A. M. 1757. A. C. 2247; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 2857. A. C. 2554. GEN. CH. xi. TO VER. 10. that had not the Turks, when they overrun Greece, brought darkness and ignorance along with them, the Greek tongue might have continued even to this day; since it is manifest, from Homer's poems, and Eustathius's commentaries upon them, that it subsisted for above two thousand years, without any considerable alteration; for the space of time between the poet and his commentator was no less. language; if we take Theocritus for the Doric dialect; | several ages more. And, in like manner, we may say, Euripides, or Thucydides, for the Attic; Herodotus, or Hippocrates, for the Ionic; and Sappho for the Folic, and so descend to the Greek, which is spoken at this day, we shall see the general marks of western languages running through them all. These idioms show themselves, at first sight, to be nothing more than dialects manifestly springing from the same common root, which never did, and (as far as we may judge from the practice of above two thousand years) never will, conjugate verbs, decline nouns, or compare adjectives, like the Hebrew or Arabic. These languages did always compound verbs and nouns with prepositions, which essentially alter the sense. These languages had never any possessive pronouns affixed to their nouns, to determine the person, or persons, to whom of right they belong; nor do they affix any single letter to their words, which may be equivalent to conjunctions, and connect the sense of what goes before with what follows, which any person, but tolerably initiated in the eastern languages, must know to be their properties. And, indeed, if we cast but our eye a little forward into the sacred history, it will not be long before we may perceive some instances of this difference between languages. For, when Jacob and Laban made a covenant together, they erected an heap of stones, on which they ate, and Laban called it Jegar-Sahadutha, but Jacob, Gal-ed, which words signify (those in Chaldee, which are Laban's, and the other in Hebrew, which are Jacob's) an heap of witnesses; and, in like manner, Pharaoh calls Joseph, Tsophnath-Paaneahh, which words are neither Hebrew nor Chaldee: so that here we see three distinct dialects formed in Jacob's time; and yet we may observe, that the world was then thin, commerce narrow, and conquests few, so that the people were constrained to converse with those of their own tribe, and consequently could keep their dialect far more entire than it is possible to do now, when commerce, conquests, and colonies, planted in regions already peopled with nations that speak distinct languages, may be supposed to bring in a deluge of new words, and make innumerable changes. But nations seldom trade much abroad, or make invasions upon their neighbours, or send forth plantations into remote countries, until they are pretty well stocked at home, which could hardly be the case of any one country for several ages after the dispersion. It is a mistaken notion which some have imbibed, that every little thing, be it but the change of air, or difference of climate (which at most can but affect the pronunciation of some letters or syllables) can make a diversity in languages. Small and insensible alterations, which perhaps will appear in an age or two, will undoubtedly happen, but unless people converse much with strangers, their language will subsist, as to its constituent form, the same for many generations. The Roman language, for instance, was brought to a considerable perfection before Plautus's time; and though now and then some obsolete words may appear in his writings, yet any man that understands Latin may read the books that were written in it, from Plautus down to Theodoric the Goth, which was near seven hundred years; and had not the barbarous nations broken into Italy, it might have been an intelligible language for And if the languages which we are acquainted with remained so long unchanged, to any great degree, in times of more commerce and action than what could be subsequent upon the dispersion; there is reason to believe, that (though it be difficult to define the number of them) there are many more original languages in the world than some men imagine: for, if we consider their great antiquity, their mutual agreement in the fundamentals (which we have described) can be no argument that any one of them is derived from the rest; since it is natural to suppose, that when God confounded the speech of the builders of Babel, he made the dialects of those people, who were to live near one another, so far to agree, that they might, with less difficulty, and in a shorter space of time, mutually understand each other, and so more easily maintain an intercourse together. For though their association, considering the ends that engaged them in it, was certainly culpable, yet perhaps it might not deserve so severe a punishment as an entire separation of every tribe among them from their nearest kindred, with whom they had hitherto spent all their time. To sum up the force of this argument in a few words. If we consider the time since the building of the tower of Babel, not yet 4000 years, and the great variety of languages that are at present in the world; if we consider how entirely different some are to