317 
waited for historical testimony on the subject. There is no pre- 
tence in Genesis to the use of ipsissima verba in the passages 
where speech is first mentioned. Dr. Colenso, in his carping 
criticism of the Bishop of Winchester’s Commentary on Genesis , 
contends that the writer must be considered to have held that 
Hebrew was the language of Paradise, because there is a direct 
phonetic and etymological connexion between the words 44 Eve ” 
(’Havah, Chavvah, Khavvah, or Chawwa) and “living.” Suppose, 
then, we read, — 44 And the Man called his wife’s name 4 Life ’ 
(and rightly so), for she hath become the mother of all ‘living,’” 
— may we urge that the writer of such a sentence necessarily held 
that English was the primeval language ? It is obvious that a 
score of languages might keep up the connexion, and we are not 
a whit nearer the original x. Similarly the Man declares that his 
partner shall be called 44 Wo-man” (i,e. Wife-man, Heb. Isschah), 
because she was taken out of 44 Man ” (Heb. Isch.). Here, again, 
both languages with equal facility keep up a connexion between 
the pair of terms. Nor will antediluvian proper names give us 
any more assistance in the matter, even after making every 
possible allowance. Thus, e.g ., let it be granted that Moses wrote 
the name “Methusael,” and that this name means 44 Man-of-Grod,” 
and represents a primeval name. How does it represent it, — by 
translation, as being an equivalent, or by transliteration ? If 
by translation, then we can no more recover the original form 
than, if ignorant of Greek, we could obtain Astyanax from City- 
king ; but, if by transliteration, through how many languages 
and dialects, Babylonian, Assyrian, Akkadian, plus a;, may it not 
have passed ? Again, of course it is by no means difficult to 
supply Hebrew derivations or explanations to non-Hebrew names. 
Thus, the Bishop of Winchester observes that Eve 44 called her 
firstborn Cain ( possession ), but this second Hebei ( breath , 
vapour , vanity , nothingness ), because all human possession is 
but vanity.” * Had Eve, then, at that early period, and thus 
made a happy mother, the feelings of the writer of Ecclesiastes ? 
Even the Bishop himself seems to doubt his own explanation, for 
he immediately adds, 44 Yet it is not said that Abel was so named 
by Eve herself, as Cain had been. [It is not directly stated that 
Eve named Cain.] Hence it is possible that the name Abel was 
that by which he became known, after his life had passed away 
like a breath or a vapour.” It is possible , but such possibilities 
are valueless. It is equally possible that, according to another 
suggestion, he 44 received a name indicative of his weakness and 
poverty, and, prophetically, of the pain and sorrow which were to 
* Holy Bible with Commentary , i. 53. 
