[Footnote 1: And it is astonishing to find the error generally perpetuated in maps attached to modern Bibles.]
[Footnote 2: As distinct from a real philological connection of a modern name with a more ancient one, and so forth.]
Turning now to the second of the two theories, the identification of the site on the lower part of the Euphrates after its now existing junction with the Tigris (and which the supporters of the theory have justified by making the Gihon and Pison two rivers coming from Eden) must also be set aside.
For the important fact has been overlooked that it is quite certain, that anciently, the joint stream, (Shatt-el-"Arab), as it now is, did not exist. Though the Genesis narrative tells us of a junction _immediately outside_ the southern boundary of the Garden, the Euphrates channels and the Tigris branch (with part of the Euphrates water in it) flowed separately to the Persian Gulf. It is quite certain that, in the time of Alexander the Great, the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris were a good day"s journey apart. For this separate outflow there is the incontestable evidence of Pliny and other authors quoted by Professor Delitzsch. I may here also remark, that anciently the Persian Gulf extended much farther inland than it does now. In the time of Sennacherib, an inland arm of the sea extended so far, that a _naval_ expedition against Elam was possible; more than one hundred miles inland from the present sea-line. The extension was called N[=a]r Marratum. In Alexander"s time, the city of Charax (now Mohamra) was founded close to the sea (that was in the fourth century B.C.). It is known from later histories, that shortly before the birth of our Saviour, the city was from fifty to one hundred and twenty Roman miles inland. The change is due to the "Delta," or alluvial formation at the mouth of the rivers.
Turning, then, to the recent inquiries (published in 1881[1]) by Professor Fried. Delitzsch, it must be confessed that the results obtained are such as to completely avoid all the difficulties that beset the other explanations: yet we ought not to be too confident that it is a final or absolute explanation. A certain caution and reserve will still be wisely maintained on the subject. At any rate, they show that _an_ explanation, one that answers _all_ the conditions of the problem, _can_ be given; and that is a great thing.
[Footnote 1: "Wo lag das Paradies" (Leipzig, 1881) is the t.i.tle of the book.]
[Footnote: Professor Friedrich Delitzsch is Professor of a.s.syriology in the University of Leipzig.]
In placing the site _on_ the Euphrates, and far from the mountain sources, there is no violence done to the Hebrew language used to describe the first river, as one that "went out," and watered the Garden. The words do not require that the river should actually _take_ its _rise_ within the Garden limits; but it is necessary that the river should be so situated, that its waters could be distributed by means of creeks or ca.n.a.ls across the Garden, that it could be said the river "went out and watered the Garden." Now it is a remarkable fact, that in the district just above Babylon, the bed of the Euphrates is in level much higher than the bed of the Tigris (Hiddekel) to the east, and that hence there always have been a number of very variable channels leading from the Euphrates eastward to the Tigris. These, it is well known, were often enlarged by the ancients and converted into useful "inundation ca.n.a.ls" for irrigation and the pa.s.sage of boats. Imagine, then, the high level river bed of the Euphrates, and various streams flowing off it down to the valley of the Tigris, and we have a most efficiently irrigated "Garden," and one accurately described by the text--the great river "went out" and watered it. The Euphrates, moreover, is liable to great flushes of water from the melting of the snows in wide tracts of mountain or highlands from which its waters are collected, and these volumes of water found vent from the overcharged mother-channel by escape, not only through the side channels, just spoken of, but also by other important branches on the other side. Every one who has seen one of the great rivers of Northern India will at once realize the changes that take place where a river liable to floods has its bed at a high level. It is almost a matter of certainty that, in the course of years, the branches and channels of rivers so const.i.tuted will change, and old ones be left dry and deserted. These essential topographical conditions have always to be remembered in interpreting the narrative of Genesis ii.
In fact, they furnish us with points which help us in the problem at the outset. (1) There is a part of the Euphrates, just above Babylon, where the river naturally furnished abundant irrigation for a Garden planted eastward of it, by means of natural irrigation channels flowing from the high level down to the lower valley of the Tigris; and (2) there is also a point from which the Euphrates did branch out, and several important arms anciently existed.
Nor is the locality, in point of verdure and fertility, unsuitable. Not only do the ancient histories make frequent mention of the ca.n.a.ls and streams flowing from the Euphrates which I have alluded to, but they speak of the palm groves, the vines and the verdure of the Babylonian or Chaldean region. Herodotus, in his first book, has the most glowing description of the scene; and the kings of Babylon had numerous enclosed gardens or parks: these were imitated in Persia, and gave rise to the Persian name "Firdaus," which Xenophon imported into Greek in the form of [Greek: paradeisos] or "paradise"--the term which was adopted by the Seventy translators.
