the sacred writer, is Calne. In the prophecies of Isaiah, it is written with little variation, Calno; and in Ezekiel, Canneh. The prophets Isaiah and Amos both represent it as a place of considerable importance in their times. It is said by the Chaldee interpreters, and also by Eusebius and Jerome, to be the same with Ctesiphon, a city on the Tigris, about three miles distant from Seleucia, and for some time the capital of the Parthian dominions. This opinion seems to be fully confirmed by the name Chalonitis, which the Greeks gave to the surrounding country; which is evidently formed from Chalne or Chalno, or by a mixture of both, from Chalone. And since we are expressly told by Ammianus Marcellinus, that Pacorus, a king of the Parthians, changed its name to Ctesiphon, we reasonably suppose, from the name of the adjacent country, Chalonitis, that its ancient name was Chalne or Chalone.*

These four cities, all situated in the land of Shinar, with their respective territories, seem to have constituted the original kingdom of Nimrod. The words of Moses certainly countenance this idea :-' And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calne.' Babel was the first city which he built, and the seat of his government; but the other three cities belonged not less than Babel to the beginning of his kingdom.

By the irruption of Nimrod, at the head of the

* Michaelis Spicil. part i. p. 238; Wells' Hist. Geog. vol. i. p. 119; Bochart. Phal. lib. iv. c. 18, p. 238. [In the time of the prophets, Amos and Isaiah, who were nearly contemporary (about eighteen hundred years before the Christian era), Calneh appears to have constituted an independent principality (Amos vi. 1, 2). But not long after Calneh became a prey to the Assyrians with the rest of western Asia, for in Isa. x. 9, the king of Assyria is introduced as saying: Are not my princes altogether kings? Is not Calno as Carchemish? &c. About a hundred and fifty years later, Calneh was still a considerable town, as may be inferred from the circumstance of its being mentioned by Ezekiel xxvii. 23, among the places which traded with Tyre.-Rosenmuller, Bib. Cab.]—Editor.

Cushites, into the lower parts of Shinar, Ashur, one of the descendants of Shem,* who seem to have held it, if not by the allotment of Noah, their common superior, at least by pre-occupancy, was obliged to retire, and seek new settlements for himself and his people. He ascended the Tigris, and took possession of the country which was afterwards known by his name. The words of Moses are :- Out of this land went Ashur, and builded Nineveh.'+ Bochart contends for a different version. I am persuaded,' says that excellent writer, 'that the term Ashur is not, in this place, the name of a man, but of a country. The words therefore in the original are to be thus interpreted, 'He (Nimrod) went out of this land into Assyria.' In this opinion he has been followed by Dr Wells and others, who have been too easily prejudiced against the common version. He endeavours to support his opinion by the following arguments::-1. It would be improper to introduce the name of Ashur, the son of Shem, in the genealogy of the sons of Ham. 2. It is contrary to order, to state the operations of Ashur, before he mentioned his birth. 3. It was not peculiar to Ashur, and therefore not remarkable that he should go out of the land of Shinar in quest of new settlements, since the far greatest part of mankind did the same. 4. The words being taken in reference to Nimrod, the connexion between the 10th and 11th verses is preserved. The beginning of this kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calne, in the land of Shinar; but afterwards he extended his dominions by invading and reducing Assyria to his yoke, and built Nineveh and three other cities, to secure his conquests.

These arguments are of little importance, and by no means warrant the proposed alteration. It is a sufficient answer, that the history of Ashur is not given here, but the history of Nimrod. He invaded the pos* Michaelis Spicil. p. 236. + Genesis x. 11.

Bochart. Phal. lib. iv. cap. 19, p. 240.

sessions of Ashur, and forced him to relinquish his original property;* and the accounts of each are so connected, that one must be mentioned with the other, to complete the history. No writer, sacred or common, always follows the precise order of events. In the same book, Moses gives us an account of Canaan, the son of Ham, antecedent to the genealogy of his family, which follows in the next chapter.† Nor was the emigration from Shinar common to all mankind; for only a small part of them were concerned in the compulsory dispersion: besides, Bochart omits a principal and important part of the passage. The sacred writer does not say merely, that Ashur went forth out of the land, but that he went forth and built cities; a circumstance by no means common to all. These cities rose, in the progress of time, to great renown; it was therefore of consequence to mention their founder, and the reason why they were built. The connexion between the 10th and 11th verses is equally clear by the common version :-Nimrod, at the head of his army, seized on the province of Babylonia, and erected it into a kingdom; and Ashur, the original possessor, disdaining to wear his ignominious yoke, retired into Assyria; and to secure his recent acquisitions from the aggression of his ambitious enemy, builded Nineveh and other cities mentioned in the sacred text.