others, so that no art of etymology can reduce them to the least likeness or conformity; and yet, in those early days, when the world was less peopled, and navigation and commerce not so much minded, there could not be that quick progression of languages; and if we examine the alterations which such languages as we are acquainted with have made in two or three thousand years past, where colonies of different people have not been imported, we shall find the difference between language and language to be so very great, and the alteration of the same language in a considerable tract of time to be so very small, that we shall be at a loss to conceive whence so many and so various languages could have proceeded, unless we take in the account of Moses, which unriddles the whole difficulty, and justly ascribes them to the same Almighty power, which taught our first parents to speak one tongue in the beginning, and, in after ages, inspired the apostles of Jesus Christ with the gift of many. b a According to Hales, 4363. b From the most ancient and most authentic of all historical records, the Sacred Scriptures, we know the fact, that all mankind were originally descended from a single pair, and that our great progenitor did undoubtedly possess and make use of articulate language. What the particular language was which was then employed, we have no means of ascertaining. We are, however, sufficiently warranted to conclude, that this primeval language must have consisted at first of very few and simple sounds, and that it was gradually extended as the new situation of men in society required new modes of expression. The primitive language, in all probability, continued radically the same, though P2-Q2 A. M. 1757. A. C. 2247; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 2857. A. C. 2554. GEN. CH. xi. TO VER. 10. CHAP. III.—Of the Tower of Babel. THAT there really was such a building as the tower of Babel, erected some ages after the recovery of the earth enlarged by accessions closely related to the parent stock during the whole antediluvian ages; and there is little reason to doubt, when we take into view the longevity of the patriarchs, affording opportunities to men of different generations to mingle together, that from Adam down to Noah the language first made use of suffered no essential change. When the tremendous event of the deluge reduced the whole population of the earth to a single family, the primitive language, as received and used by the patriarch Noah, would still be preserved in his family, and form the only language then used among men. In this state, we find that language continued till the confusion of tongues at Babel, before which period we are assured by the sacred historian, the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.' Whether this primitive language was the same with any of the languages of which we have still any remains, has been a subject of much dispute. That the primitive language continued at least till the dispersion of mankind, consequent upon the building of Babel, there seems little reason to doubt. When by an immediate interposition of divine power, the language of men was confounded, we are not informed to what extent the confusion of tongues prevailed. It is unnecessary to suppose that the former language was completely obliterated, and entire new modes of speech at once introduced. It is quite sufficient if such changes only were effected, as to render the speech of different companies, or different tribes, unintelligible to one another, that their mutual co-operation in the mad attempt in which they had all engaged might be no longer practicable. The radical stem of the first language might therefore remain in all, though new dialects were formed, bearing among themselves a similar relation with what we find in the languages of modern Europe, derived from the same parent stem, whether Gothic, Latin, or Sclavonian. In the midst of these changes, it is reasonable to suppose that the primitive language itself, unaltered, would still be preserved in some one at least of the tribes or families of the human race. Now in none of these was the transmission so likely to have taken place, as among that branch of the descendants of Shem from which the patriarch Abraham proceeded. Upon these grounds, therefore, we may conclude that the language spoken by Abraham, and by him transmitted to his posterity, was in fact the primitive language, modified, indeed, and extended in the course of time, but still retaining its essential parts far more completely than any other of the languages of men. If these conclusions are well founded, they warrant the inference, that in the ancient Hebrew there are still to be found the traces of the original speech. Whether this ancient Hebrew more nearly resembled the Chaldean, the Syrian, or what is now termed the Hebrew, it is unnecessary here to inquire; these languages, it has never been denied, were originally and radically the same, though, from subsequent modifications, they appear to have assumed somewhat different aspects. We may conceive the original language of the family of Noah spread in various directions; carried by one set of colonies through Armenia, Persia, and the adjacent territories, into all the regions of the east, as far perhaps as Tartary and China, and forming the groundwork