D. WEISSTEU THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESENTED BY PROF. CHARLES A. KOFOID AND MRS. PRUDENCE W. KOFOID Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/freshvoyagesonunOOcheyrich BY THE SAME AUTHOR THE TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL A NEW STUDY OF GENESIS AND EXODUS Demy 8vo, cloth. price 15/- net. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH Demy 8vo, cloth. price 7/6 net. THE TWO RELIGIONS OF ISRAEL WITH A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PROPHETIC NARRATIVES AND UTTERANCES Demy 8vo, cloth. price 12/6 net. THE MINES OF ISAIAH RE-EXPLORED Demy 8vo, cloth. price 5/- NET. THE VEIL OF HEBREW HISTORY A RECORD OF AN ATTEMPT TO LIFT IT Demy Svo, cloth. price 5/- net. CRITICA BIBLICA Demy 8vo, cloth. price 15/- net. ALSO MAY BE HAD IN FIVE PARTS. PUBLISHED BY A. AND C BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON FRESH VOYAGES ON UNFREQUENTED WATERS AGENTS America . . The Macmillan Company 64 & 66 Fifth Avenue, New York Australasia The Oxford University Press 205 Flinders Lane, Melbourne Canada . . The Macmillan Company of Canada, Ltd. St. Martin's House, 70 Bond Street, Toronto India . . . Macmillan & Company, Ltd. Macmillan Building, Bombay 309 Bow Bazaar Street, Calcutta FRESH VOYAGES ON UNFREQUENTED WATERS BY The Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, D.Litt. HONORARY D.D. EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AT OXFORD HONORARY FELLOW OF ORIEL AND WORCESTER COLLEGES FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY LONDON ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 1914 TO MY DEAR WIFE WHOM I VENTURE TO RENAME MADONNA LUCIA BECAUSE LIGHT BEAMS FROM HER AS FROM DANTE'S LUCIA AND BECAUSE THE FOES OF LIGHT FLY FROM HER AND ARE DISCOMFITED BS.57/ I thought that my voyage had come to its end at the last limit of my power, — that the path before me was closed, that provisions were exhausted and the time come to take shelter in silent obscurity. But I find that thy will knows no end in me ; and when old words die on the tongue, new melodies break forth from the heart ; and where the old tracks are lost, new country is revealed with its wonders. (From Gitanjali, xxxvii.) CONTENTS PAGE Prologue xiii PART I OLD TESTAMENT, INCLUDING APOCRYPHA CHAPTER I Introductory i CHAPTER II Haggai and Zechariah 7 CHAPTER III Ezra n CHAPTER IV Nehemiah 36 CHAPTER V Book of Esther 65 CHAPTER VI Book of Job . . 70 ix x FRESH VOYAGES CHAPTER VII PAGB Song of Solomon (?) 74 CHAPTER VIII Proverbs and Ecclesiastes 78 CHAPTER IX Book of Tobit 82 CHAPTER X Book of Judith 105 CHAPTER XI 1 Maccabees in CHAPTER XII Book of Daniel .114 CHAPTER XIII 1 Baruch . . . 119 PART II NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER I Introductory i 2 3 CONTENTS xi CHAPTER II PAGE Nazareth and its Related Traditions ; Beth- lehem 136 CHAPTER III More Place-names — Gethsemane, Golgotha, Beth- any, etc 142 CHAPTER IV N.T. Lists of Countries of the Dispersion . .151 CHAPTER V Names of Apostles and Others (Barabbas, Barnabas, etc.) 154 CHAPTER VI Apocalypse of St. John 167 INDEX . . 173 PROLOGUE Rabindra Nath Tagore has aptly expressed my feelings when the pen did not fall from my hand (see Veil, p. 158) and new country invited my little ship to explore its wonders. I know that my opponents will think this an illusion, but years of sedulous quest of discoveries cannot have been spent on self-deceit, and my foes may by this time be beginning to ask whether they have not carried their opposition to undoubted originality much too far. The Indian poet gives thanks in 'new melodies' for not having been reduced 'to take shelter in silent obscurity.' There are, I also know, those who think it kind- ness to exhort me to silence. But they have hardly justified their exhortation to me by them- selves entering on new tracks ; the last ten years have not, so far as I am aware, produced a single brilliantly original work on the text and contents of the Old Testament emanating from the professional champions of so-called sobriety and moderation. So much seemed necessary in a self-defence xiv FRESH VOYAGES which I hope is neither caustic nor too incisive for the occasion. Grave offence has been given, serious misunderstanding has been caused ; slight attempt, if any, has been made to realize an un- familiar point of view ; of my opponents it may too truly be said that they are still * moving about in worlds not realized.' And yet when they do take up the problems which I have made my own, they are almost or quite invariably baffled. In other words, they have not justified themselves for the hostile attitude that they have assumed towards me. I regret to be unable to point to fresh aid received from inscriptions in writing this volume ; the aid previously given has already been acknow- ledged in Traditions and Beliefs and (especially) Mines of Isaiah. Still, I may and must presume to say that fresh discoveries have been made by the adoption of the new textual point of view and by the new methods applied in the present series of books, and I will, in spite of infirmities, en- deavour to sketch briefly the results of my recent \ voyages/ The internal evidence supplied by the new school of prophets leaves it uncertain whether the conqueror of the N. Arabian city of Babel took any direct part in facilitating the return of the PROLOGUE xv deported Jews. It is mainly states of mind which Second Isaiah describes ; Third Isaiah, it is true, is somewhat more communicative, because he and his helpers evidently imply that the Jewish com- munity at Jerusalem has been reorganized. The prologue to my Introduction to the Book of Isaiah and my more recent Mines of Isaiah may be re- ferred to here ; indeed, a thorough study of the latter work is indispensable to those students who have shaken off old prejudices and wish to make trial of new methods. And to my mind this is the only worthy state of mind for a student. My friend Prof. Marti has given no answer to my question in Mines of Isaiah, chap. L, 'Shall we widen our point of view ? ' The present work, therefore, may be looked upon as a continuation of earlier researches. It begins with Haggai and (the true) Zechariah, who lived subsequently to the reconstitution of the Jerusalem community, but before the asserted publication of the Tora by Ezra. It is worth while to mention in passing that the Jerusalem referred to by these prophets and by Second and Third Isaiah does appear to be the northern city of that name, and the same remark applies to the narratives of Ezra and Nehemiah. At the same time, we cannot be quite sure of this, because of the extent xvi FRESH. VO YA GES to which text has been altered, and history been constructed on a basis of theory. There were two ideals respecting the site proper to the temple of Yahwe, according to one of which it ought to be rebuilt where Solomon is supposed to have built it, but according to the other in the N. Arabian borderland. The theory in vogue among some at least of the later Israelites was that the N. Arabian races would be united in one people with the Judaites under the * great king over all the land' — Yahwe. The capital of this empire would, on religious grounds, be a place called 'Asshur- Yarham/ where a proclamation of the primitive Deuteronomic code had, under Josiah, been made, and at the same time a reformation movement inaugurated. No doubt the N. Arabian politicians regarded Judah as forming a province in itself, but it is probable that the goal of their ambition was analogous to that of the Hebrew prophets. 1 This accounts for the confidence with which ii. Isaiah refers to Koresh as on Israel's side and for the singular statement in Mai. i. 1 1 : . . . my name is great among the nations, And in every place incense is offered to my name and a pure offering ; For my name is great among the nations. 1 Mines of Isaiah, pp. 1 2, 39. PROLOGUE xvu This clearly implies the theory of a united empire consisting of Judah and N. Arabia. The theory was but ill justified by facts, but the idealism deserves our sympathy. The physical background of Zechariah points, I think, to a residence in the N. Arabian borderland. Zerub- babel (Rab-Zebel), then, was not only 'governor of Judah ' (Hag. ii. 21). I have already mentioned the fortunate way in which the finds relating to the Jewish colony at Elephantine* have confirmed the most startling of my own views. In dealing wifh an im- portant passage of Zechariah it had to be again referred to. The student of Ezra and Nehemiah will find as much that calls for his respectful attention. Both books abound with ethnics and regionals, and there would seem to be more rather than fewer in consequence of my recent investigations. Prof. Marti, I learn, is much shocked at these results, which he accordingly rejects. Amalim, for instance, is unacceptable to him. He should, however, have been slower to commit himself. For not only have we ' the Asshurite Elam ' in Ezra ii. 31, Neh. vii. 34, but also the hitherto un- explained reading of Neh. iv. 2, amelalim, under which it is difficult indeed not to see amalim. xviii FRESH VOYAGES In the Book of Esther I have at least been able to show that the atmosphere is, not Persian, but N. Arabian, and, further, that there is no occasion to have recourse for an explanation to Elamite mythology; the story being simply a symbolic description of the ancient feud between Yerahme'el (Haman) and Israel (Esther). Upon the Book of Esther follows that of Job — strange yoke-fellows. No fresh light is thrown on the branch of literature to which this poem, with its prose prologue, and epilogue, belongs. The case for a N. Arabian background, however, is much strengthened by the restoration of the true text of Job iii. 5, 8, which shows that the Judaites were frequent visitors in Yerahme'elite 1 sanctuaries (cp. Isa. lxv., lxvi), and, one may add, in the reception-rooms of Yerahme'elite sages. It is hoped, too, that the aesthetic interest of several passages is heightened. Completeness, however, is not aimed at. Much work has been done on Job. As a rule the expositor of Job must be dependent on his predecessors. On the Song of Solomon some fresh light is perhaps shed. At least it would be difficult to deny that the goddess Ashtart is referred to in ii. 7 and iii. 5, if the text may be corrected from 1 See opening pages of Chap. VIII. PROLOGUE xix the point of view faintly adumbrated in chap. i. of Mines of Isaiah and the Prologue to Critica Biblica. The Song is therefore the work of some one who worshipped Ashtart — probably as a member of the Divine Triad — and who at the same time cherished a comparatively high con- ception of love. The fondness of the poet for gardens and for mountains is in harmony with this addiction to the N. Arabian goddess. There was much unfertile land in N. Arabia, in