and Calneh, and Accad (Gen. x. 8, 10).  Hence it is not surprising that relics of the name should be found all round this neighbourhood.  Nor does the evidence end here.  The district immediately around Babylon was called “Kar-dunish-i,” i.e., the “Garden of the god Dunish.”  Now Kar is the Turanian form of the Semitic G[=a]n, or Gin[=a] (garden); and what is more likely than that, as the true story was lost in the heathen traditions and mythology that grew up, the “garden” was attributed to the god Dunish—­whereas the real original had been not “Gandunish,” but “Gan’Eden?” This, though only a conjecture, is the more probable, as one of the inscription-names of Babylon itself was “Tintira,” which, though a little obscure, certainly means either the “grove,” or the "fountain,” of life.

We thus find, not only that four great branches of the river that “went out,” and watered the Garden can be traced, but that the two really do “compass” tracts, that can, with the highest degree of probability, be identified as C[=u]sh or Kash, and Havilah.  The importance of Professor Delitzsch’s work may now be briefly glanced at.  It may be objected, that such a process of reasoning as that put forward, is not convincing to a general reader who has not the means of criticizing or testing Professor Delitzsch’s conclusions:  he therefore cannot be sure that, in selecting two channels to represent the Pison and the Gihon, and in identifying “Mashu” with Mesha of Havilah, and one of the Babylonian districts with Kush, the Professor has at last hit off a solution of the problem which will not in its turn be disproved, as all earlier solutions have been.  There is, however, this important conclusion to be safely drawn, viz., that a complete explanation in exact accord with the Hebrew text is possible, and that hence nothing can be urged against the narrative, on the ground (hitherto sneeringly taken) that the geography was impossible and so forth.

Next let me very briefly sum up what it is that Dr. Delitzsch has done—­marshalling the evidence, beginning from the broad end and narrowing down till we arrive at the point.

(1) First, then, we are fixed by the narrative to some place between the Euphrates and the Tigris.

(2) We find in the ancient inscriptions of the chief city of this locality, constant allusions to a Garden, a primitive pair and a temptation:  one of these almost exactly reproduces the Bible story; it is not of the earliest date and is a copy.  But discovery is far from being exhausted; all that we know is consistent with the idea of an original story, gradually corrupted by the addition of legends, and introduction of mythological persons and heathen divinities.  The true belief in one God, who made Himself known by voice or vision to His true worshippers, seems early to have been confined to a few of the Shemitic families, while the others “invented” gods of their own.