[27] Sir William Jones, vol. i., p. 92.
[28] Heeren's Politics of Ancient Greece: Am. ed., 1824, p. 64. Also Bryant's Ancient Mythology, ii., 390.
[29] Encyclopædia Americana, vol. ix. (1835), p. 118.
[30] Gen. x. 8-12. This is adopting the marginal for the text reading of the passage, and the reason for it is this: The above is a clear historical account of those who journeyed to the plains of Shinar, which were only the descendants of Cush the father of Nimrod; though Asshur is said to have gone and builded the city of Nineveh, with the others mentioned in the text—which Asshur was one of the sons of Shem, who perhaps was blended by marriage, or other connections, with his relations the sons of Ham, unless it can be shown that there was one of that name in Ham's descendants as well as Shem's son. It was something particular (if correct) that Moses should bring in Asshur into his account of Ham's issue, because he was very strict in giving such relations of Japheth and Shem in their own places. Would Noah, who was so much disgusted at his son Ham as to curse him, permit the children of his other sons, whom he blessed, to have any communication with his children? Bishop Cumberland, in the last century, took some pains to unravel this, and concluded that the marginal translation in our bibles is the right one—that in the text being, "Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh", &c.; that in the margin, "And he [Nimrod] went out of that land into Assyria"—for Asshur generally in scripture signifies the Assyrian, excepting only in the genealogies: and in support of this he brings forward many authentic testimonies. (See Parsons's Remains of Japheth, p. 15: London, 1767.)
[31] Encyclopædia Americana, title "Mysteries," vol. ix., p. 118.
[32] Deut. xviii. 10.
[33] Livy, iv., c. 22.
[34] 1 Sam. xxviii. 19.
[35] Eccles. xlvi.
[36] Lib. v., c. 92.