spite of irrigation. All the more may the N. Arabians have cared for plantations of flowering plants and trees. The aesthetic interest is also cared for by textual corrections. In Chap. VIII. some fresh light is shed on the origin of the three great Hebrew wisdom books — Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. All these books were primarily inspired by the moral and religious philosophy of N. Arabia, as the headings of several fasciculi of the canonical proverbs, the names and origins of the interlocutors in Job, the great per- sonification of Wisdom in Proverbs, and the epi- logue to Ecclesiastes tell us plainly. Originally, wherever in Pro v. viii. 12-31 Yah we is spoken of, Yerahme'el was read. This, and not Yahwe, was the name of the directing, controlling, and creating God. It was He who formed those superhuman xx FRESH VOYAGES Beings, the Messiah, the Logos, and Wisdom, the latter of whom is represented as uttering a fine monologue. This remarkable utterance has been greatly misunderstood. In the original text Wisdom admitted her predilection for the N. Arabian peoples. This was all wiped out of the text by later editors, who thus made it possible for us, their spiritual descendants, to regard the per- sonification itself as imported from Iran or from Babylon. Both hypotheses, however, are mis- taken. The typical wise men, whom Israel put before itself as tutors and models (i K. iv. 30/) were N. Arabians. How different, be it said anew in passing, must have been the simultaneously parallel conception of the great N. Arabian deity! May we not add, how different is the parallel conception of our own God! In the Book of Tobit, narrative as it is, elements of ' wisdom ' are not wanting, as indeed we might expect from the kinship of Tobit and Ahikar. The main point brought out in the long chapter devoted to Tobit is the impossibility of any large Iranian element in the story or in its accessories. The name of the fiend Asmodaeus (or Asmodaus ?) in particular is not of Zoroastrian PROLOGUE xxi origin, because of the inconsistency of the char- acteristics of the two figures, the one lustful, the other the impersonation of wrath, not to lay stress on the fact that Aeshma-daeva does not occur in our present Avestan texts (in the Later Avesta it does occur, according to Prof. Moulton). The details which make for a N. Arabian background cannot well be summarized. Possibly the most important is the correction of the text of Tobit iv. 17, which in its present form is so intolerable. It ought in candour to be added that, according to the author, Tobit iv. 6*5- 190 is extracted from a collection of wise utterances addressed to N. Arabians. I have had so much pleasure, mingled doubt- less with physical pain, that I am tempted to go on summarizing the rest of Part I. and the whole of Part II. in the way indicated in the preceding pages. I think, however, that, by the time the student has, under my guidance, reached the end of Tobit, he will cease to require this kind of assistance. He will also, I hope, by the time he has reached the end of Part I., see the necessity of applying the same methods to certain out- lying fields of study in that vastly more important region — the New Testament. The results at which I have arrived may be called disillusion- xxii FRESH VOYAGES izing, but, when thoroughly grasped, supply a part at least of the material for a new House of Wisdom, which will better resist the assaults of the enemy. Oxford, January 19 14. PART I OLD TESTAMENT, INCLUDING APOCRYPHA CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY Professor Torrey of Yale has well-nigh revolu- tionized the study of Ezra and Nehemiah. I am afraid that the details of his argument and his incidental theories do not always commend them- selves to me. But the fact remains that the supposed contemporaneous records of Ezra the scribe and Nehemiah the royal cup-bearer are largely imaginative ; in a word, they are, regarded separately, only historical novels. The Chronicler, who finally shaped them, ' would doubtless have preferred to give freer rein to his imagination in composing the story of the Jews and their ante- cedents. But he was now writing not to interest, but with an apologetic purpose. The support of the recognized history was indispensable ; outside this, it was important that he should confine himself to what was necessary. In the pre-exilic period, he could not well avoid incorporating at least a part of the well-known history of every king of Judah. In the post- exilic period, he 3 4 FRESH VOYAGES certainly seems to have made the most of the two documents which were available.' 1 At the same time I would venture to point out that, though in their present state the Ezra and Nehemiah records are not to be called historical, there is another text behind the present, and that it is the critic's primary duty to search for this. The earlier form of Ezra- Nehemiah was, I presume, found by the Chronicler in the archives of Jerusalem. It consisted partly of lists of names, which, properly treated, are of great importance to the critic, and partly perhaps of narratives recast in such a way as to promote the orthodox view of Yahwe's religion. The treat- ment of the names in Ezr.-Neh. it has been my privilege to begin. That this treatment is bound to have far- reaching consequences, I cannot wish to deny. Let us put our capacities for the work to a moderately easy test by a study of some passages of Haggai and Zechariah. In a work most kindly mentioned by Professor Torrey, I explained myself thus (in 1908) : 'Thus, our only authorities for the tone of the earliest post-exilic Judsean religion are the prophecies of Haggai and of the first or true Zechariah. Though devoid of literary charm, they are of much historical importance, because they stand on the dividing line between the exilic 1 Ezra Studies, pp. 2$of. INTRODUCTORY 5 and the post -exilic periods. It is a mistaken assertion that the post-exilic age begins with the so-called " edict of Cyrus" in B.C. 537. If there was a post-exilic age at all, it should rather be reckoned from the completion of the second temple in B.C. 516. For the true exile of the Jews was their sense of banishment from their God, and this painful consciousness began to be mitigated as soon as a house had been prepared for Jehovah to dwell in. " It is not time yet to build," said the people of the land, but the prophets believed the faith and hope which the effort of building the temple presupposed would exert a moral attraction upon Jehovah. At any moment after the coping had been laid the King of Glory might be expected to come in. Therefore I say that Haggai and Zechariah inaugurate the post- exilic period.' l Two years later Professor C. C. Torrey pub- lished a different view in his very comprehensive work already referred to. He is of opinion that ! the exiles ' are not (as most have supposed) the Judaites deported to Babylon, but the Israelites dispersed in many different countries. It is a misnomer to call the author of Isa. xl.-lxvi. the Prophet of the Exiles in Babylon ; he is rather the Prophet of the Dispersion. Israelite theology, therefore, is legalistic in tendency, and * even the noblest utterances of psalmist and " post-exilic " 1 Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, pp. 11 f. 6 FRESH VOYAGES prophet are given a petty interpretation ; so that instead of reaching the utmost horizon, as by their own wording they seem to do, they are made to cover only the smallest and un worthiest patch of human life and interest.' Certainly * post-exilic period ' is a most unfortu- nate term, though not on the ground that * exile ' should mean * dispersion ' ; a better reason would be that the later Israelitic literature presents such varied tendencies that ' post-exilic ' ceases to have any very distinctive meaning. It must, however, be admitted that the text even of the most admired passages is not by any means as free from doubt as could be wished. Let us consider some of these doubtful passages. If we cannot illumi- nate these, it may be a sign that we have gone astray, or that we have but a moderate turn for such inquiries. I much fear that many scholars will think that I at least have gone very far astray. But * One is He that knoweth, the Compassionate, ' is the burden of my song. If I possess the 'bright and morning star,' why should I take the dullness of my critics to heart ? CHAPTER II HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH I begin with the truly illuminative study (see Introduction) of Haggai and the true Zechariah. Hag. i. 14, ii. 23; Zech. iv. 14. The form Zerubbabel is incorrect and misleading. We shall see later (p. 18) that it is due to the imperfect knowledge of history possessed by the scribes who revised the traditional text. The right form, I venture to say, is 'Arab-Zebel, i.e. Arabia of Ishmael. 1 It was in N. Arabia that the exiles (or, as Torrey would say, the emigrants) of Israel referred to in the extant prophecies were settled, and it is the N. Arabian Babel (corrupted from Rakbul? 2 ) from which Sion is called upon (in Zech. ii. 11) to escape. 3 It may be mentioned that the 'sons of oil' in Zech. iv. 14 should perhaps rather be 'sons of Ishar,' i.e. 'sons of Ashhur.' The reference seems to be to Zerub- 1 The latest theory concerning fen is that of Prof. J. D. Prince (JBL, 1 91 3, p. 151), who explains as 'treasure,' but most unsatis- factorily. 2 Mines of Isaiah, pp. 135/. Rakbul was the name both of a place and of a god. 8 Decline and Fall, p. 57. 7 8 FRESH VOYAGES babel and Joshua. It is an interesting fact that the Chronicler (i Chr. iv. 7) gives Yishar among the sons of Ashhur ; Yishar (I zhar) is of course a corruption of Ashhur. Zech. ii. 10, v. 11. Saphon is a remote N. Arabian district or region, 1 and in Zech. ii. 12 the interrupting words should be read '» Snnn "intpN. * He hath sent me to Ashhur of Rakbul,' a gloss on ^nbw, 'he hath sent me,' at the end of v. 13. Ashhur- Rakbul is one of the names for the land of Israel's captivity (Torrey would say, dispersion). Another name for it (Zech. v. 11) was Shinar, which means not Babylonia, but Ishmael of Arabia; strictly, Ishman-'Arab. See T. and B. on Gen. x. 10. The prophet was sent (see gloss in v. 13) to the land of captivity with glad tidings. The references to trees and mountains may also require re-examination. The &Din of Zech. i. 8-1 1 are not myrtle-trees, but some undefinable tree which grew in the mountains, one of those called Asshur- trees. 2 As for the mountains, * mountains of brass * cannot be right. What can it reasonably mean ? A mythological explanation would be the resource of despair. In Gen. iv. 22 3 nt&nn and in 2 K. xviii. 4 jnttro may suggest an explanation, for it has been shown to be almost or quite certain that both these words come from ]Fiwrt, i.e. Ashhur-Ethan. It appears that there 1 Mines of Isaiah, 1 1, 181, 183. 