« AnteriorContinuar »
mammoth, mastodon, elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, accompanied by innumerable horses, and many large carnivora ; but the distinguishing characteristic of this period was the prevalence of ruminantia. Ruminating animals (says Cuvier) were now infinitely more numerous than at the epoch of the palæotheria ; indeed, their numerical proportion must have differed but little from what it now is, although many of the species were quite different. This alteration in the character of the animals was undoubtedly made in reference to man, who was now created, and required the services of “the beast of the field” or pasture.
The various changes on the earth's surface and in its atmosphere, and the successive manifestations of animal life, are comprehended in a brief and rapid outline (Gen i.); but the creation of man, in the latter part of the sixth period, claims for itself a distinct account (Gen. ii.); the particulars of his history,-how Adam was formed out of the dust of the ground, and Eve taken out of his side, together with the creation of the new animals and vegetation which were more immediately designed for their use,—these particulars are brought under our especial notice and with a formal introduction :
This is the account of the heavens and the earth at their creation,
And watered the whole face of the ground. Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground-And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food—And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and Adam gave names to all cattle (behemoth, the newer pachydermata), and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field (the numerous ruminantia). The distinction between the two creations of animals on the sixth day will appear more decided if we observe that the cattle (behemoth, or older
pachydermata) and the beasts of the earth (carnivora) in the first chapter were created before man; whilst the cattle (behemoth, or more recent pachydermata) and the beasts of the field (or ruminantia) in the second chapter were formed subsequently to man.
Modern objectors to Scripture assert that the first and second chapters of Genesis give contradictory accounts of the process of creation (Horne's Introduction, vol. i. p. 538); but the remark is wholly irrelevant, if (as I suppose) those chapters contain distinct accounts of different events. Writers also of the Rationalist or Neologistic school of interpretation have applied this diversity of statement to establish their own peculiar views. “ The younger Rosenmüller,” says Bishop Blomfield,“ openly espouses the opinion of Spinoza (in bringing down the Pentateuch to the time of Ezra), and argues, after some authors
whom he quotes, that the book of Genesis is palpably compiled from two distinct documents, a striking example of which, he says, is to be found in the second chapter, where an account is given of the creation of man, entirely different from that which is contained in the first chapter; as if it were credible, that a compiler should have been so careless as to make one account of the creation the sequel to another quite different from it, in a succinct and compendious history, intended to satisfy the curiosity of the Israelites. For my own part, I can see nothing in the second chapter of Genesis, from v. 4 to v. 7 inclusive, which may not justly be considered as a recapitulation of some particulars, and an epexegesis of others.” (Tradition of the Promise, p. 123.) For farther observations on these documents, see my « Remarks on the book of Genesis” in the ninth number of this magazine.
Cuvier, speaking geologically, makes no mention of man at the era of mammoths (the antediluvian age), because he saw reason for believing that no genuine fossil human bones had yet been discovered. Prof. Buckland also supports this prevalent opinion in his “ Reliquiæ Diluvianæ”; and he objects to the instance in the fissures at Koestritz, because the human bones, though associated with the fossil rhinoceros and hyena, are mixed up with so many species of recent animals, the horse, ox, deer, hare, rabbit, owl, cock, and other birds. But if we allow (vid. Noachic Creation) that only harmless or domestic beasts and fowls were preserved with Noah, the animals mentioned may have been contained in the ark, and therefore claim to be considered both as antediluvian and as recent species. Indeed, this is the only way of accounting for the horse, ox, deer, hare, and rabbit, which are found associated with the fossil hyenas in his own Kirkdale cave. This explanation, which I have derived from Scripture, affords a very simple solution of the whole difficulty. Dr. Buckland, though evidently inclined the other way, seems hardly to have satisfied his mind on the subject : he says—« In one quarry (at Koestritz), the human bones were found eight feet below those of the rhinoceros, and twenty-six below the surface. It is highly probable, from the admixture of the bones of so many species of recent animals with the human remains in the gypsum quarries, that both these are of later origin than those in the limestone; they appear, I think, to have been introduced, at a subsequent period, into the diluvial loam, which had before contained the more ancient bones and pebbles; but by what means, or at what precise period of the postdiluvian era, remains yet to be ascertained.” (Reliq. Diluv. p. 168.).
