24

SECT. tain.

I.

HORE MOSAICE.

The fecluded defcendants of Ifrael occupied but an inconfiderable division of that immenfe tract, over which this ancient tongue had extended itfelf; nor does. it appear probable, that the Greeks borrowed many oriental radicals immediately from that people. It is more. It is more likely, that they were adopted from fome of the collateral dialects of those eastern nations, which were lefs averfe than the Jews from an unreftrained intercourfe with mankind.

This fuppofition neither contradicts nor corroborates the opinion of Mr. Bryant, respecting the origin of the radicals, which form the basis of his very valuable work. He deduces them indeed from the ancient Ammonian dialect; but by much the greatest part of them, as must be evident to any person in the leaft degree converfant with the facred language, is in reality pure Hebrew. The Ammonian tongue appears, in fact, to have been no other than a mere dialect, and, like most of the other dialects spoken in western Afia, to be ultimately refolvable into the language of Paleftine. The present hypothesis therefore will remain equally tenable, through whatever channel the Greeks may be fuppofed to have borrowed their oriental radicals. For if the languages of Chaldea, Syria, Phenicia, and the Ammonians, be in reality only different dialects of one primitive tongue, it matters little, to which of them the Greeks were fpecially indebted.

The radicals, which Mr. Bryant produces as being Ammonian, and which are at least equally Hebrew, are Ham, Chus, Mizraim, Ab, Aur, El, On (N), Ait (most probably the Chaldaic form of wx, as in the derivative pr a furnace) Ad, Ees, Di, Cohen, Baal, Keren, Oph, Ain, Apha, Aft, Shem, Shemesh, Melech, Zar, Phi, Ai, Beth. It is fuperfluous to

Depending then upon the three rules CHAP. which are here laid down, I fhall endea- I. vour to analyse many ancient traditions, partly by divesting them of their allegorical obfcurity; partly by depriving them of their local appropriation; and partly by deducing the etymology of terms, not from Greek, but from oriental radicals.

If, in the fequel of the prefent investi

bring forward any inftances of "common names relating to "places," as Mr. Bryant himself allows, that "they are for "the most part fimilar to those in the ancient Chaldaic, and "admit of little variation." Anal. vol, i. p. 91,

Since then it appears, that the Ammonian is, in reality, a mere collateral dialect with the Hebrew, I cannot fee the reason, why Mr. Bryant, and more particularly his ingenious fucceffor, Mr. Allwood, fhould cenfure fo feverely those who make ufe of the Hebrew language in elucidating ancient mythology. The fact is, they, who are thus cenfured, do not fo much depend upon the Hebrew, as upon the Hebrew dialects; but the Ammonian, from the specimens which are given of it in the Analyfis, is undoubtedly a collateral dia`lect with the Hebrew; confequently, most of those Greek words, which are derived from it, muft ultimately be refolved into that ancient tongue, which extended itself through all the western regions of Afia. It matters little, whether the Hebrew be the fountain, from which so many kindred ftreams have flowed, or whether fome more primeval language be equally the parent of the Hebrew and its dialects: it is fufficient for the prefent argument, if it be allowed, upon the authority of Plato, that many terms in the mythology of the Greeks are borrowed from those whom he styles barbarians.

gation,

SECT. gation, it can be fhewn, that by much the I. greatest part of the facts, contained in the Mofaical history, is to be found likewise in the writings of profane authors, this undefigned coincidence, one of the most decifive evidences of truth, will form a ftriking argument in favour of the authenticity and accuracy of the Pentateuch.

CHAP.

CHAP. II.

HEATHEN COSMOGONIES.

I. CHALDEE AC

COUNT OF THE CREATION. II. PHENICIAN ACCOUNT. III. PERSIAN ACCOUNT. IV. HINDOO ACCOUNT. V.CHINESE ACCOUNT. VI, TUSCAN ACCOUNT. VII. GOTHIC ACCOUNT. VIII. VIRGINIAN ACCOUNT. IX. OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS; I. ORPHEUS. 2. PYTHAGORAS. 3. THALES AND ANAXAGORAS. 4. HESIOD 5. ARISTOPHANES. X. JEHOVAH'S NAME KNOWN TO THE PAGANS. XI. GENERAL USE OF THESABBATH, ORIGINATING FROM THE FIRST GRAND WEEK OF THE CREATION.

IN examining the records of ancient Pagan nations, we must prepare ourselves to expect a variety of difficulties, and to encounter a multitude of dark and incoherent traditions. The adulteration of truth with mythological fables, and the mutilated state of many primeval narratives, feverally contribute, though in a manner diametrically oppofite to each other, to diffuse a great degree of obscurity over the remains of heathen antiquity. In the first of these cafes, the fair face of truth is hid like the

fun

1

SECT. fun behind a cloud; in the fecond, fhe is

I.

fhorn of her rays, and fhines with only half her native luftre. The traditions of the Pagan world, when viewed from a diftance, prefent to the imagination a wild and fantastic group of distorted images, which resemble rather the unreftrained effufions of romance, than the fober detail of authentic history. A perpetual love of the marvellous; an unwillingness to relate even the most fimple circumftance, without fome degree of exaggeration; and a national vanity, ever defirous of appropriating to a particular country, facts which equally concerned all mankind, form the moft ftriking characteristics of ancient mythology. No truth was captivating, unless arrayed in the gaudy drefs of allegory; nor was any allegory interefting, unless immediately connected with the hiftory of each feparate nation. Hence, though we meet with nearly the fame traditions diffused over the face of the whole earth, yet we find the principal actors in them, and the particular diftrict in which the events are faid to have taken place, immediately adapted to the imaginary annals of every different people. If we confider these several mythological narratives detached from each other,

they