2 See Decline and Fall, pp. 113/ 3 T. and B. p. 109. HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH 9 was a certain N. Arabian district in which two conspicuous mountains specially challenged atten- tion. In iv. 7 hmyn in should no doubt rather be 7xhzn in, ' mount of Gilead.' Here, as often, it is the southern Gilead that is meant. The personal names have also a claim to be considered. Zerubbabel indeed has been explained already. Toblah (Zech. vi. 10) is not 'goodness of Yahu,' a name which was borne (to Noldeke's surprise) 1 by an Ammonite (Neh. ii. 10), but comes from Tubal-Yarhu, — in other words, is primarily a compound regional. In vi. 14, Hen (a singular name) probably comes from Hanok, a N. Arabian clan-name. 2 The visitors come from Babel. Another curious combination of personal names is • Beth-el, Sarezer, and Regem-melek ' (vii. 2). Three views deserve mention. Two of these pre- suppose the strict accuracy of the form Beth-el. Indeed, there is no doubt that Bitili-nuri occurs as the name of a Babylonian on a tablet of the age of Artaxerxes I., and that Beth-el was the name of one of the gods worshipped by the Jews at Elephantine. 3 There is no question, too, that 1 Bit-ili ' may have been a divine name among the Babylonians, strange as such an use may be. 4 The third view is that of the present writer. It is 1 Zt. fiir Assyriologie, 1907, p. 204, quoted by Torrey. 2 Veil of Hebrew History, pp. 51/ 8 Mines of Isaiah, pp. no, w^ff. 4 KAT (Z \ p. 435 (top). Bit-ili has the determinative of deity. io FRESH VOYAGES that Beth-el comes from Yithbaal, i.e. Ishba'al, or Ishma'al, which the Jews seem to have used both as a divine name and as a regional. That this view is correct, seems to the writer certain. Render therefore the passage which has baffled so many : 'And Yithba'al-Sar'eser and Magar^Rakmal sent their men to propitiate Yah we.' The other names need not delay us long. Sar and 'Ezer are presumably old clan-names ; Magar is a more probable form than Regem, because it explains Mag in Rab-Mag ; Melek is a corrup- tion of Rakmal. The upshot of the story is that three Jewish clans, of N. Arabian affinities, sent representatives to the temple to make inquiries at the fountain-head of legal knowledge. In revising these pages I feel it necessary to repeat that Nehemiah's Tobiah was an Ammonite, to which there is a variant 'Arabian.' 2 In Josh, xviii. 2$/., next to Ophrah is a Benjamite town called Kefar-ha'ammonai, which is usually ex- plained ' the Ammonite villages ' ; really, however, Ammonai is a corruption of Ahimani, and Kefar of Akrab. Akrab-Ahimani is the name of one of the Akrabs, situated in N. Arabia. Now per- haps we see better how Ammonite and Arabian can be equivalent. 3 1 See T. and B. p. 157. 2 See on Neh. ii. 10, and cp. Jezvish Rel. Life after the Exile, at end. 3 See The Veil, pp. 16/ (note 1, end). CHAPTER III EZRA Chap. i. i. I venture to begin with a question. Is it likely that a Jewish writer would have repre- sented Cyrus, king of Persia, as saying, ' Yahwe, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth ' ? This must be taken in connexion with passages like Isa. xli. 2, xlv. 4, 13; Jer. xxv. 9, xxvii. 6, xliii. 10; Dan. iii. 28/], iv. 2-37, vi. 25-27. In all these passages Cyrus, king of Persia, or Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, is (according to the traditional view of the text) represented as standing in a relation of intimacy (whether actual or prospective) to the God of the Jews. Except in writings which can be shown to present sufficiently clear traces of the Hellenizing spirit, such a view of the relation of Yahwe to distant non-Israelitish empire-builders is most improbable. There is a large amount of evidence for the view that did T^d nro has come out of d-ihd 1 T?d intDM, where dihd, or rather mco (Neh. vii. 57, cp. Ezr. ii. 55), has 1 See Mines of Isaiah, pp. 126/ 11 12 FRESH VOYAGES come from ddis, a N. Arabian name, attaching most probably to more than one city and region (cp. on Ezek. xxvii. 10). On 'Nebuchadrezzar' it is needless to speak here. 1 Of course pwrr must now be rendered 'of the land,' i.e. of N. Arabia, towards S. Palestine. Note that i Esdr. iv. 42-v. 6 makes the royal liberator of the Jews not Cyrus but Darius (cp. below on Dan. vi. 1). 2. If this be adopted, we have to ask next whether the king of Pathros (let us call the name so conventionally) would be represented as having called Yah we ' the god of heaven.' Shortly after- wards the royal speaker says, ' his God be with him ' ; the king, then, called his own supreme God by another name. To reply that, to please the Persian worshippers of a supreme heaven- God, the Jews represented their God as a ' God of heaven,' 2 adding (with Meyer, Entst. p. 49, but cp. Cooke, N. Arab. Inscr. pp. 45 /), 'there were many such in Syria and elsewhere,' is plainly inadequate. Nor would it suffice to say that the phrase ' the God of heaven ' occurs in other passages, in some of which it clearly means 'the God who made and in some sense dwells in heaven' (viz. in Neh. i. 4/., ii. 4, 20; Dan. ii. 18, 19, 44, cp. 28; Jon. i. 9; Ps. cxxxvi. 26). For in i. 2, at any rate, and in vi. g/. } vii. 1 See Decline and Fall, p. 57. 2 Cp. the phrases 'the king of heaven' (Dan. iv. 37 ; 1 Esdr. iv. 46, 58 ; Tobit xiii. 7, 11); 'the Lord of heaven ' (Dan. v. 23) ; 1 the Lord of heaven and earth ' (Tobit vii. 18). EZRA 13 12, 21, 23, the phrase must represent some title of Yahwe which was not merely shared by other Syrian deities, but was, from a non- Jewish point of view, distinctive. And the same remark applies, I think, to v. 12. 'The God of heaven' (wott rhn) must then be interpreted by vi. gf., where the same phrase must represent a name distinctive to Darius of the God of the Jews, so that when, in v. 11, we read, 'We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth,' 'and earth ' (n^ini) must be redactional ; a Greek translator (1 Esdr. vi. 12) paraphrases, 'of the Lord who made (tov ktL represents ]cp, the name of a Yerahme'elite region, ps and is both represent N. Arabian places, viz. )piz and iso ; see Joel iv. 4, where frTan is is parallel to 1 Pelesheth,' or rather ' Ethbal' = Yerahme'elites, 1 8 FRESH VOYAGES or N. Arabians (The Veil, pp. 13 ff.). The place meant is probably Tap (see Crit. Bib., Josh. xi. 8). Need I repeat that pb is a southern name, and that pnnS may well have been an old name of N. Arabian mountains ? It is worth adding that in Ezek. xxxi. ' Lebanon ' and ' Misrim ' are brought close together. Chap. iv. 1. If the original now commonly assigned to ■ Zerubbabel,' viz. Zer-babili, is really a contraction of Marduk-zaru-Babili-lisir, 'Marduk preserves the seed [heir] to Babylon,' it is surely not a very judiciously chosen name for a governor appointed by Persia. But if Ezra-Neh. and the early part of Daniel refer to a N. Arabian captivity and to its termination, another explana- tion becomes irresistible, viz. b-n, ' chief of Ishmael ' (see on Judg. ix. 2&) ; cp. d^id-ii and npttKn, from ■nfi&ran and -intmrm respectively. Most certainly, however, n is an abbreviation of 1*11?. It is quite possible that later readers ex- plained the misreading hlTH as ' sown in Babel.' The name of the governor's father appears to mean * I have asked of God.' But really bwrhvto comes from ^Nnt&N (1 Chr. ii. 53). On the other names see elsewhere in the series of my works on these problems. 2. In vv. 5, 6, 7, 9, five royal names occur. The first, ams, has been already explained ; it is = Ashkor ( Ashkar). The second, mvn, may come either from -nt&N tt or from T-rt&N = TH ii»» ; the EZRA 19 third, BrnttWlH, from yiton ; the fourth, NnttmnmN, from nnmN doubled ; the fifth, idddn, from 3dn = Snsdbt (cp. on roDN, Gen. xli. 45) and id or in {i.e. ' Ishmael of Arabia'). Whether these royal names are all, or even any of them, genuine, it is unfortunately beyond our power to determine. It is equally regrettable that several of these can easily be confounded. Cp. on Esth. i. 1. 3. Are critics satisfied with any of the current explanations of zbvi {v. 7) ? That tbw is probably either from ^ni?D8T or from nizhw, should be obvious. The initial 1 is as clearly a fragment, not, however, of p, but of arw (see T. and B. on W?si, Ex. xxxi. 1) ; cp. on jO)*?l, Neh. vii. 7 (Ezra ii. 2). 4. f?Nlto, doubtless, may be plausibly explained as 'God is good ' (or 'wise'). But if ' Bishlam' and 1 Mithredath ' point to N. Arabia, must we not explain hvcto (as in Isa. vii. 6) as = Tubal? Cp. Shobal, also Ethbaal, and see E. Bib., 'Tabeel.' And must we not further suppose that, however 4 Rehum ' may have been conventionally explained, it was a N. Arabian name, connected with Drrr, and that ' Shimshai ' is a popular distortion of 'bt&btf ? 5. Next as to the troublesome names of peoples (v. 9). The sixth is 'Bablites,' the ninth ' Elamites.' These at any rate we seem to understand, though their introduction is rather puzzling. But what of the first five ? For four of these, says Meyer {Entst. pp. 37/.), 'all inter- preters have taken much vain trouble to hunt up 20 FRESH VOYAGES an acceptable meaning.' And these four stand at the head of the roll ! I wish I could say more about them. But I can say, with regard not only to them, but to all the names in v. 9, that they support the view that the scene of the original narrative was in N. Arabia. I am aware that while 2 Esdr. iv. 9 agrees with MT. in taking all the words which follow pnrvpD as names of peoples (though Luc. gives ol Kpiral where MT. has wg*f), 1 Esdr. ii. 16 (17) has ical Kpiral (A, KparaioCjj and continues ol iv tcoiXy ^vpia teal <&oivltcr) ; also that Ed. Meyer (p. 40), partly following G. Hoffmann, would read, ' the Persian judges, the Persian tarpelayya' But surely the following words ■ and the rest of the peoples ' require us to interpret all the words between 'aa and "man (and not merely a part of them) as ethnics. Evidently v. 9 is a compilation. What, then, is n^t ? It must be the name of some important people, but of what? In 2 K. xix. 12, we read of the 'b'ne 'Eden who (were) in Tel-assar.' Now Tel-assar (see Crit. Bib., ad loc.) represents ' Tubal-asshur/ The race was 'destroyed,' we are told; but that is a relative term. Another form of ps was pis (ii. 15) ; perhaps we may compare riT7 (Gen. xxx. 21). An obscure name Din-Sarru (near Susa) will hardly, except under compulsion, be pre- ferred. — N"OnDiDN must, of course, be taken with iWfflw (which follows presently) and nodibn (v. 6, vi. 6). In all these, Meyer (p. 38) remarks, EZRA 21 the consonants of did (i.e., as he thinks, ' Persia') are inclosed. It may seem a little strange to hear of 'the Persians in Abar-nahara,' but this may mean, as he suggests, 'the Persians settled in Abar-nahara.' 