The general convulsions of the earth, with the extinction of whole races of animals at widely distant intervals, though not at all accounted for, may be illustrated by the examples of the deluge and the conflagration. Of the former revolution we have a well authenticated and circumstantial history: “ And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." (Gen. vi. 7.) of the latter revolution, which will occasion another extinction of all existing races, there is as clear a prophetic account. At that time, man's connexion with the
earth in his mortal body will cease; but all analogy is against the thought that, when every thing on the earth has been burned
the earth itself shall for ever lie waste without form and void, and shall not again bring forth any more the living creature after his kind. Keysoe Vicarage, Beds.
W. B. WINNING,
DISTURBANCES OF THE JEWS UNDER THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
SIR,—Rabbinical historians pretend that the rebellion of the Jews against Trajan and Adrian was carried on by three Barcochabs in succession. But they render their own statement absurd and ridiculous by asserting that the name of the last was Romulus. With respect to two Barcochabs, they have rather more foundation to rest on.
For the person who headed the Jews against Trajan is called Lucuas by Eusebius, and Luminus by the Arabic historian, Abu'lpheraj, and both these names must be taken, with more or less accuracy, from a Latin one expressing The Light, or Giver of Light; and they are equivalent to Barcochab, according to Eusebius, who explains that name to mean owotnp, a giver of light. The real name of the former was Andrew; that of the person commonly known as Barcochab, or son of the star, does not appear, unless we attach weight to the assertion of Eutychius,* who says that the Jews, in their revolt against Adrian, elected a certain Barjuz for their King. The latter only was acknowledged by the Jews as their Messiah.
The extraordinary struggle maintained by the Jewish nation under this impostor, and his unblushing bold coadjutor, Rabbi Akiba, fills a conspicuous place in every history of the Jews; but conspicuous only from its own intrinsic magnitude. Rabbinical authority is nearly as none at all, and the precious details of Dion Cassius have been replaced by the jejune abridgment Xiphilin. It is, however, surprising to read in a recent historyt of that nation, that Barcochab's first enterprise was to make himself master of the ruins of Jerusalem, amidst which “ probably some sort of rude town had grown up. For Diont expressly declares that the war in which Barcochab figured began to break out after Adrian had founded on the ruins of Jerusalem his city of Ælia Capitolina, and dedicated a temple to Jupiter where the God of the Jews had formerly possessed his temple; and not only at that time, but for that reason, that the Jews were indignant at the introduction of foreign inhabitants and a foreign religion.
The great and lasting enthusiasm with which the whole Jewish nation embraced this false Messiah seems to require some stronger reason to account for it, than their mere displeasure at Adrian's presuming to restore a city already profaned, demolished, and lost to them. The art of the profound Akiba would not have failed to select some cir
Eutych. p. 352.
cumstances and conjunctures calculated to inspire superstitious confidence, and to shew to a nation, not then as yet sunk into ignorance of their own religion and immersed in Talmudistic barbarism, that he who now called them to arms was the Anointed whom Daniel had promised to them for their prince, and whom Moses had declared should be like unto himself, and had commanded them to hearken to.
The Jews were not ignorant of the declaration of Daniel, the only one of their prophets who speaks of their Messiah by name, that “ from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.” The kings of Persia had given such orders, and from one of those orders the Christians compute the epoch of the nativity. But the Jews did not choose to resort to any such computation; and, as they continued to look for a Messiah yet to come, it is evident that they did not consider his advent to be marked, either in years or days, by the weeks which succeeded the Persian decrees, But, since the time of the Persian kings, no such order had gone forth. It follows from thence, that the Jews of the age in question regarded not only the coming of their Messiah, but also the prior epoch from which that coming was to be reckoned, as being still in futurity. Again-it follows, that when Adrian's order went forth to restore and build Jerusalem, an event occurred, which to all of them who were read in their prophecies,seemed to portend the approach of such glorious days as their nation had never yet seen. It afforded to Akiba an opportunity for lighting up such a blaze of fanaticism as perhaps the world never saw before or since. When he heard the edict, he must have said, in his deep mind, “ either now or never.” And we may conjecture, not without confidence, that he lost no time in selecting from among his countrymen, an accomplice, or a dupe of sufficient talents and audacity to buckle on the armour of antichrist against the power of Rome while at its height; and that when sixty-nine weeks, or 483 days, were elapsed from the date of Adrian's rescript, he caused that man to assume the style of Barcochab, and to do some solemn act or perform some juggling miracle which might pass for the commencement of his messiahship. The words of Xiphilin, as to the progress of the works at the Ælian Jerusalem, may render it dubious whether open insurrection was resorted to so early as on the 484th day. The building of Ælia was really the proximate cause of these convulsions, but not wholly upon the grounds which he adduces.