of the Armenian, the ancient Persian, the Sanscrit, perhaps, too, of the originally spoken Chinese, as well as of all the languages related to each of them; carried by another set into the regions of Arabia, Egypt, Abyssinia, and the remote parts of Africa, and there giving origin to the old Egyptian, the Coptic, the Ethiopic, and their related tongues; and carried by a third set to Scythia, or the Russian territory, Asia Minor, Ionia, Greece, Italy, and gradually through the farther parts of Europe, and there constituting the radical groundwork of the old Pelasgic, the Gothic, the Celtic, and all their kindred or derivative dialects. Among those families whose migrations were least extensive, this primitive tongue, undergo ing fewest changes, would retain most of its original form; and thus it is probable, that in the language of Jacob and his descendants, of the Phoenicians, the Chaldeans, and the communities connected with them, more of the primitive form and character remained, than among the remoter and more widely scattered tribes that spread through Africa and Europe. from the deluge, is evident from the concurrent testimony of several heathen writers. For when, besides the particular description which 'Herodotus, the father of the he is quoted by Eusebius, telling us, "That the first Greek historians, gives us of it, we find Abydenus, as race of men, big with a fond conceit of the bulk and strength of their bodies, built in the place where Babylon now stands, a tower of so prodigious an height, that it seemed to touch the skies, but that the winds and the gods overthrew the mighty structure upon their heads." When we find Eupolemus, as he is cited by Alexander Polyhistor, leaving it upon record, "That the city of Babylon was first built by giants who escaped from the flood; that these giants built the most famous tower in all history; and that this tower was dashed to pieces by the almighty power of God, and the giants dispersed and scattered over the face of the whole earth." And lastly, when we find Josephus mentioning it as a received doctrine among the Sybils, “That at a certain time, when the whole world spake all one language, the people of those days gathered together and raised a mighty tower, which they carried up to so extravagant an height, that it looked as if they had proposed to scale heaven from the top of it; but that the gods let the winds loose upon it, which, with a violent blast, beat it down to the ground, and at the same time struck the builders with an utter forgetfulness of their native tongue, and substituted new and unknown languages in the room of it."-When we find these, and several other authors, I say, that might be produced, bearing testimony to Moses in most of the material circumstances attending the building of this tower, we cannot but conclude, that the representation which he gives us of the whole transaction is agreeable to truth. The short is, all the remains now extant of the most ancient heathen historians (except Sanchoniatho) concur in confirming the Mosaic account of this matter, and the sum of their testimonies is, 'That a huge tower was built by gigantic men at Babylon; that there was then but one language among mankind; that the attempt was offensive to the gods; and that therefore they demolished the tower, overwhelmed the workmen, divided their language, and dispersed them over the face of the whole earth. There is one circumstance, indeed, wherein we find these ancient historians differing with Moses, and that is, in affirming that the tower was demolished by the anger ' 1 Book i. c. 181. Præparat. Evang. b. ix. c. 14. See Josephus's Antiq. b. i. c. 5. Eusebius's Præpar. Evang. b. ix. c. 14, &c. and Huetius's Quæst. Alnetan. b. ii. p. 189. If these theoretical views of the filiation of tongues cannot be fully and directly confirmed by the immediate comparison of the different languages as they now are found to exist, this is not in the least to be wondered at, considering the inevitable changes many of them must have undergone in their progress through different countries; but if we attentively mark the precise man ner in which such changes might be expected to operate, and make the necessary allowances on that account, in comparing the apparent groundwork of the languages scattered over the globe, a coincidence will be found, far closer and more striking than could at first be supposed.-Dr Dewar's Dissertation on Language, in the 7th volume of the Edinburgh Philosophical Transactions, Edin. Enclycopædia, Article Language; Townsend's Character of Moses, vol. iii. A. M. 1757. A. C. 2247; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 2857. A. C. 2554. GEN. CH. xi. TO VER. 10. of God, and by the violence of the winds. But as it seems more consistent with the divine wisdom (for the admonition of posterity) to have such a monument of men's folly and ambition for some time standing; so we may observe that, in confirmation of our sacred penman, who speaks of it as a thing existing in his time, Herodotus, the Greek historian, tells us expressly that he himself actually saw it, as it was repaired by Belus, or some of his successors; Pliny, the Latin historian, that it was not destroyed in his days; and some modern travellers, (whom by and by we shall have occasion to quote,) that there are some