1 For the second of these forms, however, Marquart {Fund. p. 64) would read Mp^p. Both these suggestions contain a germ of truth — even the latter, which presupposes the wrong view that some of the words in the list are official designations. The correct solution of the problem, however, is that suggested by the N. Arabian hypothesis, did, idd (cp. idd imp), and DinD are all much-worn fragments of nois, and hence all the three forms mentioned above may re- present ntid-is, ' Zarephathites.' (The D in the first form is a scribe's error.) — And what as to n^d"ib ? Rawlinson proposes ' Tuplai ' as the original. The sense would be good, but the form Son is opposed by the name S^na. Its more plausible original is N^>mnttN, 'Ashtarbelites.' For ia cp. ibn, p. 52 ; and for Sd cp. ^didn. — ^ID-in, n^h. T. and B. on Gen. x. 10. — N^tm. From n^i*-yi»n ; cp. Shethar-Bozenai ; rta from JQ. — wm. Rather (as G. Hoffm., etc.), Nim-T, 'that is'; 2 Esdr. of tlaLv. — vrtbv. See on Gen. x. 22 (d*ro). The Assyrian inscriptions say nothing of a deportation of ' Elamites.' 1 See E. Bib., ' Ccelesyria.' The region called in 1 Esdr. ii. 21, vi. 3, 7, 26, Syria and Phoenicia, and in 1 Esdr. ii. 16, 20, vii. 1, viii. 64 (cod. A), Ccele-Syria and Phoenicia. See, however, note 7 22 FRESH VOYAGES 6. Winckler (KA T, p. 297 ; A OF, 2nd ser., iii. 461 <£, 465) rejects the statement that the oppon- ents of the Jews were Moabites, Ammonites, and 'Samaritans,' and regards the passage (vv. 9-1 1) which includes the reference to 'the city of Samaria ' as a late insertion dictated by the later hatred of the Sam. sect. This bold step is un- necessary. It is true, Samaria and the Samaritans have no business here. But the text has been misread. ' In the city (2 Esdr., cities) of Samaria * should be 'in the city (cities) of Shimron.' The colonists settled in the border-land, which had once been Israelitish, had good reason to fear the aggression of the new community of Jerusalem. Cp. on 2 K. xvii. 24. 7. 'And (in) the rest of the t abar nahard. y 'Abar nahara, of course, may mean the Persian province of Syria (so Meyer, p. 20). There is, however, no necessity for this. 1 Kings v. 4 is not proved by the occurrence of "iron -11$ to have been written in the Persian period ; the irn may have been a southern, not a northern stream (cp. Winckler, GI, ii. 264 ; KAT™ p. 148). So too it may have been here ; the whole context points, as is here shown, in this direction. As in 1 Kings v. 4, the im may have been, and probably was, the prrr sometimes to be suspected underneath the pT of the narrative books (see The Veil of Hebrew History, p. 3), In iv. 17 xhm may perfectly well have come from f?N$Dttr — a gloss on N"in:> "il^ EZRA 23 8. Mn^?D vbrr\ nbn (v. 14) is a trouble to the critics ; how can wn^o mean ' we eat salt ' ? Nestle (Marg. p. 31) expresses my own feeling of what is required. ' I believe that mnbn is a substantive with suffix. The passage means, 11 because the x of the temple or palace is our x." But I cannot yet frame any explanation, and, so far as I know, the cuneiform inscriptions throw no light on the passage.' Surely vhyrt is a scribe's production out of a half-illegible ^NDrrr (cp. on Neh. iii. 7), and nbo has come from *fo. Read mAd Vtt ibn, 'the king of Yerahme'el is our king.' 9. thw may no doubt be an epistolary formula (**%alp*w)\ cp. v, 7, Dan. iii. 31, vi. 26. But this is not certain. It may (like bnwn and obwn, also D*6miN) represent ^NSDfip, which would be a gloss on from ins. Tea, vii. 12, is partly parallel. Chap. v. i. In v. 3 we meet with a governor ot'Abar-nahard called ^nn. If this be Persian, we may choose between Thithina and Vistana (see E. Bib.y ' Tatnai '), but we shall hardly be quite satisfied. The forms Tavdavaio?, TavOavai, %avavai favour ^nan. This may point to "arm, which in 1 Chr. vi. 26 is pointed ^nw, but is perhaps rather rgp% = 'grm ' Ethani ' was an im- portant ethnic (see E. Bib., s.v.) derived from Ethmani. 2. WO intD. A plausible Persian original is wanting, inw, however, ought not to be obscure. 24 FRESH VOYAGES It is clearly •nnt&N (or — s?), i.e. a man of Ashtar (a synonym of Ashhur and Asshur). Cp. -int&, Esth. i. 14, one of the * seven princes' at the court of king * Ahasuerus,' i.e. Ashhur ; also onn, Esth. ii. 21, vi. 2, a saris \ and fimnn (B. Bib., ' Tarshish '). WQ is just as clear, ro (cp. ton) is ultimately a corruption of ^nsdbp ; see on Gen. xxii. 21. The links between -ora and *b**OVn are "^sdid and "OWl (see on ' Sibeon,' Gen. xxxvi. 2, 20). Was this person the secretary (Marq., p. 52)? 3. 'Koresh, king of Babel' (v. 13; cp. Neh. xiii. 6). The title might equally well be assumed by Persian and by Asshurite or 'Pathrosite' kings. In the one case ^on, in the other perhaps ^in, is the name of the city which they conquered. Cp. on vi. 22, vii. 12. 4. Has a name fallen out? Klost. reads, nott) 'm Sinr?, taking Sheshbazzar to be the official name. Cp. Dan. iv. 16. Chap. vi. 1. unon** {v, 2), i.e. the southern Hamath. In Isa. xi. 11 this important place is mentioned after iwm (see on Gen. x. 10, xi. 1-9). It was also, as appears from our passage rightly read, in the province of no (see on Gen. x. 2). In 2 K. xxiii. 33, xxv. 21, we read of f the land of Hamath.' It bordered on Israelitish territory (1 K. viii. 65). 2. 'King of Asshur' (v. 22), not inconsistent with 'king of Babel' (v. 13). The kingdom of EZRA 25 'Asshur' or 'Pathros' (Paras) included Babel. Cp. on v. 13. Chap. vii. 1. Can we really acquiesce in the cheap and here most unsatisfactory expedient of an alteration in the points of Tpi (i&) in v. 9 ? Surely N*in td^ must be a gloss, and as surely id^ is corrupt. J. Derenbourg {Journ. asiat., Oct. 1866) proposes to read D-p, i.e. Nuruz, the name of a Persian festival kept on the first day of the first month of the year, which with the Persians, as with the Jews of Ezra's time, began with the vernal equinox. The festival is referred to in the Talmud (see Jastrow's Lex., s.v. Dm). Cp. Kremer, Mittelsyrien, p. 127. Should we not rather read jd^i (cp. Neh. ii. 1)? 2. m^d ifro (v. 12). The title 'king of kings ' occurs often, though not always, in the inscrip- tions of the Achaemenidae. If this document was either written or edited as a firman from the Persian court the reading is unobjectionable, If, however, it was originally written as (in pretence) a N. Arabian document, it is obviously more appropriate to read ^«Dm^ l^D, ihn and '^bo being corruptions of ^NDm\ The same correction may be called for in Ezek. xxvi. 7, but hardly in Dan. ii. 2,7 in its present form. Cp. on vhyn nSo, iv. 14. 3. tdi, 'completed,' is strange. It is usual now to explain ' et cetera. 1 1 Esdr. viii. 13 gives xaipecv, as if tdi were equivalent to abw (' peace ') ; 2 Esdr. vii. 21, rereXearo X070?. It may, how- 26 FRESH VOYAGES ever, be compared with idi, Gen. x. 2, and come from Ton, i.e. &n^; ' Yarham ' (Yerahme'el) would be a gloss on n^db, which is thus explained to mean • Ishmael ' (cp. on D^Dttn vrfw, i. 2). 4. 'His own counsellors' (v. 14). Are critics quite satisfied with quoting this passage and Esth. i. 14 as a proof that the Persian king had seven privy councillors (so, e.g., Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Alt. iii. p. 43) ? Had the number seven no sacredness in N. Arabia ? Were the seven planets known in Babylonia and not in Arabia ? 5. In v. 25 is not the most natural meaning this — that all the people in 'Abar-nahara are to be judged in accordance with the religious law- book which Ezra carries with him, and that those who, not being Jews, are unacquainted with the usage (ttDtto) of the cult of Yah we are to be taught it? Parallel: 2 K. xvii. 25-28. The 'Abar-nahara is, I take it, not the great satrapy including (as is generally held) Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, but the region beyond the nahal Misrim or the nehar Perath (Ephrath), from the point of view of a N. Arabian king, itmtt (v. 26) is therefore to be explained as expatriation (cp. WT9, Ps. Hi. 7), not exclusion from the Jewish community (as Ryssel, comparing x. 8). Chap. viii. 1. Vv. 1-14 profess to give a register of the heads of gentes who accompanied Ezra. The majority of the names certainly, and all of them very probably, are such as would be EZRA 27 borne by persons of N. Arabian affinities. Natu- rally enough if, as Torrey holds, the author of the so-called Memoirs of Ezra is — the Chronicler. It will be enough here to explain the follow- ing names ; cp. Neh. vii. 6-730. ( a ) VW1 ; cp. mnn, Gen. xxii. 24, a son of hdin-i, a name which is a corruption of 'orm Both 'n and 'n may be corruptions of int&nN (see on 1 Chr. iv. 6), a modification of inmN, facilitated by the parallel form *int»N. (6) rratD = rp3ii&, which is to be grouped with wi» or mitt (the well-known Shebna, who was a N. Arabian adventurer), and pttN (Gen. xxxvi. 26), both which names come either from ptt) = ]Dtt, i.e. ^HWMT, or from )»l = Wdbf an» (see 7". and B. p. 571). (^) twnD, like YintDD (a priestly name), which comes from -nntDN-ms, may be safely traced to TND*rms. (d) n»iD nra. nra represents man = mn&a ; cp. DTmoa, Gen. x. 13. (e) yxvtnhtl A form, con- ventionalized religiously, of ^NDrrv; cp. yrbs, Gen. xiv. 18, and pf?s, Gen. xxvi. 23, both from some form of Snott. Cp. x. 22, where ' Elienai ' occurs in combination with ' Maaseiah ' (a name which includes a shortened form of * Ishmael ') and ' Ishmael.' In Chr. iv. 46 * Elienai ' occurs beside * Yaakobah ' (from * Ah'ab ') in a Simeonite genealogy. (/*) n*hr&. Plausible as an Assyrio- logical explanation may be (see E. Bid., 'Atha- liah '), a N. Arabian one is at any rate not less tenable. The original of "6ns (cp. x. 28) is 28 FRESH VOYAGES probably 'hmQXfcu (g) T3&*, probably from Ti-ntt, * Gadite Azzur.' (k) \bp\r{], from jroorn&H (cp. on 'Yoktan,' Gen. x. 25). (z) Dp^-r*, probably from 'dittt pa (cp. on 'Adonijah,' 2 S. iii. 4). D^nnN[n] follows, on which Guthe makes this remark, ' We have in this word either a corruption of the text, or an otherwise unknown technical term referring to the genealogical registers.' Siegfried, ' The addition Vtn introduces the fol- lowing names as belonging to a later develop- ment of the family.' Ryssel frankly confesses, ' What caused this designation, we cannot tell.' Yet, if their critical methods had not been so narrow, these learned scholars would not have been driven to such straits. The case is nearly or quite parallel to that of im* ins, Neh. vii. 33, and nnN ah^, Ezra. ii. 31, Neh. vii. 34, where inn represents undoubtedly intDN. Cp. also D^in«n, 2 S. xxiii. 1. 