I will now advert to another feature of this most awful war. “Not venturingt to bring matters to an open issue with the Romans, in a pitched battle, they occupied convenient spots, and fortified them
* E. g., a connexion with Bethlehem, and a reputed descent from David. Akiba found the absence of the ten tribes, who were entitled to their share in the Messiah, a serious objection, and therefore he boldly denied that they were ever to return, and argued thus- It was written, Israel shall depart into captivity, even as this day shall depart; but that day departed and never will return; therefore Israel will never
Such was the fatuity of the audience to which this daring villain addressed himself.
+ Dion, p. 1161.
with walls, and mines in which they could take refuge when pressed, and could also privately pass from one to another under ground, having perforated their subterraneous galleries from above, so as to admit the air and light." In his previous account of Vespasian's siege, Dion* had observed, that “the Jews were very strong in point of mines, for they had such, excavated from the city to a distance in the country, and passing under the walls, through which they made sorties, and fell upon the watering parties of the Romans.” Rabbis relate that Akiba, his wife, and his twenty-four thousand disciples were buried under a mountain near Tiberias! It is not improbable that multitudes perished in these subterraneous places, and some may have preferred to pull the superincumbent earth about their ears to a death of famine: Whether these troglodytic wonders, which the rebellious Jews improved and turned to their uses, were the labours of Canaanites, of of yet earlier possessors of the land, such as Rephaim, Anakim, and Horim, cannot be unriddled. But perhaps there may be some room for supposing that they are collectively
the famous, the unknown, and (if so) the fabulous city of Betthera. The Rabbis declare that all the Barcochabs reigned at Betthera, and that it contained 400 colleges in each of which there were 400 professors. Romance has invented much concerning Charlemagne and Arthur, but no one is ignorant of the site of Aquisgrana or Caerleon upon Usk. It is strange that no one should know the situation of this enormous Hebrew fortress. In Canticles ü, 17, we read of the mountains of Bether," but geographers are not acquainted with those mountains, and the Seventy were so little so as to render those words, “ the mountains of cavities," or “of excavations.” If, therefore, the old word Bether meant, or was in these later times supposed to mean, Kotłwwara, in either case we are warranted in thinking that the Betonpa, which is said to have constituted the chief resource and last asylum of Barcochab and his people, was the wonderful system of excavations which we know did constitute his main resource. Akiba, and his twenty-four thousand pupils under the mountain, and the multitude of colleges and professors in Betthera, thus resolve themselves nearly into identity. Barcochab's reign was one of blood and horror and agonizing contention, ill-suited to a residence in any capital city. But it can hardly be doubted that Ælia Capitolina was nominally the capital of his dominions. The war of Barcochabt was preceded by an omen of sad import, for the tomb of Solomon upon Mount Sion “ crumbled to pieces, and fell in automatously." Not quite automatously, as the reader will easily conceive : the Jewish miners, who were secretly improving the subteranean communications, were so unfortunate as to perforate some of the main supports, and consequently the earth fell in.
The first apocalyptic vision has its scene entirely in heaven, and displays the adoration of the four beasts and twenty-four elders, concerning whom I have nothing to say. The second has its scene in heaven (except ver. 13), and exhibits the lion of Judah, from the root
+ P. 1163.
Dion, p. 1080. Vol. VIII.-Sept. 1835.