visible remains of it extant even now: and, therefore, the fancy of its being beat down with the winds is taken up, in pure conformity to some Persian tales recorded of Nimrod, whom these historians suppose to be the first projector of it. It cannot be denied, indeed, but that the generality of interpreters, meeting with the expression of the children of men, whereby they understand bad men and infidels, as opposed to the children of God, which usually denote the good and the faithful, are apt to imagine, that none of the family of Shem, which retained (as they say) the true worship and religion, were engaged in the work, but some of the worser sort of people only, who had degenerated from the piety of their ancestors. But by the children of men in that place, it is evident that we are to understand all mankind, because in the initial words of the chapter they are called the whole earth. Nor can we well conceive how, in so short a time after that awakening judgment of the deluge, the major part of mankind, even while Noah and his sons were still alive, should be so far corrupted in their principles, as to deserve the odious character of unbelievers. versed in all Jewish antiquities, have made it appear that Nimrod was either very young at the time, or even not yet born, when the project of building the tower and city was first formed, there is reason to believe (even supposing him then alive, and in great power and authority among his people,) that he was not in any tolerable condition to undertake so great a work. The account which Moses gives us of him is-that he' began to be a mighty one in the earth; which the best writers explain, by his being the first who laid the foundation of regal power among mankind; but it is scarce imaginable how an empire, able to effect such a work, could be entirely acquired, and so thoroughly established, by one and the same person, as to allow leisure for amusements of such infinite toil and trouble. 6 Great and mighty empires, indeed, have seemingly been acquired by single persons; but when we come to examine into the true original of them, we shall find, that they began upon the foundations of kingdoms already attained by their ancestors, and established by the care and wisdom of many successive rulers for several generations, and after a long exercise of their people in arts and arms, which gave them a singular advantage over other nations that they conquered. In this manner grew the empires of Cyrus, Alexander, and all the great conquerors in the world; nor can we, in all the records of history, find one large dominion, from the very foundation of the world, that was ever erected and established by one private person: and, therefore, we have abundant reason to infer that Nimrod, though confessedly the beginner of sovereign authority, could, at this time, have no great kingdom under his command. But admitting his kingdom to be larger than this supJosephus, indeed, and some other authors, are clearly position; yet, from that day to this, we can meet with of opinion that Nimrod, a descendant from the impious no works of this kind attempted but from a fulness of Ham, was the great abettor of this design, and the ring-wealth and wantonness of power, and after peace, luxury, leader of those who combined in the execution of it. and long leisure had introduced and established arts: so But, though the undertaking seems to agree very well that nothing can be more absurd than to attribute such a with the notion which the Scriptures give us of that ambi- prodigious work to the power and vanity of one man, in tious prince, yet, besides that others, extremely well the infancy both of arts and empire, and when we can scarce suppose that there was any such thing as artificial wealth in the world. 1 Gen. xi. 15. 2 Gen. xi. 1. 3 Antiq. b. i. c. 5. "Bochart's Phaleg. b. i. c. 10. a The author of the book called Malem tells this story:That when Nimrod saw that the fire, into which he caused Abraham to be cast for not submitting to the worshipping of idols, did him no damage, he resolved to ascend into heaven, that he might see that great God whom Abraham revealed to him. In vain did his courtiers endeavour to divert him from this design; he was resolved to accomplish it, and therefore gave orders for the building of a tower that might be as high as possible. They worked upon it for three years together, and, when he went up to the top, he was much surprised to see himself as far from heaven as when he was upon the ground: but his confusion was much increased, when they came to inform him next morning that his tower was fallen and dashed in pieces. He commanded them then that another should be built, which might be higher and stronger than the former; but when this met with the same fate, and he still continued an obstinate persecutor of those who worshipped the true God, God took from him the greatest part of his subjects, by the division and confusion of their tongues, and those who still adhered to him he killed by a cloud of flies, which he sent amongst them.-Calmet's Dictionary on the word Nimrod. The poets, in like manner, having corrupted the tradition of this event with fictions of their own, do constantly bring in Jupiter defeating the attempts of the Titans in this manner:-" Jupiter, from the citadel of heaven, hurling his thunderbolts, overturned the ponderous masses on their founders," &c.