'Eliphelet,' 'Yeuel,' and ' Shem- aiah ' are all found in Chron., and proved by critical inspection of the names and of those near which they occur to be N. Arabian. The clan of 'Adonikam,' therefore, was not merely Ashhurite by name (this would be unknown), but Ashhurite by residence, if not also by immediate descent. Vv. 15-30 describe the assembling of Ezra's company near a certain stream. We have care- fully to examine the name of the river; it is 'the river that goes to Ahava' (v. 15), also 'the EZRA 29 stream Ahava' (vv. 21, 31). It is generally assumed by critics that one of the more important canals of the Euphrates is meant. But we have first to get the best reading. Such forms l as eveifi eem, aove, do not help us any further ; dove and \p~]aova6 help us by suggesting that a n should be restored ; eveifi suggests a d, and 6epa[y] a i ; while toZ? veavlo-Koi? (1 Esdr. viii. 49) probably represents trmxarh*. The most important of these forms are obviously Oepa and rot? veaviaicois. The former suggests an original m«, i.e. mDN ; the latter, D*ns 'airS^ where 'sn = -iron, and tn* may come from DTP, will suit here. The its hm (so read for mns bm) is referred to in Am. vi. 14. The msfx] -im also occurs often (see on Gen. ii. 14, xv. 18; Jer. xiii. 4 ff.). One of the southern border-streams (sometimes called Ninw) is most probably meant. There was a Jewish settlement beside the stream called 4 Chebar ' in Ezekiel's time (Ezek. i. 1 etc.), and from 2 K. xvii. 6, xviii. 11 (= 1 Chr. v. 26) there appear to have been Israelitish exiles beside the 'stream of Gozan ' called Habor. 2 It is probable that 'Habor' and 'Chebar' ('Kebar') are really the 1 For the Biblical sources of the names, see the Heb. Lexicon, or E. Bib., < Ahava.' 2 See E. Bib., ' Gozan,' ' Halah,' and especially Crit. Bib. on 2 K. xvii. 5/ Stade and Schwally (in SBOT) are thorough as regards the collection of one class of facts, but leave all the rest out, not having looked underneath MT. and the text of <*£. Burney passes over the whole question. 30 FRESH VOYAGES same name, and a critical study of the parallel, i Chr. v. 26, makes it very likely that in an earlier form of that passage N-iriN stood in the margin as a gloss on -nin tfirm or n-i™. One may add that it is most probably = nn&>M (i.e. ihp), i.e. the stream called 'Habor' (or Chebar ?) was also called * Ahava.' The region where it flowed was called, most probably, not ' Gozan,' but ' Bozan ' (i.e. Sibeon [pis], i.e. Swdbt) ; and one may perhaps venture to add, Dimn, i.e. trjN-indto (disguised in MT. of Ezek. i. 3 as Dnbn). The view here given is, I hope, an improvement on that given in the Amer. Journ. TheoL, July 1901. in for *im (though supported by (g's oprj MrjScov in 1 K. xvii. 6) is needlessly bold. The rest of the proposal, however, is sound, and in particular hi* Nin is, like nVtn, almost certainly a corruption of b«Dn[T]. Rawlinson's connexion of n^hn with Talm. VTN = mod. Hit, N.W. of Babylon, is ingenious, but certainly wrong. 2. The names in viii. 16 are common ones ; their N. Arabian affinities can hardly be denied (cp. Amer. Journ. Theol., 1891, p. 435). d^ni is questionable ; often wm and mjn turn out to be a corruption of "ie>m. Here, however, we may be content with tfngti (see on Neh. vii. 45, 1 Chr. ix. 17). This explains the phrase 'his brethren the Nethinim ' ; the Shoarim and the Nethinim, i.e. originally the Asshurites and the Ethanites, were closely connected. EZRA 31 3. vtn (v. 17) here only. Is it for rr$ ? Or from p*rs> (Neh. vii. 6i) = ;*t« (Ezra ii. 59)? — mwin. It is an unsuitable guess when Siegfr. declares that Iddo was a secular chief appointed by the Persians; read-is&n. The 'Ethanites '(Nethinim) are ' his brethren ' ; read XTWt\ t following 1 Esdr. 4. We have now reached a singular specimen of bad textual criticism on the part of the ancient redactor. 'At Casiphia the place* {v. 17)! At the very least we should have expected 'dd Dhpp. But why D*ipD at all ? And what is n^ddD ? HaleVy (Journ. asiat., July- Aug. 1900) replies, Borsippa ; Winckler {A OF, 2nd sen, iii. 509^), Opis- Seleucia - Ctesiphon. Nor must we omit to mention that both 1 Esdr. and 2 Esdr. connect n^ddd with ?]dd, 'silver.' The one (1 Esdr. viii. 44) has iv to3 T07Tft) [tou] ya%ov\a/ciov, the other (2 Esdr. viii. 17) iv dpyvpia> rod tottov. This is not, indeed, correct, but it points in the right direction, whereas both Halevy and Winckler are very wide of the mark, pjdd is indeed sometimes the corrupt form of a place-name — probably "nnttE (see e.g. Isa. xlviii. 10, lii. 3; Mines of Isaiah, p. 129). Add to this that in Gen. xii. 6, xviii. 24, Isa. xxviii. 8, Ezek. xxxviii. 11, Hos. ii. 1, DlpD is a worn -down fragment of opT, i.e. ^nonr. The result is that DlpDtTOCD represents d^ndht intDD (cp. DpDS, Jer. xlvii. 5), unless indeed n*>ddd is a corruption of t\W2N, a place-name mentioned with Shimron, in a narrative which originally referred 32 FRESH VOYAGES to a defeat of the N. Arabians (see Crit. Bib. pp. 4i 3> 446#). 5. h$Q btm (z>. 17) has much puzzled the critics. Neither 'a man of discretion' nor Ish- sekel (an unattested personal name) is probable. Now that it has been shown that hiwx represents an ancient N. Arabian tribe-name and place-name (cp. on Gen. xiv. 13, Num. xiii. 23/.), the cor- rection to be made is obvious. The w is due to ' Volksetymologie.' 6. The other names also point to N. Arabia ; e.g. Mahli = Yerahme'eli (cp. Mahal, Mahlon), Sherebiah (cp. Sheber, a son of Caleb by Maakah, 1 Chr. ii. 48), Hashabiah (see on ' Heshbon,' Num. xxi. 26), Merari. 7. Can any one believe that the ' Nethinim ' (v. 20) were temple-slaves, given (as a gloss declares) by David and the princes for the service of the Levites ? Not as slaves, but as free men, do these persons join the company of returning exiles, and though they do not sign the great 1 covenant,' yet they do unite with their ' brethren ' in a solemn oath to walk in God's laws and to marry within the holy people (Neh. x. 2Zff.). They also have a residence at Jerusalem, which is referred to as a well-known point in topo- graphical descriptions (Neh. iii. 31), and they share immunity from taxation with the priests and Levites (vii. 24). 1 1 See Ainer. Journ. Theol. v. 436^ (Cheyne). EZRA 33 8. Must we not admit that the old methods are baffled by the textual difficulties of v. 2yd? First, D^tD. We have no right to follow Luc, and to read ims d^B) (Seta 8vo), for 8vo, as Guthe has seen, is most probably a correction after MT. But how shall the presence of '& be accounted for ? Experience of newer methods helps us here. MB) not unfrequently represents jobf, i.e. ^nsdbt, the Ishmaelite or Yerahme'elite country on the N. Arabian border. That 'copper' (brass) was common in this region, is abundantly proved, if we accept the results of the more critical point of view. Copper or brass vessels are said to have been found in Jericho (the southern Jericho), Josh. vi. 24. Hiram, who came from [Mis]sor, was a bronze worker, 1 K. vii. 14. From Hadad- ezer, king of Zobah, David took ■ exceeding much brass,' and from (the southern) Hamath David received vessels of brass fit to dedicate, with the silver and the gold, to Yahwe (2 S. viii. 10/.). Of these notices — all of them important — one is specially valuable in this connexion. There was a southern as well as a northern Zobah, and the southern Zobah can be discerned by an ex- perienced critic in the Ezra passage before us. That mitt and ins may represent the same word, is pointed out in E. Bib., s.v. ' Brass.' But what the original word was, could not be stated. Now, however, it is probable that the textual word is nils. Read rrnifco r\wm +&u The word n:m was 3 34 FRESH VOYAGES glossed, and from the margin there intruded the further gloss par = Snsdid\ The closing words, liTO nmon, are explained by 2 S. viii. io£, 11. The best bronze was but little less valued than gold. Chap. ix. In z;. 1, as usually read, the posi- tion of the Egyptians between the Moabites and the Amorites, and also that of the Ammonites, Moabites, and Egyptians between the Jebusites and the Amorites, is somewhat strange. It would be a slight improvement to read ^mn for •no^n, following 1 Esdr. viii. 6 (which also passes over the Ammonites). But ^dinh may be better (see Crit. Bib. on Ezek. xvi. 3). Of course, 'the Misrites ' spoken of are not those of Egypt but of N. Arabia. Chap. x. i. The names in vv. 18-43 are n ^ e those in the lists of Chronicles. "QTOd invites scepticism. 1 Esdr. ix. 34 has, koI Ik tcov vl&v Efapa = Tito tt&u '3D may represent ilT) ^id, and be a dittograph of li["r]3 ^id in v. 43. Cp. E. Bib., ' Machnadebai.' 2. mpn p {v. 15) occurs again in 2 K. xxii. 14. 'n is a corruption of ifipn, i.e. the southern 1 Tekoa ' ; the name is probably a form of rosD (the southern Maacath). Cp. yip, Ezek. xxiii. 23, which must have a similar origin. See on Jer. vi. 1, and E. Bib., 'Tekoa.' — chwo, a con- ventionalized form of tfow, i.e. ^nsdb\ — ^nntD, a variation of Tisnm ('one belonging to Shib'ah ') EZRA 35 or ^nott, i.e. tids (see E. Bib., ' Shabbethai '). ^nnm also occurs in a Sinaitic inscription (Cook, Gloss, p. in), where it should have the same origin. CHAPTER IV NEHEMIAH Can we find any grains of fact in this product of the imagination ? We must at any rate learn to read underneath the present text. Winckler thinks there has been much clever Uberarbeitung. Chap. i. i. According to some eminent critics, rr^or? (v. i) should be n&tfj (Noldeke, E. Bib., ■ Names,' § 24). There is no evidence known that the early Jewish scholars took this view, and we need not go out of our way to diminish the number of names which even those scholars did not recognize as religious. The name ought in the first instance to be grouped with rhvn (1 S. xxiii. 19, xxvi. 1 /.), the name of a place in David's early wanderings, pbn too may be com- pared. This is the name of one of the mountains or mountain-ranges (Josh. xi. 17 [a%e\, B], xii. 7), and is also probably a clan-name (Hilkiah, 2 K. xxii. 4), also ^jhn (Helkai, Neh. xii. 15). It is best to trace all these forms to bint*, i.e. ^rr-inmN. nw in proper names constantly represents intDN, and bl (hi) is shortened from ^n, which originally 36 NEHEMIAH 37 meant, not merchant, but Yerahme'elite. Nehe- miah, then, was D^nn p, * a son of the Raclites,' i.e. was of N. Arabian extraction. This explains the sequel. 2. ' Shushan,' from the ordinary point of view, is unobjectionable. If, however, other phenomena point decidedly to there being an underlying text, in which a dominant N. Arabian power takes the place at present usually assigned to Persia, we may take the original reading to have been |0D#, i.e. 'belonging to Shemesh= Ishmael.' Cp. on ^mt&rr, iii. 30, and on D^mttr^, in PsS 2) , Introd. p. xlviii j 1 cp. also )tt>tt, 1 Chr. ii. 31, and Traditions and Beliefs, p. 488 (note 2). 3. For ' the God of heaven ' here, and in ii. 4, 20, see note 2 on Ezra i. 4. 