” These aboriginal Ἰάονες of Greece are
not to be confounded, as is usually the case, with the later Ἴωνες, who
invaded and subdued the Javanian territories, and were of a different
stock. The accurate Pausanias states, that the name of Ἴωνες, was
comparatively modern, while that of Ἰάονες is acknowledged to have been
the primitive title of the barbarians who were subdued by the Ἴωνες.
Strabo remarks that Attica was formerly called both Ionia and Ias, or
Ian; while Herodotus asserts, that the Athenians were not willing to be
called Ἴωνες; and he derives the name from Ἴων, the son of Zuth,
descended from Deucalion or Noah. And this Ion is said by Eusebius to
have been the ringleader in the building of the tower of Babel, and the
first introducer of idol worship, and Sabianism, or adoration of the
sun, moon, and stars. This would identify Ion with Nimrod. And the
Ionians appear to have been composed of the later colonists, the Palli,
Pelasgi, or roving tribes from Asia, Phenicia, and Egypt, who, according
to Herodotus, first corrupted the simplicity of the primitive religion
of Greece, and who, by the Hindus, were called Yonigas, or worshippers
of the yoni or dove. This critical distinction between the Iaones and
the Iones, the Yavanas, and the Yonigas, we owe to the sagacity of
Faber. Of Javan’s sons, Elishah and Dodon, may be recognized in Elis and
Dodona, the oldest settlements of Greece; Kittim, in the Citium of
Macedonia, and Chittim, or maritime coasts of Greece and Italy, Num.
xxiv, 24; and Tarshish, in the Tarsus of Cilicia, and Tartessus of
Spain.
2. Ham and his family are next noticed, Gen. x, 6–20. The name of the
patriarch is recorded in the title frequently given to Egypt, “The land
of Ham,” Psalm cv, 23, &c. (1.) Of his sons, the first and most
celebrated appears to have been Cush, who gave name to the land of Cush,
both in Asia and Africa; the former still called Chusistan by the
Arabian geographers, and Susiana by the Greeks, and Cusha Dwipa Within,
by the Hindus; the other, called Cusha Dwipa Without. And the
enterprising Cushim or Cuthim, of Scripture, in Asia and Europe, assumed
the title of Getæ, Guiths, and Goths; and of Scuths, Scuits, and Scots;
and of Sacas, Sacasenas, and Saxons. The original family settlement of
Abraham was “Ur of the Chasdim,” or Chaldees, Gen. xi, 28, who are
repeatedly mentioned in Scripture, Isa. xiii, 9; Dan. ix, 1, &c.
According to Faber’s ingenious remark, it may more properly be
pronounced Chus-dim, signifying Godlike Cushites. It is highly
improbable that they were so named from Chesed, Abraham’s nephew, Gen.
xxii, 22, who was a mere boy, if born at all, when Abraham left Ur, and
was an obscure individual, never noticed afterward. Of Cush’s sons,
Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Sabtacha, and Raamah; and the sons of Raamah,
Sheba, and Dedan, seem to have settled in Idumea and Arabia, from the
similar names of places there; and of his descendants, Nimrod, the
mighty hunter, first founded the kingdom of Babylon, and afterward of
Assyria, invading the settlements of the Shemites, contrary to the
divine decree. His posterity were probably distinguished by the title of
Chusdim, Isaiah xxiii, 13. (2.) The second son of Ham was Misr, or
Mizraim. He settled in Egypt, whence the Egyptians were universally
styled in Scripture, Mizraim, or Mizraites, in the plural form. But the
country is denominated in the east, to this day, “the land of Misr;”
which, therefore, seems to have been the name of the patriarch himself.