The actual locality which Professor Delitzsch proposes as the most probable site of the Garden of Eden is between the present Euphrates and Tigris, just to the north of Babylon. The boundaries would be--roughly and generally speaking--the two rivers for East and West; while for the North and South boundaries we should draw parallel lines through Accad on the North and Babylon on the South.
But granted that the general locality and the relations of the river Euphrates and Tigris satisfy the requirements of the text by such a location as this: how about the other two _and_ the countries which they compa.s.s? The troubles of the earlier commentators will warn us, that we need not be too ready to force names, and to identify one river, and then, _because_ we have fixed that, make the country which the text requires follow it!
It is, however, in this matter that Professor Delitzsch"s work is so satisfactory. He has pointed out, that there is historical evidence (and also that the local traces are not wanting in the present day) to prove that, just below Babylon, we _can_ find two prominently important channels or branches of the Euphrates, which will at least supply the place of Pison and Gihon. As to the first, it is known that in historic times a great channel called by the Greeks Pallakopas (navigable for ships) used to carry off the surplus water of the Euphrates when swollen in the summer season by the melting snows of the Armenian mountains. It branched off from the main river at a point somewhat north of Babylon, and flowed into the Persian gulf. There is, indeed, no _direct_ evidence to show that this branch bore a name resembling Pison. _Palgu_ is the a.s.syrian whence the Greek Pallakopas was derived. It is remarkable, however, that the word Pison closely resembles the cuneiform term "pisana," or "pisanu," which is used for a water-reservoir, a ca.n.a.l or a channel; and as this "Pallakopas" was _the_ channel _par excellence_, it may very possibly have been called "pisana" or Pison, the (great) channel. The identification of the channel called "Pallakopas" will be found mentioned in Colonel Chesney"s work, "An Expedition to the Tigris." The name, however, of this channel is not the only means we have of identifying it. The Scripture says that the Pison compa.s.ses the land of _Havilah_. Now let us remember, that the Scripture tells of two Havilahs: (1) The second son of Cush[1] and brother of Nimrod, and (2) one of the great great grandsons of Shem (Gen. x. 29). One we may call the Cus.h.i.te Havilah, the other the Joktanite Havilah. The dwelling-place of the brother of Nimrod is not mentioned, but it is stated that the Joktanite Havilah dwelt in "Mesha." The tenth of Genesis is an important chapter, as showing how the descendants of Noah branched out and spread over the countries all round the Euphrates; some going north to a.s.syria (Nineveh), others to the east and west, and others south, to Arabia and Egypt. Now it so happens that the whole country west of the great Pallakopas channel, was called by the a.s.syrians "Mashu." Professor Delitzsch identifies this Mashu of the cuneiform inscriptions, with the "Mesha" mentioned in Scriptures, as the home of Havilah. We have also in Gen. xxv. 8,[2] mention of a land of Havila that is "before"--i.e., eastward of--"Egypt as thou goest toward a.s.syria," which would answer very well to this locality, west of the Euphrates. It is also known (from sources which it would take too long to detail) that this country did yield gold-dust. Pliny also mentions "Bdellium," if that was the substance known as "B"dolach." It is indeed uncertain what this was, but Gesenius long ago rejected the idea that it was a stone, because there is no prefix to it, as there is to "shoham," which follows, and certainly is a precious stone. The manna in the wilderness is described as being of the "colour of bdellium," and was also like h.o.a.r-frost;[3]
hence the idea that b"dolach was a crystal. But a fragrant and precious gum-resin seems more likely. The Magi who came to worship the Infant Saviour from near this locality, brought offerings of _gold_, and also fragrant gums and myrrh. Was "bdellium" (as probably being a fragrant gum) one of these offerings?
[Footnote 1: See Gen. x. 9.]
[Footnote 2: See also 1 Sam. xv. 7.]
[Footnote 3: Exod. xvi. 14; Numbers xi. 7: "The appearance (lit. "eye") of it was as the appearance of bdellium" (R.V.).]
The "Onyx," or "Shoham," was most probably a pure red cornelian, and this also was found in the Babylonian provinces, and was specially worn by the Babylonian kings.
So the country west of the Euphrates answers very well to Havila without any forcing, and without any placing it there _because_ of the river rendering such a plan necessary.