-Ovid. Since, then, this building was undoubtedly very ancient, as ancient as the Scripture makes it, and yet could not be effected by any separate society in the period assigned for it, the only probable opinion is, that it was (as we said before) undertaken and executed by the united labours of all the people that were then on the face of the earth. It is not unlikely, however, that after the dispersion of the people, and their leaving the place unfinished," Nimrod and his subjects, coming out of Arabia, or some other neighbouring country, might, after their fright was over, settle at Babel, and there building the city of Babylon, and repairing the tower, make it the metropolis (as afterwards it was) of all the Assyrian empire. To this purpose there is a very remarkable passage" in Diodorus Siculus, where he tells us, "That on the walls of one of the Babylonian palaces was portrayed a general hunting of all sorts of wild beasts, with the figure of a woman on horseback piercing a leopard, and * Gen. x. 8. Revel. Examined, vol. ii. dissert. 3. 7 Bochart's Phaleg. b. i. c. 10. 8 Ibid, b. i. A. M. 1757. A. C. 2247; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 2857. A. C. 2554. GEN. CH. xi. TO VER. 10. a man fighting with a lion; and that on the walls of the | neither numbers nor materials, to make themselves mas. other palace were armies in battalia, and huntings of several kinds." Now of this Nimrod, the sacred historian informs us, that he was a great and remarkable hunter, so as to pass into a proverb; and this occupation he might the rather pursue as the best means of training up his companions to exploits of war, and of making himself popular by the glory he gained, and the public good he did, in destroying those wild beasts, which at that time infested the world. And as this was a part of his character, the most rational account that we can give of these ornaments in the Babylonian palaces is, that they were set up by some of Nimrod's descendants in their ancestor's imperial city, in memory of the great founder of their family, and of an empire which afterwards grew so famous. 1 2 ters of what their vanity projected; we may reasonably suppose, that the affectation of renown was another motive to their undertaking; since it is very well known, that this is the very principle which has all along governed the whole race of mankind, in all the works and monuments of magnificence, the mausoleums, pillars, palaces, pyramids, and whatever has been erected of any pompous kind, from the foundation of the world to this very day. So that, taking their resolution under the united light of these two motives, the reasoning of the builders will run thus:-"We are here in a vast plain; a our dispersion is inevitable; our increase, and the necessaries of life demand it. We are strong and happy when united; but, when divided, we shall be weak and wretched. Let us then contrive some means of union and friendly society, which may, at the same time, perpetuate our fame and memory. And what means so proper for these purposes as a magnificent city, and mighty tower, whose top may touch the skies? The tower will be a landmark to us, through the whole extent of this plain, and a centre of unity, to prevent our being dispersed; and the city, which may prove the metropolis of the whole earth, will at all times afford us a commodious habitation. Since then we need fear no dissolution of our works by any future deluge, let us erect something that may immortalise our names, and outvie the labours of our antediluvian fathers." And that this seems to have been the reasoning of their minds, will further appear, if we come now to take a short survey of the dimensions of the building, according to the account which the best historians have given us of it. Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, will needs have it, that Nimrod was the first author of the religion of the Magians, the worshippers of fire: and from hence, very probably, a late archbishop of our own has thought that this tower of Babel (whose form was pyramidal, as he says, and so resembling fire, whose flame ascends in a conic shape) was a monument designed for the honour of the sun, as the most probable cause of drying up the waters of the flood. "For though the sun," says he, was not merely a god of the hills, yet the heathens thought it suitable to his advanced station to worship him upon ascents, either natural, or where the country was flat, artificial, that they might approach, as near as possibly they could, the deity they adored." This certainly accounts for God's displeasure against the builders, and why he was concerned to defeat their undertaking; but as there is no foundation for this conIt is the opinion of the learned 3 Bochart, that whatjecture in Scripture, and the date of this kind of idola-ever we read of the tower, enclosed in the temple of try was not perhaps so early as is pretended, the two Belus, may very properly be applied to the tower of ends which Moses declares the builders had in view, in Babel; because, upon due search and examination, he forming their project, will be motives sufficient for their conceives them to be one and the same structure. Now undertaking it. of this tower Herodotus tells us, that it was a