Blair Collection > Celtic researches, on the origin, traditions & language, of the ancient Britons

64
— tnkhig possessiûn of, not building Babylon. It is clear that
the Babylonian and Assyrian kingdoms were originally two
distin(5l things. The latter I think had not crossed the
Hiddekel or Tigris in the time of Moses, that riveu flowing
noip, before, or in front of it, and not toward tlie East, as it
is in our translation. Its boundary then lay at a considerable
distance from Babylon.
I am aware that some translators of credit have rendered
Gen. X. 11. to this purpose — " And out of that country, he
[Nimrod] went forth to Ashur, and built IS'ineveh, &,c." But
this seems to be nothing more than forcing the text, in order
to support a pre-conceived hypothesis; for besides that the
words require no such interpretation, it is pretty evident from
the context, and the paragraph in the beginning of chap. xi.
that Nimrod did not go forth at all out of Babylonia, before
the catastrophe of his ambition. The children of men were
still engaged in making themselves a name, and in building
the city and tov. er of Babel : they were beginning to do this,
at the time when the confusion of tongues took place, and it
was in consequence of this event thei/ left off to build the city.
They had been hitherto engaged in the prosecution of their
original design at Babe], and had not yet completed it. —
It was there that the Lord confounded their language, and it
was from thence that he scattered them. The whole of the
confederate band must have been dispersed. Had a party
been left behind undisturbed, they would soon have increased
to a multitude, and might have prosecuted the work at their
leisure: whereas on the contrary we are told that the design
was wholly broken oft". And they were not driven from
Babylonia into Assyria, but dispersed into all the regions of
the known world. ^
It appears then, that Nimrod did not go forth before the