The children of Misr, like their father, are denominated in Scripture by
the plural number. Of these, the Ludim and Lehabim were probably the
Copto-Libyans, Ezek. xxx, 5; the Naphtuhim occupied the sea coast, which
by the Egyptians was called Nephthus; whence, probably, originated the
name of the maritime god Neptune. The Pathrusim occupied a part of Lower
Egypt, called from them Pathros, Isa. xi, 11. The Caphtorim and the
Casluhim, whose descendants were the Philistim of Palestine, occupied
the district which lies between the delta of the Nile and the southern
extremity of Palestine, Deut. ii, 23; Amos ix, 7. (3.) Phut is merely
noticed, without any mention of his family. But the tribes of Phut and
Lud are mentioned together, with Cush, or Ethiopia, Jer. xlvi, 9; Ezek.
xxx, 5; and Jerom notices a district in Libya, called Regio Phutensis,
or the land of Phut. (4.) Canaan has been noticed already; and the
original extent of the land of Canaan is carefully marked by Moses. Its
western border, along the Mediterranean Sea, extended from Sidon,
southward, to Gaza; its southern border from thence, eastward, to Sodom
and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, the cities of the plain, afterward
covered by the Dead Sea, or Asphaltite Lake; its eastern border
extending from thence northward, to Laish, Dan, or the springs of the
Jordan; and its northern border, from thence to Sidon, westward. Of
Canaan’s sons, Sidon, the eldest, occupied the north-west corner, and
built the town of that name, so early celebrated for her luxury and
commerce in Scripture, Judges xviii, 7; 1 Kings v, 6; and by Homer, who
calls the Sidonians, πολυδαίδαλοι, _skilled in many arts_. And Tyre, so
flourishing afterward, though boasting of her own antiquity, Isa. xxiii,
7, is styled, “a daughter of Sidon,” or a colony from thence, Isa. v,
12. Heth, his second son, and the Hittites, his descendants appear to
have settled in the south, near Hebron, Gen. xxiii, 3–7; and next to
them, at Jerusalem, the Jebusites, or descendants of Jebus, both
remaining in their original settlements till David’s days; 2 Sam. xi, 3;
v, 6–9. Beyond the Jebusites, were settled the Emorites, or Amorites,
Num. xiii, 29, who extended themselves beyond Jordan, and were the most
powerful of the Canaanite tribes, Gen. xv, 16; Num. xxi, 21, until they
were destroyed by Moses and Joshua, with the rest of the devoted nations
of Canaan’s family.
3. Shem and his family are noticed last, Gen. x, 21–30. His posterity
were confined to middle Asia. (1.) His son Elam appears to have been
settled in Elymais, or southern Persia, contiguous to the maritime tract
of Chusistan, Dan. viii, 2. (2.) His son Ashur planted the land thence
called Assyria, which soon became a province of the Cushite, or Cuthic
empire, founded by Nimrod. (3.) Arphaxad, through his grandson, Eber,
branched out into the two houses of Peleg and Joktan. Peleg probably
remained in Chaldea, or southern Babylonia, at the time of the
dispersion; for there we find his grandson, Terah, and his family,
settled at “Ur of the Chaldees,” Gen. xi, 31. Of the numerous children
of Joktan, it is said by Moses, that “their dwelling was from Mesha, as
thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of the east.” Faber is inclined to
believe that they were the ancestors of the great body of the Hindus,
who still retain a lively tradition of the patriarch Shem, Shama, or
Sharma; and that the land of Ophir, abounding in gold, so called from
one of the sons of Joktan, lay beyond the Indus, eastward. (4.) Lud was
probably the father of the Ludim or Lydians, of Asia Minor; for this
people had a tradition that they were descended from Lud or Lydus,
according to Josephus. (5.) The children of Aram planted the fertile
country north of Babylonia, called Aram Naharaim, “Aram between the two
rivers,” the Euphrates and the Tigris, thence called by the Greeks,
Mesopotamis, Gen. xxiv, 10, and Padan Aram, the level country of Aram,
Gen. xxv, 20. This country of Aram is frequently rendered Syria in
Scripture, Judges x, 6; Hosea xii, 12, &c; which is not to be confounded
with Palestine Syria, into which they afterward spread themselves, still
retaining their original name of Ἄριμοι, or Arameans, noticed by Homer
in his “Iliad.”