square a furlong on each side, that is, half a mile in the whole circumference, whose height, being equal to its basis, was divided into eight towers, built one upon another; but what made it look as divided into eight towers, was very probably the manner of its ascent. The passage to go up it, continues our author, was a circular or winding way, carried round the outside of the building, to its highest point : from whence it seems most likely that the whole ascent was, by the benching-in, drawn in a sloping line from the bottom to the top eight times round it, which would make it have the appearance of eight towers one above another. This way was so exceeding broad, that it afforded space for horses and carts, and other means of carriage, to meet and turn; and the towers, which looked like so many stories upon one another, were each of them seventy-five feet high, in which were many stately rooms, with arched roofs sup For, if we consider, that they were now in the midst of a vast plain, undistinguished by roads, buildings, or boundaries of any kind, except rivers; that the provision of pasture, and other necessaries, obliged them to separate, and that, when they were separated, there was a necessity of some landmark to bring them together again upon occasion, otherwise all communication, and with it all the pleasures of life, must be cut off; we can hardly imagine any thing more natural, and fit for this purpose, than the erection of a tower, large and lofty enough to be seen at great distances, and consequently sufficient to guide them from all quarters of that immense region; and when they had occasion to correspond, or come together, nothing certainly could be more proper than the contiguous buildings of a city for their reception and convenient communication. If we consider, likewise, that all the pride and magnificence of their ancestors were now defaced, and utterly destroyed by the deluge, without the least remains or memorial of their grandeur; that consequently the earth was a clear stage whereon to erect new and unrivalled monuments of glory and renown to themselves; and that at this juncture they wanted neither art nor abilities, 'Calmet's Dictionary on the word Nimrod. of a Here they speak as if they feared a dispersion; but it is hard to tell for what cause, unless it was this:-That Noah, having projected a division of the earth among his posterity, (for it was a deliberate business, as we noted before,) the people had no mind to submit to it, and therefore built a fortress to defend themselves in their resolution of not yielding to his design; but what they dreaded, they brought upon themselves by their own vain attempt to avoid it. See Patrick's Commentary, and Usher to A. M. 1757. A. M. 1757. A. C. 2247; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 2857. A. C. 2554. GEN. CH. xi. TO VER. 10. ported by pillars, which were made parts of the temple, | Grecian expedition, wherein he had suffered a vast loss after the tower became consecrated to that idolatrous use; and on the uppermost of the towers, which was held more sacred, and where their most solemn devotions were performed, there was an observatory, by the benefit of which it was, that the Babylonians advanced their skill in astronomy beyond all other nations. Some authors," following a mistake in the Latin version of Herodotus, wherein the lowest of these towers is said to be a furlong thick, and a furlong high, will have each of the other towers to be of a proportionate height, which amounts to a mile in the whole but the Greek of Herodotus (which is the genuine text of that author) says no such thing, but only that it was a furlong long, and a furlong broad, without mentioning any thing of its height; and 'Strabo, in his description of it, (calling it a pyramid, because of its decreasing or benching-in at every tower,) says of the whole, that it was a furlong high, and a furlong on every side; for to reckon every tower a furlong high, would make the thing incredible, even though the authority of both these historians were for, as they are against it. Taking it only as it is described by Strabo, it was prodigious enough; since, according to his dimensions only, without adding any farther, it was one of the most wonderful works in the world, and much exceeded the greatest of the pyramids of Egypt, though it was not built of such durable materials. In this condition continued the tower of Babel, or the temple of Belus, until the time of Nebuchadnezzar; but he enlarged it by vast buildings, which were erected round it, in a square of two furlongs on every side, or a mile in circumference, and enclosed the whole with a wall of two miles and an half in compass, in which were several gates leading to the temple, all of solid brass, which very probably were made of the brazen sea, the brazen pillars, and the other brazen vessels which were carried to Babylon, from the temple of Jerusalem; for so we are told, that all the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar carried from thence, he put 2 into the house of his god in Babylon, that is, into the house or temple of Bel, for that was the name of the great god of the Babylonians, surrounding it with the pomp of these additional buildings, and adorning it with the spoils of the temple of Jerusalem. This tower did not subsist much above an hundred years, when Xerxes, coming from his 'See Phaleg. b. 16. * 2 Chron. xxxvi. 