'Now I was cup-bearer to the king ' (v. 1 lb). A remarkable statement, if the reference is to a king of Persia ; for the office of royal cup-bearer was much sought after by high Persian nobles in the earlier period, though afterwards it was only committed to eunuchs. Apart from this, it is strange that a Jew should be cup-bearer ; what was it that made Artaxerxes so friendly to the Jews? Did he wish to reward them for not taking part in the revolt of the Syrian satrap Megabyzos {Jewish Religious Life after the 1 Cp. also the names quoted by Noldeke (E. Bib.^ • Names,' § 58) as reduplicated forms originating with small children — a view very far from correct. 38 FRESH VOYAGES Exile, p. 38)} The conjecture is natural, but it would be a boon to be relieved from the necessity of making it. If the original back- ground of the narrative is N. Arabian, this relief is obtained. A Jewish cup-bearer at the court of the king of ' Pathros ' (see note 1 on Ezra i.) is not less easy to understand than a Hebrew vizier of the king of Misrim in a far older narrative (Gen. xli. 39-43). Whether the statement is historical, is quite another matter. Chap. ii. 1. Can we not get some fresh light on * Sanballat the Horonite ' (as he is called in MT. of vv. 10, 19), whose name and residence have led to so much discussion among critics ? Let us begin with ^iriri. What does the pointing supply ? Is ' Horon ' the short for ' Beth-horon ' ? or equivalent to the Moabitish Horonaim, rather Horon of Yam (see end of note) ? Or should we, with Klost. (Gesck. p. 263), point -gin, and suppose that Sanballat was descended from the family of Israelitish priests which was sent back to Bethel the northern, and which may originally have been carried away to the northern Haran. This implies that one of the elements in the name pointed 1 Sanballat ' is ■ Sin ' (the name of the Babylonian moon-god). But does Efcap really, as Schrader supposed (KAT (2 \ p. 382), come from Sin- uballit[anni], i.e. * Sin caused [me] to live ' ? This is the second point to consider. Winckler insists on Sin-muballit, but this can hardly be NEHEMIAH 39 the origin of the Hebrew form. Let us try another course. In the case of rmroD (see Crit. Bib. on 2 K. xviii. 13) we have been led to doubt the existence of the divine name ' Sin ' as an element in this compound name. We may well do the same here, and hold b^idd to have come from ^irrl&>, where |tt> (see Crit. Bib. on ]t&, 1 S. xiv. 4) represents ^NSEttr. Cp. Crit. Bib. on H3D3D, Josh. xv. 31. From iv. 2 it would appear that 'Sanballat' was, in a large sense (cp. 2 K. xvii. 24), a Shimronite. He belonged, in fact, to the mixed population of worshippers of Yahwe in N. Arabia. ' Haranite ' is probably correct ; the southern Haran is intended, the place known elsewhere as d* 1 pn, Haran of Yam ( = Yaman ; see Two Religions > Index). 2. Why 'Tobiah' is called 'the slave,' the commentators have not satisfactorily explained. He would seem to have been Sanballat's equal ; in Neh. vi. 12, 14 he is even mentioned before Sanballat. Yet the explanation is simple. Who that has any experience in textual criticism can fail to see that insn has come from -awr, 'the Arabian,' which a scribe wrote in error, and as usual left undeleted, ^msn comes very soon afterwards (see next note) ; cp. on iv. i. As to the name rrilfc, there should be no doubt as to y)to. This occurs as the name of a region in Judg. xi. 3, 5 and (in a compound name) in 2 S. x. 6, 8. It most probably comes from ^nn, an 40 FRESH VOYAGES ancient abbreviation of fpsnriN, i.e. f?N*D»\ rv or irr may originally have represented m\ i.e. urw. The name must have been early conventionalized in a religious sense, but continued to be specially N. Arabian. 3. ' Geshem the Arabian ' ; also ' Gashmu ' (vi. 6). Prof. H. P. Smith surely goes too far when he says that the origin of the title Arabian ' cannot now be made out \Old Test. History, p. 384). It is not enough, however, to connect (with Euting) the name TOBHi (pointing icah) with the Sinaitic proper name lOBO, and to account for the prominence of an Arabian in S. Palestine by the great Nabataean migration into Edom (see E. Bib., 'Geshem'; ' Arabia,' § 6 ; ' Edom,' § 9 ; Winckler, GI, i. 203). The key to the name is furnished by the reference to \sri among the Calebites, 1 Chr. ii. 47, where (g A gives wpaaii. Geshan, Gershom, Gershon, Goshen are, in fact, to be all grouped together, and all arise out of am = intD = inti*. Cp. ®, Gen. xlv. 10, yrj yeo-e/j, 'Apafila*. To compare Arabic jasuma, ' to be bulky, massive,' is unwise. Chap. hi. i. The name 'sheep-gate' has been variously explained. Originally it may have been ps UrtD, where ps (like )n!s in 1 S. xvi. 11, xvii. 34, and elsewhere) represents ^nsdbt. Cp. on w. 3, 13, 28. 2. Can it be rash to question the reading fnjia Hndh, 'tower of the hundred' (v. 1), and to class the expression with srriNn nnp, xi. 25, Gen. xxxv. NEHEMIAH 41 27? Not unfrequently {e.g. in Gen. xiv. 14, xv. 13, Judg. viii. 10, 1 S. xviii. 27, 2 K. xix. 35) HMD has possibly come from some corruption of f?Nom\ This is probably the case here. May we not also plausibly suppose that bmm 'd is another name of the same town, since Vr is probably a modification of ^NC^n, i.e. ^NDnT ^bn (cp. \c>n, ' a pillar of Baal-Yerahme'el '). So too in xii. 39. 3. Why the fish-gate (v. 3) ? The answer is not satisfactory. Parallels suggest onan '», ' gate of the Gadites.' Cp. Num. xxxii. 1. 4. (7N3DH ^1 (in Ezra ii. 35 without art.), v. 3 ; in Neh. xi. 9, nN^Dn. Are critics really satisfied with the current explanations — even with that of the eminent historian Ed. Meyer (see E. Bib., col. 197 1) ? ' Senaah ' is apparently a place-name, and, like so many others, indicates its Ishmaelite origin by its name, if we have experience to enlighten us. In 2 Chr. xiii. 19 'Yeshanah' is mentioned; in the parallel, 1 S. vii. 13, © and Pesh. support the same reading. ;bt, like ]tt>, job, and mtDD, is sometimes a corruption of ^N2D»\ This leads one to ask further, whether in v. 6 we should do best to read * the gate of Yeshanah ' (omitting the art.) or ' of Ishmael ' (restoring 'dot) ? 5. ^Nirma See T. and B. on Gen. xxxvi. 39 (Mehetabel). 6. D^ns, in v. 8, surely not 'goldsmiths,' i.e. belonging to that guild. Read •'Dnsn-p, £#. * son of a Sarephite' ( = Sarephathite). So in v. 31. 42 FRESH VOYAGES Similarly, for DTipn-p (of the guild of perfumers !) read D^psrrDiN-p, 'son of an Aram-Hanokite. 1 Cp. 2 S. xv. 1 7, ' and they tarried in Beth-merhak * (R.V.), where Beth-merhak comes from Beth- Aram-Hanok, the name of the meeting-place of David's Arabian bodyguard. The improbable name rrmn, which now intervenes between p and 'is, is a corruption either of a misplaced gloss mnn (so S. A. Cook, B. Bib., ' Harhaiah'), or rather of Trpirr, a similar scribal error to that mentioned in note 2 on chap. ii. 7. In v. 10 (also ix. 5), mnmn either miswritten for n^wrt (v. 17) or a corruption of rmnt&n (see on viii. 4). 8. 'Dung-gate' (v. 13)? Ash-heap gate? Surely not. monton "ism probably comes from nD[-i]s 'w, * gate of Sarephath.' Cp. BDm (personal name), ultimately from nons or nss. 9. What can ' the upper house of the king ' {v. 26) mean ? Or shall we, with @ and margin of R.V., understand 'the upper tower . . . from the house of the king ' ? And even in this case the meaning of 'the house of the king' is obscure. The problem is complicated by the circumstance that v. 26 is introduced by the words (which are evidently a gloss), ' Now the Nethinim dwelt in Ophel.' It can, however, be simplified by textual criticism. l^OT in Num. xx. 17, 2 S. xiv. 26, Jer. 1 For the Hanokite (or Anakite) tribe, see The Veil, pp. 8, 5 1 ; 2 and p interchanging. NEHEMIAH 43 xxxvi. 26, xxxviii. 6, like lf?o in -fScraN, etc., is an early development of pbcu = ^NDrrr. A plausible meaning of \vbzn iSdh rrn now presents itself, — 1 the upper house of Yerahme'el ' (i.e. of the Yerah- me'elites). And if we ask who ' the Yerahme'elites ' in this connexion are, the reply is easy ; it was probably a guild, or group of guilds, of temple- ministers, such as the So'arim (originally Asshurim) and the Nethinim (originally Ethanim). In v. 31 we meet with a * house of the Nethinim'; that the Nethinim or Ethanites were Yerahme'elites or N. Arabians, is clear. See, further, on vii. 44-46, x. 21, and cp. Amer. Journ. Theol. v., 1901, p. 440. 10. ' The gate of the horses ' (v. 28) ? But if 1 Hazar-susah ' (Josh. xix. 5) and ' Hazar-susim ' (1 Chr. iv. 31) have come from Ashhur-ishmael — and thorough critics can hardly doubt this — nstt d^didh has grown out of ^nsdbt -iim. See T. and B. p. 488 (note 2), and cp. next note. 11. ' Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph ' (v. 30) ? A testing passage. All that the ordinary criticism can say is that "•mtttn may be a mutilated and corrupt form of Trot riBn (Ryssel ; see v. 13), or that it may cover over a statement as to Hanun's birthplace (Reuss, Guthe). The latter view, which Guthe only presents as a ' suspicion/ seems to me in the highest degree probable. For it is a fact of ex- perience that d*id (see note 9) and &na> or WW have repeatedly come out of some one of the N. Arabian race- or district-names, viz. either T)$n or, better, 44 FRESH VOYAGES TH&DBft We may therefore venture to explain •>»&, both here and in Josh. xv. 14, Judg. i. 10, as = ; DtD\ Cp. TOP, 1 Chr. v. 14. For *]f?s = bis, i.e. 'dbt, cp. *|*?tt>, z.£. ^ibp, Gen. x. 26, and -maSs, i.e. -nrr^Q!r, Num. xxvi. 33. 12. 'Goldsmiths' (z/. 31)? ' Nethinim ' ? 1 Merchants ' ? See notes 6 and 8, and note that Guthe (1896) has already suggested that^Dis may be = , »nDis, though he still hesitates because 'the context points to a goldsmith.' This is because he supposes whynn to mean the ' merchants.' But who can doubt that byy, like ^m, sometimes represents ^ndttp ? So e.g. in 1 K. x. 15, Ezek. xvii. 4, Cant. iii. 6. Possibly, too, tihn> 'merchants' (see xiii. 20), has the same origin ; i.e. a modifica- tion of D^NDnr became used for 'merchants' because of the high commercial reputation of the N. Arabians. I 3* © gives fcal elirev ivocuriov t(ov CLVTOV, AvTTJ 7] Svva/M? %0/JLOpCOV, OTl 01 'lovBaiOL OVTOLy etc. >m frn m, i.e. 'w 'n is a gloss. Read, however, 'tt ^NDnT m, i.e. ' this means Yer.-Shimron,' gloss on vrw. 14. The alteration of d^dnh (v. 34) into nh^rt (Guthe, following (g) is parallel to that of Wwn (Isa. x. 10) into rrWr (SBOT, following @). Both changes are wrong, i.e., if we wish for a satisfactory sense, and one that harmonizes with our results elsewhere, we must read, in the one case, some form of D^Monm, and in the other, NEHEMIAH 45 some form of f?Nom\ Luc. combines the readings d^dnh and nSwrr, both practically corruptions of d^dn. The statement of Jos. Ant. xi. 7. 