4. Upon this distribution of Noah’s posterity we shall only observe,
that the Deity presided over all their counsels and deliberations, and
that he guided and settled all mankind according to the dictates of his
all-comprehending wisdom and benevolence. To this purpose, the ancients
themselves, according to Pindar, retained some idea that the dispersion
of men was not the effect of chance, but that they had been settled in
different countries by the appointment of Providence, Gen. xi, 8, 9;
Deut. xxii, 8. This dispersion, and that confusion of languages with
which it originated, was intended, by the counsel of an all-wise
Providence, to counteract and defeat the scheme which had been projected
by the descendants of Noah, for maintaining their union, implied in
their proposing to make themselves a name, שם, which Schultens, in Job
i, 1, derives from the Arabic verb שמה, or שמש, _to be high elevated_,
or _eminent_. By this scheme, which seems to have been a project of
state policy, for keeping all men together under the present chiefs and
their successors, a great part of the earth must, for a long time, have
been uninhabited, and overrun with wild beasts. The bad effects which
this project would have had upon the minds, the morals, and religion of
mankind, was, probably, the chief reason why God interposed to frustrate
it as soon as it was formed. It had manifestly a direct tendency to
tyranny, oppression, and slavery. Whereas in forming several independent
governments by a small body of men, the ends of government, and the
security of liberty and property, would be much better attended to, and
more firmly established; which, in fact, was really the case; if we may
judge of the rest by the constitution of one of the most eminent, the
kingdom of Egypt, Gen. xlvii, 15–27. The Egyptians were masters of their
persons and property, till they sold them to Pharaoh for bread; and then
their servitude amounted to no more than the fifth part of the produce
of the country, as an annual tax payable to the king. By this event,
considered as a wise dispensation of Providence, bounds were set to the
contagion of wickedness; evil example was confined, and could not extend
its influence beyond the limits of one country; nor could wicked
projects be carried on, with universal concurrence, by many small
colonies, separated by the natural boundaries of mountains, rivers,
barren deserts, and seas, and hindered from associating together by a
variety of languages, unintelligible to each other. Moreover, in this
dispersed state, they could, whenever God pleased, be made reciprocal
checks upon each other, by invasions and wars, which would weaken the
power, and humble the pride, of corrupt and vicious communities. This
dispensation was, therefore, properly calculated to prevent a second
universal degeneracy; God dealing in it with men as rational agents, and
adapting his scheme to their state and circumstances.
DIVORCE. As the ancient Hebrews paid a stipulated price for the
privilege of marrying, they seemed to consider it the natural
consequence of making a payment of that kind, that they should be at
liberty to exercise a very arbitrary power over their wives, and to
renounce or divorce them whenever they chose. This state of things, as
Moses himself very clearly saw, was not equitable as respected the
woman, and was very often injurious to both parties. Finding himself,
however, unable to overrule feelings and practices of very ancient
standing, he merely annexed to the original institution of marriage a
very serious admonition to this effect, viz. that it would be less
criminal for a man to desert his father and mother, than without
adequate cause to desert his wife, Gen. ii, 14, compared with Malachi
ii, 11–16. He also laid a restriction upon the power of the husband as
far as this, that he would not permit him to repudiate the wife without
giving her a bill of divorce. He farther enacted in reference to this
subject that the husband might receive the repudiated wife back, in case
she had not in the meanwhile been married to another person; but if she
had been thus married, she could never afterward become the wife of her
first husband; a law, which the faith due to the second husband clearly
required, Deut. xxiv, 1–4, compare Jer. iii, 1, and Matt. i, 19; xix, 8.