7. Dan. i. 2. a The words of Herodotus are, " In the midst of the temple there is built a solid tower, eight furlongs in length and breadth; upon this tower another one is erected, and still on till altogether they are eight in number." Now, though it be allowed that the word nes may signify height as well as length, yet it is much better to take Herodotus in the latter sense here, otherwise the tower (if every story answers the lowest) will rise to a prodigious height, although nothing near to what Jerom (b. 5. Commentary on Isaiah) affirms, from the testimony of eye-witnesses, as he says, who examined the remains of it very carefully, namely, that it was no less than four miles high.-Universal History, b. 1. c. 2. 6 Bel is supposed to have been the same with Nimrod, and to have been called Bel from his dominion, and Nimrod from his rebellion; for Bel, or Baal, which is the same name, signify Lord, and Nimrod rebel, in the Jewish and Chaldean language. The former was his Babylonish name, by reason of his empire in that place, and the latter his Scripture name, by reason of his rebellion, in revolting from God to follow his own wicked designs. Prideaux's Connection, part 1. b. 2. of men and money, out of pretence of religion, as being himself a Magian, and consequently detesting the worship of God by images, but in reality with a design to repair the damages he had sustained, demolished it, and laid it all in rubbish; having first plundered it of all its immense riches, among which were several images or statues of massy gold, and one particularly of forty feet high, which very probably wasd that which Nebuchadnezzar' consecrated in the plains of Dura. 4 Thus fell this great monument of antiquity, and was never repaired any more; for though Alexander, at his return to Babylon after his Indian expedition, expressed his intention of rebuilding it, and accordingly set ten thousand men on work to rid the place of its rubbish; yet, before they had made any progress therein, that great conqueror died on a sudden, and has ever since left both the city and tower so far defaced, that the very people of the country are at a loss to tell where their ancient situation was. Since some late travellers, however, have, in their opinions, found out the true ruins, and remains of this once renowned structure, we shall not be averse to gratify our reader's curiosity with an account of what one, of the best authority among them, has thought fit to communicate to the public. 6 "In the middle of a vast and level plain," says he, "about a quarter of a league from Euphrates (which in that place runs westward), appears an heap of ruined buildings like a huge mountain, the materials of which 'Prideaux's Connection, part 1. 4 Diodorus Siculus, b. 2. 'Dan. iii. 1. See Vi Aggi di Pietro della Valle, part 2. b. 17. Magians and Sabians. The Sabians worshipped God through senc The two great sects of religion among the Persians were the sible images, or rather worshipped the images themselves. The Babylonians were the first founders of this sect; for they first brought in the worship of the planets, and afterwards that of images, and from thence propagated it to all other nations where it prevailed. The Magians, on the contrary, worship no images of any kind, but God only, together with two subordinate principles; the one, the author and director of all good, and the other, the author and director of all evil. These two sects have always had a mortal enmity to each other; and therefore it is no wonder that Xerxes, who had always the Archimagus attending him in his expeditions, with several other inferior Magi, in the capacity of his chaplains, should by them be prevailed on to take Babylon in his way to Susa, in order to destroy all the idolatrous temples there. d Nebuchadnezzar's golden image is said indeed in Scripture to have been sixty cubits, that is, ninety feet high, but that must be understood of the image and pedestal altogether. For that image being said to have been but six cubits broad or thick, it is impossible that the image could have been sixty cubits high; for that makes its height to be ten times its breadth or thickness, which exceeds all the proportions of a man, forasmuch as no man's height is above six times his thickness, measuring the slenderest man living at the waist. But where the breadth of this image was measured it is not said; perhaps it was from shoulder to shoulder, and then the proportion of six cubits' breadth will bring down the height exactly to the measure which Diodorus has mentioned. For the usual height of a man being four and an half of his breadth between the shoulders, it must, according to this proportion, have been twenty-seven cubits high, which is forty feet and an half. Nor must it be forgot what Diodorus further tells us, namely, that this image contained a thousand Babylonish talents of gold, which, upon a moderate computation, amounts to three millions and an half of our money. But now, if we advance the height of the statue to ninety feet without the pedestal, it will increase the value to a sum incredible; and therefore it is necessary to take the pedestal likewise into the height mentioned by Daniel.- Prideaux's Connection, part 1. b. 2. |