2, that Sanballat was Persian governor of Samaria, is unhistorical. On his further state- ment see on Ezra iv. 9-1 1, and see Winckler, A OF, 2nd series, ii. 230. It is possible that we have two glosses on THH, viz. ( 1 ) p*iDtt> Vrv and (2) d^dn. Thus we get, ' And he said before his brethren (glosses, Yerahme'el - Shimron ; the Amalites), What are the Jews doing?' Chap. iv. For DnrrtDNn (v. i) we might read n^^NH. Cp. @ BA , Am. iii. 9, h 'kaavpLois, where MT. has YntDNi. The name 'Asshur' is, of course, archaizing. Similarly in xiii. 23 (see note). But, inasmuch as Ashdod is simply = ' Asshur- Dod,' this is not strictly necessary. There were probably several Ashdods. Chap. vi. 1. Sanballat is the representative of populations of mixed origin in the N. Arabian borderland. The narrator evidently believes that the territory occupied by the Jews under Nehe- miah extended into this region (see on vii. 6ff. y xi. 25 ff). He therefore represents Sanballat as suggesting for a rendezvous and place in the borderland, not far probably from his own territory, if it did not even lie within it. d*hdd is very possibly the same as iiTDD, one of the Gibeonite place-names, a deformation of Akrabbah (The Veil, p. 127). h:riN also in Ezra 46 FRESH VOYAGES ii. 33, Neh. vii. $j, xi. 35 (see note), 1 Chr. viii. 12. That On, Onam, Onan, and Ono are specially southern names is at any rate made highly probable in E. Bib., ' On,' etc. ; cp. also on Gen. xli. 45, Am. i. 5, Hos. iv. 15. In xi. 34, Lod (i.e. ixhi ; cp. on trrb, Gen. x. 1 3) and ' Ono ' stand in apposition to CPOnim "0, which has evidently come from En^NftN % 'valley of the Ashhurites.' 'Ono also occurs in Hos. xii. 3, where read, ' In Ethbaal he tricked Ashhur, and in Ono he fought with Elohim.' Even @ (Hos.) still preserves a record that the contest took place in ' Beth-on.' 2. ' Mehetabel ' (v. 10) ; see T. and B. on Gen. xxxvi. 39. Chap. vii. 1. Bertheau-Ryssel comment thus on the words 4 and I found written therein,' v. 5 : ' It is clear that Nehemiah saw reason to insert the following register or catalogue in his memoir. From this memoir, together with the other sections derived from it, the register came into the Book of Nehemiah, and so it is explained how the document already known to us from Ezra ii. is repeated here.' Torrey, however, advocates the view that both vv. 1-5 and the so-called register are the Chronicler's work. It remains to ask what is the source from which the writer of vii. 5 professes to have derived the register. According to our present text he calls it nrntDhm tshym mrrn nDD. But the two last words cannot grammatically be connected with NEHEMIAH 47 the two first. Guthe (SBOT) is content to remark that 'in xAvftl must be a later addition. But why this addition ? The truth probably is that D^ns[n], like D^ns (Gen. xxi. 33), represents either ^nsdbt or f?NDrrp, and is a gloss on the word which underlies EDrrrr. That word is, probably, nnm« ; that ' Asshur ' and ' Yerahme'el ' were used synonymously, we have seen again and again. Just as norn idd has come from noD i^n, so mrrrr f D represents inrnw 'd. The book so called may have contained all sorts of docu- ments relative to Asshur or Yerahme'el (cp. on monr^o idd, i.e. ^nDrr^orMBD, 1 Num. xxi. 14). It may be objected that, just before, we meet with the cognate verbal form mrrnn*? ; but this only shows how easy it was for 'nm^ to become corrupted into a word which occurs nowhere else — mm. There still remains rmwo. This probably comes from YiffiN-ms, for 11 often stands for m* and mw for tiidn. 2. The true superscription of the document (framed, as Torrey thinks, by the Chronicler) is rrDnnn m rhn (v. 6), to which two glosses were added. When the corruption had taken place, it was natural for *oi rhvn ^imo to be added. It will be noticed that the names in vv. 6-67 and xi. 4-36 point, upon the whole, to the N. Arabian borderland. Many of the exiles who returned 1 nho comes from some form of Sunnr (cp. ntan tn and mo from Sion ( = Ishmael) ; see The Veil, p. 157/ 48 FRESH VO YA GES seem to have settled in the part of that region which adjoined Judah. The others, too, were at any rate deeply interested in, and probably con- nected with, the borderland, 3. As to the twelve names in this list, it is not denied that names pointing to N. Arabia might quite well have been borne by northern Israelites. It is, however, a remarkable fact that all the names are of this character, and we must also remember that the setting of the list — i.e. the narratives among which it is placed — also refers us to the borderland. For ' Zerubbabel ' see on Ezra iv. 3; for ' Jeshua' = * Joshua,' on the name of Jesus (below). ' Nehemiah,' 'Nahamani,' and ' Nehum ' all have the same root, and point to the south (cp. ' Naham,' 1 Chr. iv. 19 ; and on 1 Noah,' Gen. v. 29 ; also on ' Menahem,' 2 K. xv. 14). 'Azariah' is, in some of its occurrences (see E. Bib., s.v.), plainly a Yerahme'elite name. ' Raamiah' (mom) — in Ezra ii., Reeliah (rrf?in) — of course comes from ' Yerahme'el ' ; cp. nSmo, Josh, xix. 11. ' Mordecai,' doubtless, looks like the Bab. name Mardukeia, which is a formation from Marduk (a hard formation ; see Johns, AJSL, April 1902, p. 159), and when the name occurs in the Book of Esther, it has furnished some of the material for a complicated and ingenious mytho- logical explanation of the origin of the Esther story. It is, however, a strong objection (see on Esth. ii. 5) to this view of the name in Esther, NEHEMIAH 49 that the other names with which ■ Mordecai ' is grouped are of quite another character ; and here, too, the name thus understood would stand alone among the twelve, * Zerubbabel,' as we have seen, not being of Babylonian origin. It so happens that we have a Calebite name ' Mered,' which Luc. gives as BapaB (i Chr. iv. 17) ; also a name Bered (1 Chr. vii. 20). This probably comes from Bir-dadda, 1 a N. Arabian name mentioned by Asurbanipal, and which also seems to underlie 1 Berodach-baladan ' in 2 K. xx. 12. Not im- probably -otio comes from Tnn, and this from TTQ (Bar-dad; cp. Tin, Gen. xxxvi. 35). — The ' Belsar ' of 1 Esdr. v. 8 = Baal-Asshur. ■ Bilshan ' (MT.) is to be explained like ' Bishlam,' Ezra iv. 7. Both \wh and t&w are current corruptions of ^MWDBT ; initial 1 represents 112?. — ' Mispereth ' is to be grouped with ' Misrephoth-maim' (Josh. xi. 8), i.e. Sarephath-yaman ; cp. 1 Esdr. v. 8, aafyapaaos. A connexion with Old Pers. aspadata (also pro- posed for ' Aspatha,' Esth. ix. 7) is unsuitable. — 1 Bigwai ' or (better) 4 Bagoi ' (v. 9 ; Ezra viii. 14), Wellh. identifies with Persian ' Bagoas,' and infers the late origin of the list. Meyer (Entstehung, J 57 ff-) disputes this. Directly after the capture of Babylon, a Jew may have adopted the * Persian name/ But Persian names are improbable (see on Esther); baga, 'god,' does not help us. il is possibly from n = iNnM; see The Veil, p. 148. 1 So Eberhard Schrader. Could we read Bardadda ? 4 5o FRESH VOYAGES Or we might read *i:a, Binnui (ii. 24) ; cp. Baanah, Bani, Benaiah. 4. Proceeding to the laity at large, we find first the ' ben£ Par osh,' a name which drives the critics into a corner. Par osh, 'flea,' may not indeed be much worse than Gaal or Gual, ' dung- beetle,' and Delitzsch may illustrate the name by the Assyrian name Parsu'u ('flea'?). It still remains incredible that the most eminent non- Levitical ' father's house ' (see E. Bib., ' Parosh ') should have borne the name ' Flea-clan.' Meyer, in his reply to Wellhausen {Julius Wellhausen und meine Schrift, etc., 1897, P- 21 )> thinks that it may have been a satirical name, but how are we helped by this ? Textual criticism ought to help us to certainty. And so it does. To compare 'Shepher' (Num. xxxiii. 23/) and ' Shiphrah ' (Ex. i. 15) would be too easy an expedient. But the initial letters id, which are indistinguish- able from td, at once remind us of po, rno, ^Nn~TD, YisrnD 1 (see Num. i. 10), and it most fortunately happens that, quite apart from mmo, we find it necessary to explain ib in these names as in = ms, and the important clan-name Yint&D (cp. on Jer. xx. 1) as equivalent to Tint&N-ns. This gives us the key to msno, which most probably comes from -i^hm. Both Bar-Ashhur and Bar-Asshur, then, are in the first instance names of districts. 5. Passing by Shephatiah (cp. on 'Shaphat,' 1 ps (MT. ■ Paddan ') comes from jibn = janx ; nns from lnvmy. NEHEMIAH 51 i K. xix. 16) and Arah (certainly not 'wayfarer' [Noldeke], for inN has often come from inrnw), we pause at inid nm. The clan so called fell into two branches, Jeshua and Joab. 'Jeshua' appears in Neh. xi. 26 (see note), where it takes the place of the Shema of Josh. xv. 26 and the Sheba of Josh. xix. 2. ' Yoab ' occurs in the form * Atroth-beth-Yoab ' in 1 Chr. ii. 54 ; its people was a son of Salma, b. Hur, b. Caleb. Also in 1 Chr. iv. 14, as the name of a son of Seraiah, b. Kenaz ; here it receives a singular addition, generally rendered ' father of the valley of smiths, for they were smiths.' This valley with the strange name occurs again in xi. 35, after the place-names Lod and Ono. Several of these names are evidently corrupt, and the true originals at once suggest themselves. ' Atroth ' certainly = Ashtoreth ( = Ashhoreth) ; see on Dt. i. 4, iii. 17. Yoab = Yarhu-' Arab (The Veil, pp. 149/); Hur = Ashhur; D^ann una (valley of smiths) = Denote* *(% * valley of Ashhurites,' while ^1n, prefixed to the latter phrase in 1 Chr. iv. 14, most probably (as often) represents an original ms. Evidently the names are southern, and most prob- ably they attach properly to N. Arabian localities. And now as to i*od nno. That this is impossible as a personal name, is rightly felt by Meyer, but he himself has no light to throw on the name. Yet the origin of nra is plain ; it is of course to be grouped with nno^ (Josh. xv. 43) and Wnw 52 FRESH VOYAGES (Josh. xix. 14, 27), and nnsr, like nir (probably), comes from mriED, whence DTrnDD, the name of a tribe said to have descended from D*ttQ (the N. Arabian Musri) in Gen. x. 13. 1 It should also be combined with men (usually explained 4 apple-town,' Josh. xii. 17 2 ) and with non (Num. xxi. 30). Whether inid is right may be questioned. We should perhaps have expected 1NV. Cp. E. Bid., ' Pahath-moab.' 6. ' Elam ' (v. 12) — what is this? The name of a clan which had been settled in Elam ? No, but one of the many clan -names and district - names which in days long-past had been cor- rupted from ' Yerahme'el,' and which record the wide extent of the N. Arabian migration. In v. 34 we have, apparently, 'another Elam,' but really ■ Elam of Ashhur ' ("int&N d9m>). Torrey {Ezra Studies, pp. 166/]) is baffled by ' Elam.' No wonder. 7. ' Azgad ' (v. 1 7) probably comes from Azzur- Gad. See Mines of Isaiah, p. 144 ; The Veil of Hebrew History, p. 15. 'Adonikam' (v. 18); cp. on Ezra viii. 13. — n^N, ' Ater' (v. 21), not 'left- handed ' (Noldeke), but from -intDN = "nn»w. rmtts (see note 5) has the same origin. — 'Hashum ' ; cp. Heshmon, Hashmonah (as a widely represented southern clan-name ; see occurrences, and below, 1 T. and B. p. 378. 