eatures comparatively
unchanged. Those which wandered far, fell into barbarism, or became
subjected to extreme climatic influences, would vary more in all
respects. Hence any general classification, whether on physical or
philological characters, will be likely to unite, as in the Caucasian
group of Cuvier, men of all the three primitive families, while it
will separate the outlying and aberrant portions from their main stems
of affiliation. Want of attention to this point has led to much
misconception; and perhaps it would be well to abandon altogether
terms founded on the names of the sons of Noah, except where
historical affiliation is the point in question. It would be well if
it were understood that when the terms Semitic, Japhetic,[129] and
Hametic are used, direct reference is made to the Hebrew ethnology;
and that, where other arrangements are adopted, other terms should be
used. It is obviously unfair to apply the terms of Moses in a
different way from that in which he uses them. A very prevalent error
of this kind has been to apply the term Japhetic to a number of
nations not of such origin according to the Bible; and another of more
modern date is to extend the term Semitic to all the races descended
from Ham, because of resemblance of language. It should be borne in
mind that, assuming the truth of the Scriptural affiliation, there
should be a "central" group of races and languages where the whole of
the three families meet, and "sporadic"[130] groups representing the
changes of the outlying and barbarous tribes.

While, however, all the more eminent philologists adhere to the
original unity of language, they are by no means agreed as to the
antiquity of man; and some, as for instance Latham and Dr. Max Mueller,
are disposed to claim an antiquity for our species far beyond that
usually admitted. In so far as this affects the Bible history, it is
important, inasmuch as this would appear to limit the possible
antiquity of all languages to the time of the deluge. The date of this
event has been variously estimated, on Biblical grounds, at from 1650
B.C. (Usher) to 3155 B.C. (Josephus and Hales); but the longest of
these dates does not appear to satisfy the demands of philology. The
reason of this demand is the supposed length of time required to
effect the necessary changes. The subject is one on which definite
data can scarcely be obtained. Languages change now, even when reduced
to a comparatively stable for