As to the fourth river (Gihon), Delitzsch identifies it, still more clearly, with a channel known as the "Shatt-en-nil," which branches off from the Euphrates at Babylon itself, and pa.s.sing the Scriptural city of Erech, rejoins the main river lower down. A clay tablet has actually been discovered, having the Euphrates, Tigris, and this Shatt-en-nil channel _together_: the name of the latter is given as "K[=a]han de," or "Gughande," a name which closely resembles Gihon. The channel is, however, identified independently of the name. For the Gihon is particularized in the narrative, by the fact that it "compa.s.ses" the land of Cush. This (as already pointed out) is not the Ethiopian Cush.
Delitzsch states, that the whole country bounded by this branch was anciently called Kash-shu, which he identifies with the Cush of Genesis ii. The syllable "Kash" appears throughout this locality. In fact Kash-du or Kal-du is the origin of the familiar name Chaldea. In the Hebrew, Kush (Cush) is the name given to the father of Nimrod, who "began" his kingdom about this very site--Erech, and Calneh, and Accad (Gen. x. 8, 10). Hence it is not surprising that relics of the name should be found all round this neighbourhood. Nor does the evidence end here. The district immediately around Babylon was called "Kar-dunish-i,"
i.e., the "Garden of the G.o.d Dunish." Now Kar is the Turanian form of the Semitic G[=a]n, or Gin[=a] (garden); and what is more likely than that, as the true story was lost in the heathen traditions and mythology that grew up, the "garden" was attributed to the G.o.d Dunish--whereas the real original had been not "Gandunish," but "Gan"Eden?" This, though only a conjecture, is the more probable, as one of the inscription-names of Babylon itself was "Tintira," which, though a little obscure, certainly means _either_ the "_grove_," or the _"fountain," of life._
We thus find, not only that four great branches of the river that "went out," and watered the Garden can be traced, but that the two really do "compa.s.s" tracts, that can, with the highest degree of probability, be identified as C[=u]sh or Kash, and Havilah. The importance of Professor Delitzsch"s work may now be briefly glanced at. It may be objected, that such a process of reasoning as that put forward, is not convincing to a general reader who has not the means of criticizing or testing Professor Delitzsch"s conclusions: he therefore cannot be sure that, in selecting two channels to represent the Pison and the Gihon, and in identifying "Mashu" with Mesha of Havilah, and one of the Babylonian districts with Kush, the Professor has at last hit off a solution of the problem which will not in its turn be disproved, as all earlier solutions have been.
There is, however, this important conclusion to be safely drawn, viz., that a complete explanation in exact accord with the Hebrew text is _possible_, and that hence nothing can be urged against the _narrative_, on the ground (hitherto sneeringly taken) that the geography _was impossible_ and so forth.
Next let me very briefly sum up what it is that Dr. Delitzsch has done--marshalling the evidence, beginning from the broad end and narrowing down till we arrive at the point.
(1) First, then, we are fixed by the narrative to some place between the Euphrates and the Tigris.
(2) We find in the ancient inscriptions of the chief city of this locality, constant allusions to a Garden, a primitive pair and a temptation: one of these almost exactly reproduces the Bible story; it is not of the earliest date and is a copy. But discovery is far from being exhausted; all that we know is _consistent_ with the idea of an original story, gradually corrupted by the addition of legends, and introduction of mythological persons and heathen divinities. The true belief in one G.o.d, who made Himself known by voice or vision to His true worshippers, seems early to have been confined to a few of the Shemitic families, while the others "invented" G.o.ds of their own.
(3) We find that the region about Babylon itself was called Kar-dunishi--which easily recalls Kar or Gan-Eden. We also find the name (Tintira) applied, indicating a "grove" or "fountain" of life; in the locality where the direct legends most abound.
(4) We find from ancient authors that the district was one of rich verdure--a land of gardens and irrigation.
(5) We find that some way above Babylon about Accad, the level of the river bed Euphrates is so much higher than the valley of the Tigris eastward, that numerous streams flow off from it, which would serve admirably to irrigate a garden situated between the two, eastward of the Euphrates.
(6) We find that the Persian Gulf once extended more than one hundred miles farther inland than it does now. That there was no joint outflow of Tigris and Euphrates, but, though they did join their streams above, they parted again and had still separate mouths--of the Tigris branch one, of the Euphrates several.
(7) Lastly, Professor Delitzsch finds two channels which answer to Pison and Gihon.
(8) He proves these two to be the right ones by considering the countries which they "compa.s.s:" and actually finds the one that he supposes to be the "Gaihun," called, in the cuneiform clay tablets, "Kahan or Gaghan-de."
It is really only in (7) and (8) that there is any room for doubt and for further inquiry.
At any rate, the credibility of the narrative, and a belief in its purpose, as a topographically exact statement of fact, not an allegory or legend, is established.