The inquiry, “What should be considered an adequate cause of divorce,”
was left by Moses to be determined by the husband himself. He had
liberty to divorce her, if he saw in her _any thing naked_, any thing
displeasing or improper, any thing so much at war with propriety, and a
source of so much dissatisfaction as to be, in the estimation of the
husband, sufficient ground for separation. These expressions, however,
were sharply contested as to their meaning in the later times of the
Jewish nation. The school of Hillel contended, that the husband might
lawfully put away the wife for any cause, even the smallest. The mistake
committed by the school of Hillel in taking this ground was, that they
confounded moral and civil law. It is true, as far as the Mosaic statute
or the civil law was concerned, the husband had a right thus to do; but
it is equally clear, that the ground of just separation must have been,
not a _trivial_, but a prominent and important one, when it is
considered, that he was bound to consult the rights of the woman, and
was amenable to his conscience and his God. The school of Shammai
explained the phrase, _nakedness of a thing_, to mean _actual adultery_.
Our Lord agreed with the school of Shammai as far as this, that the
ground of divorce should be one of a moral nature, and not less than
adultery; but he does not appear to have agreed with them in their
opinion in respect to the Mosaic statute. On the contrary, he denied the
equity of that statute, and in justification of Moses maintained, that
he permitted divorces for causes below adultery, only in consequence of
the hardness of the people’s hearts, Matt. v, 31, 32; xviii, 1–9; Mark
x, 2–12; Luke xvi, 18. Wives, who were considered the property of their
husbands, did not enjoy by the Mosaic statutes a reciprocal right, and
were not at liberty to dissolve the matrimonial alliance by giving a
bill of divorce to that effect. In the latter periods, however, of the
Jewish state, the Jewish matrons, the more powerful of them at least,
appear to have imbibed the spirit of the ladies of Rome, and to have
exercised in their own behalf the same power that was granted by the
Mosaic law only to their husbands, Mark vi, 17–29; x, 12.
DOCETÆ, the advocates of an early heresy, which taught that Christ acted
and suffered, not in reality, but in appearance. They were so
denominated from δοκεῖν, _to appear_. See GNOSTICS.
DOCTORS, or TEACHERS, of the law, a class of men in great repute among
the Jews. They had studied the law of Moses in its various branches, and
the numerous interpretations which had been grafted upon it in later
times; and, on various occasions, they gave their opinion on cases
referred to them for advice. Nicodemus, himself a doctor (διδάσκαλος,
_teacher_) of the law, comes to consult Jesus, whom he compliments in
the same terms as he was accustomed to receive from his scholars:
“Rabbi, we know that thou art διδάσκαλος, a competent teacher from God.”
Doctors of the law were chiefly of the sect of the Pharisees; but they
are sometimes distinguished from that sect, Luke v, 17.
DOG, כלב, an animal well known. By the law of Moses, the dog was
declared unclean, and was held in great contempt among the Jews, 1 Sam.
xvii, 43; xxiv, 14; 2 Sam. ix, 8; 2 Kings viii, 13. Yet they had them in
considerable numbers in their cities. They were not, however, shut up in
their houses or courts, but forced to seek their food where they could
find it. The Psalmist compares violent men to dogs, who go about the
city in the night, prowl about for their food, and growl, and become
clamorous if they be not satisfied, Psalm lix, 6, 14, 15. Mr. Harmer has
illustrated this by quotations from travellers into the east. The Turks
also reckon the dog a filthy creature, and therefore drive him from
their houses; so that with them dogs guard rather the streets and
districts, than particular houses, and live on the offals that are
thrown abroad. In 1 Sam. xxv, 3, Nabal is said to have been “churlish
and evil in his manners; and he was of the house of Caleb;” but Caleb
here is not a proper name. Literally, it is, “He was the son of a dog;”
and so the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic render it,--he was irritable,
snappish, and snarling as a dog. The irritable disposition of the dog is
the foundation of that saying, “He that passeth by, and meddleth with
strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears,”
Prov. xxvi, 17; that is, he wantonly exposes himself to danger.