New-York tribune., 1903-03-09
RABYL0NlAN DERIVED FROM THE HEBREW.
so SAYS THE REV. DIR. ROBERT d. WILSON, CONTRO-
vERTING PROFESSOR DELITZSCH.

clothing for the house its arts and furnishings,
for occupations and trades. including imple-
ments material and methods. The names for
domestic and wild animals cursorily DIS
cussed. Then the writer passes on to the physi-
cal and mental actions Of men. such as rising
and sitting the names of the senses and their
operations, eating and drinking speaking and
knowing, remembering, etc.
Proceeding to glance at the laws and customs
of the Hebrews as hey are illustrated by IAN
guage. he premises that many laws are the same
substantially in all society. being necessary to
the very constitution and existence of the same
The fact, therefore, that the Babylonians had the
Sixth. Seventh and Eighth commandments in
much the same form the Hebrews. does not
prove that the one nation derived these laws
from the other. Looking, then. at the last six
commandments Of the Decalogue philologcally.
he states the following facts among others to
show that tie Hebrews cid not derive them
from the Babylonians: The common word Tor
kill in Hebrew, hramaic and Arabic is not
found in Babylonian; and the nearest to common
words for kill and steal found In these
three languages. but not in Babylonian. There
is only one word from root to kill which is
the same in Babylonian and Hebrew, and that Is
an uncommon one in the Babylonian This is
not the word employed in the Sixth Command
ment. The Babylonian does not possess the He
brew words for fornicGtion, adultery, nor the
ment From he above 1t will be clearly seen
that while as Delitzsch says the Babylontans
had laws against murder. adultery ana theLt,
there is no evidence il the Hebrew language that
the Hebrews received the same from the BABY
lonians." ~
Wilson concludes 3-tter Iorg discussion. that
there was PROBABLY a primitive Semiuc Gay
called the Sabbath which the Babylonlans ano
the Hebrews each developed along diHerent
lines The fact of tn r different character, now
ever. shows that the one was not oerlEeo lIoitl on,
the other, though they may nave come from 'ie
same original institution. =.
He then proceeds to discuss the names OF
governmental officers, judges propHe's fmT
priests Under the last head there IS luii
discussion of the names of the offerings anu
festivals especially the Passover. 81,
Passing on from the festivals. he next dls-
cusses the religious ideas as follows: "On the
doctrines Of God, sin, grace, PARDON, salVatlon,
faith. the Messiah the Kingdom Naao ad +b
Hebrews? What does philoogy teach US! Oi
the Hebrew words for sin, only one IS 1ounu III
root An the other Hebrew words for sin are
absent from the BabyIoni And on the other
are absent from the Hebrew.
''Of the words for grace. two are founo IN an
four languages. but the two speclncaHy technt- a.
cal expressions in Hebrew do not occur ~
Babylonian OF the words for pardon, only one
occurs in q moral In Bahylonlan He
great word for Justification is found in Bany-
lonian only In proper name and once IN the
TeI-el-Amarna letters, and the common HepTe"
words for holy and sanctify has been foun9 IN
precious to us in its English form OF Jesus,
never presents itself on the monuments hot
does the word Messiah Nr its root TO anoint.
Nor does the doctrine OF salvation through
redeemer nor of an anonted servant or Goo. dp-
near on the tablets Of Babylon. Nor IS tnere
env such thing as predictive prophecy. as dis
tineuisheI from fortune telling or sootnsaylhs'
nor doctrine of the kingdom Of God NOT one
of the usual Hebrew words for falth occurs III
its moral sense in Babylonian ,,
IAN attempt was made by professor DelilZsen
TO show that the Hebrews derived\their sReclnc
name for Gcd i. e., Jehovah, from the Bapy..
lonians His proof depends upon dlspu'eo
reading of three tablets In the British Museum
dated in the time of Hammurah. professor
IeItzsch reads the name OF ja-ah-Ne-Hu ol
hovah is Cod" l believe that II Professor De
Iitzsch's reading is correc-, 1t was the Bapg-
ICnian which derived from the Hebrew, and not
the Hebrew from the Babyionian. FOR tne
Rahylonian does not have the root OF the Eern
TO be which occurs in JehoVah hor dHS
derivitive of the same.
In conclusion. he dUelis upon the faCt that
tre close pre- Mosaic relations between babS
Ion and Israel are shown by the agreement eH-
;stinr between the names and institutions or
Genesis and Babylonian records. but from the
beginning Of Exodus on there was a cofnrnleo
and continuous estrangement between the two,
manifested not merely in the extensive nterd-
fure among the Hebrews, hut all through the
long annals of the Assyriaas and Babyionlahs
He closes the treatise with the statement that
"nvery Jew or Christian throughout the ages.
tho records Of whose thoughts and 1eellnRS
have heen preserved to U.s. feels that not 70
Rahvlon the Golden City. the mother or SCI
epce and arts and commerce and or 1nolatry
end harlotries and sorcerles. 90 we look loL
the snrinrs of our religion and the hope OF
our salvation. hut to Jerusalem the HolueH'
the CITY of the Great King.