Bochart adds, that Nimrod must have been in possession of Assyria; for it was called the land of Nimrod. His argument is founded on a passage in Micah, which

*Rollin's Ancient Hist. vol. ii. p. 181.

+ Gen. ix. 18.

‡ Notwithstanding the elaborate reasoning of the author, there is reason to believe that the weight of authorities inclines towards the other translation, according to which it was Nimrod who went forth out of Babylonia into Assyria, and built Nineveh. • The native accounts,' says Rosenmuller, preserved to us by Ctesias, designated the builder of Nineveh and the founder of the Assyrian empire, by the name of Ninus, and there is no reason for supposing this a different person from the Nimrod of Scripture.'-Bib. Cab. vol. p. 131.-Editor.

ii.

runs in these words :-' And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof."* He supposes that the land of Assyria and the land of Nimrod mentioned by the prophet, are the same region. But this is to charge the inspired writer with a very unnecessary repetition; and with a redundancy not common in the sacred writings. By the land of Ashur is plainly meant the region of Assyria; but by the land of Nimrod is signin the country of Babylonia, which was the true and only land of Nimrod. In order to understand the purport of the prophecy, we should consider the time when it was uttered. Micah is foretelling the ruin of the Assyrian empire, of which Babylonia had been made a part by conquest. But the Babylonians were at this time endeavouring to throw off the yoke of Nineveh, and establish an independent government. As, however, they made a part of the Assyrian empire, they were to share in its calamities. To these events the prophecy alludes; in which two nations and two different regions are described. We may therefore be assured, that the land of Assyria and the land of Nimrod were two distinct countries.†

Ashur, probably imitating the policy of his dangerous competitor, built four cities for the accommodation and defence of his descendants; the first of which was

*Micah v. 6.

† Bryant's Anal. vol. iii. p. 68. [Dr Paxton does not display his usual critical acumen here. The extract which he has given from Bryant proves the reverse of his statement, and shows that Babylonia, having by conquest been made a part of the Assyrian empire, might properly be included in the general name of Assyria. Besides, in the passage from Micah, we have only to render and by even, a very common translation of the Hebrew particle, and instead of there appearing a redundancy not common in the Sacred Writings, there will be preserved that parallelism which is a well-known characteristic of the Hebrew poetry, and according to which the succeeding clause of a sentence is merely an echo of the former. They shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, even the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof,' i. e. the borders where its garrisons and chief strength lie.-Editor.

Nineveh, the capital of his kingdom. This powerful city stood on the east side of the Tigris, not far from the river Lycus, one of its tributary streams; but on which side of the Lycus it lay, cannot now be discovered.* The prediction of Nahum, that Nineveh should be so completely destroyed, that future ages should search in vain for the spot which it once covered, has been fulfilled in all its extent :- With an overflowing flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof.' Ancient geographers inform us of another city of this name, which stood on the Euphrates, and was probably built by Nimrod in honour of his son.‡ But Nineveh, so frequently mentioned in Scripture, lay near the Tigris; and to this last the following observations refer. Strabo affirms, that Nineveh was larger than Babylon itself; an assertion confirmed by Diodorus, who makes that city sixty miles in compass, while Strabo makes Babylon only about forty-eight.§ It is therefore with justice that the inspired writer calls Nineveh an exceeding great city of three days' journey.' This account some interpreters refer not to the length, but to the compass of the city; allowing twenty miles for a day's journey, which accords with the common estimation of those times. But the phrase, 'Jonas began to enter into the city a day's journey,’ seems rather to intimate, that the measure of three days' journey is to be understood of the length, not of the compass, of Nineveh. Hence it may be easily supposed, that, agreeably to the statement of the prophet, it contained more than sixscore thousand persons that could not discern between their right hand and their

6

* Bochart. Phal. lib. iv. cap. 20, p. 247. [It stood nearly opposite the modern town of Mosul.]-Editor.

† Nahum i. 8.

The Nineveh mentioned here was built long after the one on the Tigris. When the Medes had destroyed the Nineveh of Nimrod, another city, at no great distance, arose out of the ruins of the former, and received the same name.-Editor.

§ Strabo, lib. xvi. pp. 502, 503; Diodorus Hist. vol. i. lib. 2, p. 115.