2 See The Veil of Hebrew History, p. 1 1 9 (n. 1 ) ; The Two- Religions, p. 348. NEHEMIAH 53 on Asmonaeans). — inw 113 (v. 33) ; in Ezra ii. 29 simply inD. Read intDN ins ; cp. note 6, and Mines of Isaiah, pp. 136/ — hmdd (#. 38), but in iii. 3 nwon. To be grouped with mD, 1 S. xiv. 4 ; ]wn, 1 S. vii. 12; man, 2 Chr. xiii. 19; romo, xi. 9 (see note) ; nsDN, Gen. xli. 45 ; p», Isa. x. 27 (see CWV. 2?z&). The common original of all these forms is *at»tt\ — 'Pashhur' ; see onz>. 8. — mnn (v. 43) ; cp. rr>i*\7i\ From 'rrr imi\ i.e. Yerahme'elite Judah. Note that a certain Yehudi (Jer. xxxvi. 14) is a descendant of Cushi. I need hardly say that ^DTp, like Wiop (Gen. xxii. 21), represents a distorted ^HOm\ 8. On the parallel, Ezra ii. 41, Berth.-Rys. remarks : ■ Of the three great classes of singers — Asaph, Jeduthun, Heman (1 Chr. xxv.) — only some (128) of the class of Asaph return.' Possibly, however, the title D^-nmon, prefixed to *]dn m, was intended to refer to the D'nst&n ^l (originally d^yibn ^1), the D^rna (originally d^jtn), and the nzhw *TW TS3 (originally htwnw in* ^l) ; l i.e. all these clans, of N. Arabian origin, were devoted to the service of sacred song. In this connexion note no^B, from ^MttHP, in headings of certain psalms and collection of proverbs. Cp. Ps. m Introd. p. lxiv. On the 4 ben£ Asaph,' the ' ben£ Asshurim,' the 'Nethinim,' and the ' ben£ Arab-Ishmael,' see Ps.™ pp. xxii, xlii ; Amer. J. of Theol., July 1 Cp. the familiar Abed-Nego='Arab-Nebo. 54 FRESH VOYAGES 1901 ('From Isaiah to Ezra'); E. Bib., • Solomon's Servants, Children of/ It is possible that the *ben£ Asshurim' became door-keepers, and certain it is that the Ethanites were afterwards ignorantly represented as the descendants of cap- tives of war made by Solomon (see Ezra viii. 20). 9. Note that the names in v. 45 all suggest N. Arabia, unless Hatita be an exception. ' Shallum ' points to ' Ishmael ' ; ' Ater ' to 1 Ashtor ' (see on z>. 2 1) ; ' Talmon ' to ■ Ishmael * (see on Josh. xv. 24) ; ' Akkub,' like ' Jaakob,' to ' 'Ah'ab ' ; 1 ■ Shobai ' to ' Ishmael ' (see on 2 S. xvii. 27). For 'Akkub' cp. also the Assyrian name Ukubu, and parallels cited by Johns, Deeds, No. 502; also Two Religions, Index, 'Ah'ab.' 10. Confining myself to the most certainly explained names in vv. 46-56 (the ' Nethinim/ see on iii. 26), let me notice rojQfc (v. 46), to be grouped with rajp (Judg. vii. 22) and ni^ (2 K. xxi. 19). All alike come from ^irv = htWOOn (cp. ^in«, 1 K. xvi. 31). — DTp (Ezra ii., Dip) and pTD (v. 47) should be grouped respect- ively with *HWr (see on Gen. xxx. 18), -nan, ^nmw, and probably with wm (Ezra i. 1, etc.) and MBro (Esth. i. 14), and with \ib in DiN-pD, cp. note 4, on ■ Parosh.' — ' Lebanah,' of course, goes with 'Libnah' (Num. xxxiii. 20 f. ; 2 K. xix. 8). — ' Salmai ' and ' Giddel ' (cp. ' Hagge- dolim,' xi. 14) point to ' Salmathi ' (Salmah) and 1 Two Religions, Index; T. and B. p. 173. NEHEMIAH 55 ' GileacT respectively; Ezra ii., however, has Shalmon = Ishme'eli. — * Reaiah ' or (1 Esdr. v. 31) * Yair ' of course = ' Yerahme'el ' ; in 1 Chr. iv. 2 ■ Reaiah ' is a Calebite, son of Shobal (Ishmael). — 1 Paseah ' (as if ■ halting '), a corruption of Pinhas, i.e. probably Naphtah-ashur. In 1 Chr. iv. 12 a Calebite name. — * Besai ' ('•on) from d*q\ See on Josh. xv. 8 ; Judg. xix. 10. — ' Meunim,' like ' Meonenim ' (see on Judg. ix. 37), represents 1 Ishmeelim.' Fragments of great ethnics became the names of branches of the race which bore as its designation the common original of these fragments. There is no occasion to suppose that the clan descended from Uzziah's captives (2 Chr. xxvi. 7). — ■ Nephushesim ' (in Ezra ii., * Nephisim '), another Ishmaelite clan-name ; cp. ■ Ishpan ' (1 Chr. viii. 2) and ■ Shaphan ' (2 K. xxii. 12), and note that "woa and i»D3 are often mis written for par, i.e. hwscRT* See on Judg. v. 18, 21. — 'Bakbuk' goes with * Bakbukiah,' ' Bukkiah,' ' Habakkuk,' and finally ' Jaakob,' the original of which is intim (Ashhur-'Arab). — ' Harhur,' not 'fever' (Nbld.), but, like Hur, from 'Ashhur'; in 1 Esdr. v. 31 the form is aaovp. — ' Harsha' (see on v. 61) has the same origin. — 1 Barkos,' either from ITO*l"W or, better, from TintDN-ms. Note that 'Harsha' precedes and 1 Sisera ' (also an Asshurite name) follows. — 1 Sisera ' ; see on Judg. iv. 2. — Between ' bene* Besai' and *b. Meunim' Ezra ii. gives ' ben6 56 FRESH VOYAGES Asnah,' when hddn, like roDN (7". and B. p. 471 ; Gen. xli. 45), represents a shortened corrupt form of 'dot, with fern, ending. 1 1. Among the names of the bene * arab-ishmael (vv. 57-59), note mDD (Ezra ii., 'on), probably from no-is 1 (cp. Two Religions, p. 72 (note 2), on ' Kiryath Sepher,' Josh. xv. 15; ' Sephar,' Gen. x. 30). — vh& (Ezra ii., nb^) f like h&, Judg. iv. 17, represents either 'om 1 or 'dot. — ' Darkon ' ; group with ' Ben-deker,' 1 K. iv. 9 (see Crit. Bib,). — ' Hattil' (Wr), probably from ' Ahital,' where corrupt forms of ' Ashhur ' and ' Ishmael ' (cp. on * Talmon,' v. 45) respectively are com- bined. Cp. Abital, Hamutal. — o^isn rrOD. The second element is clearly the Q^ns = D^is (i.e. EP^ttSOflP, cp. pais) of Gen. xiv. 2. rvDB, like mDD (v. 57), needs a slight transposition of letters. Read m_D| (nmp**) and cp. (see p. 10) the ill-understood iSlbtfr 1DD, Josh, xviii. 24. — T)£>x (in Ezra ii., ^dn). dn in compound names represents din, as in represents ins. pD« there- fore may come from pcnN ; cp. ^d-in, 2 S. xxi. 8. 1 Esdr. v. 34 has aWcov [B], a&\m is certainly from ^hwdbt TD ; cp. f?nrw = 'dbt T», and note that Snn is sometimes a redactor's production out of hwxi, i.e. 'oar ms (see on Gen. iv. 22, 1 Dt. xxxiii. 25). There is no necessity to think of the ' Barzillai ' of 2 S. xvii. 27, etc. 14. The enigmatical title Nnttnnn (for textual details see E. Bib.) can be explained only by applying a new key. Letters have to be trans- posed, and the result should point to N. Arabia. Now, there are two words, evidently corrupt, which contain nearly the same letters, and which have already revealed their secret. One is ttrann, i.e. iin»[«] ; the other, NrmniD (Gen. xxxi. 47), i.e. mntDN. Nntmnn therefore comes from -Hnt&Nn, ' the Ashtarite.' The person spoken of was known by the region from which he (or an ancestor) came. Nehemiah, for instance, may have been so desig- nated. Cp. Cushi. As parallels in Assyrian names we should note Akkadi, Hamatai, Musurai, Ninuai, Sidunai, Tabalai, and especially Assurai, which, it is true, are otherwise explained by Johns, AJSL, July 1902, pp. 246^! 1 T. and B. on Gen. ; D. and F. on Deut. 58 FRESH VOYAGES Chap. vii. 65 ff. First of all, how surprising that in the specification of the living possessions of the community, singing men and singing women should be grouped with horses, mules, camels, and asses. Next, how strange that, beside phenomena which appear adverse to the view that the list refers to those who returned from exile, there should be some which, as the text stands, appear to enforce such a reference. These two points may be taken together. The well-known com- mentator Alf. Bertholet holds as strongly as Ed. Meyer (Entst. p. 192) xhsXvv. 68/1 supply a con- clusive proof that the list really is a list of those who came up from captivity. On the other hand, remarks Torrey, ' he does not in the least succeed in answering the objections which [certain] scholars have made [see Kosters, Het Herstel> pp. 37 ff-\ t0 tms document as a list of the Jews who returned from Babylonia in the time of Cyrus. That is, internal evidence shows that this (if genuine) cannot be a list of returning exiles ; and yet equally strong evidence shows that it cannot be anything else ; this is the perplexing situation ' (review of Bertholet's commentary, Journ. of Amer. TheoL, Jan. 1903). Torrey accepts the words rhwn ^imo d^ot as genuine. On this point he seems to me mistaken, as also in drawing a critical inference from the reference in the tra- ditional text to 'horses,' 'mules,' 'camels,' and 'asses.' In 1 K. v. 6, x. 26, Ezek. xxvii. 14, NEHEMIAH 59 Isa. Ixvi. 20, Zech. xiv. 15, we have already found occasion to look closely into references to these animals (for ' camels ' see also T. and B. on Gen. xii. 16, xxxvii. 25 ; Crit. Bib. on Judg. vi. 5, viii. 21, 26). Cp. also the analogous case of the supposed names of vegetables in Num. xi. 4. I hold, then, that dttdid should be txnfy ; that DiTTiD should be DHTU9 ; that cbrsi should be tr^HOnr ; and that D^ion is a very early ethnic, originally derived from ^onT, and indicating one of the N. Arabian clan which might loosely perhaps be called Yerahme'elite. The singing men and singing women, as Ber.-Ryssel thinks, were ordinary or secular singers, and perhaps of non- Israelite origin (may we compare Eccles. ii. 8?). Probably enough. There were Yerahmeelites who were devoted to sacred song, and those also whose talents were exerted in enlivening ordinary feasts and banquets. On susim (horses) cp. also the Phcen. name DDD71S (Cooke, 62) and ^ddd (Cooke, 81), where ddd is not a Phcen. god, Sasom or Sasm, but = Snsdhp. See E. Bib., ' Sisamai ' ; note ^ddd in 1 Chr. ii. 40 is expressly given as a Yerah- me'elite name. Chap. viii. 1. 'Hashbaddanah' (v. 4) is difficult. It may, however, come from mn = intt)M (cp. on dhb)D, Gen. xi. 31), and :ro, a well-known southern clan-name. Note the 'Nabarias'of 1 Esdr. ix. 44. Cp. on ' Hashabniah,' ix. 5. 60 FRESH VOYAGES 2. -inn means the nearest highlands on which the trees mentioned could be found growing. As for the trees, there has been much misunderstand- ing (see D. and F. pp. 112 ff.). For jo» ps (v. 15) see on Dt. xii. 2; for mns ps, on Lev. xxiii. 40. Dirj is usually identified with the myrtle. Note, however, that Din has only a S. Arabian parallel. The fact, moreover, that Din, Isa. xix. 18, and Din, Judg. i. 35, viii. 13, most probably come from nntDM, coupled with the fact that trees in the O.T. (critically treated) often derive their names from a region where they were common, suggests that Din may originally have been in»[«], 'the tree of Ashhur - ; cp. Ytamn (Isa. xli. 19, lx. 13). Observe that in Isa. lv. 13 Din is parallel to ami. Possibly, too, it is the same as the TTn ps, or rather Tin ps, of Lev. xxiii. 40. It is not probable that the tree meant was the myrtle, because of the inclusion of the Din in the same list of trees with distinctively mountain-trees, with which the ' myrtle ' could not be expected to grow. See Mines of Isaiah. 3. This, then, was the first festival of rh3p. Till this period (so much at least we may infer) the great autumn festival had not been represented as the feast of 'booths.' What the original name probably was (Ashkalath = Ashtart) is set forth in Decline and Fall, pp. 118/. Note once more that the myrtle was sacred to Ashtart. Chap. ix. 1. *gn and ra^t, both perhaps from NEHEMIAH 61 p, i.e. f?sn, which represents the second part of ^wd&t or fjNonT (i for d). Cf. jinw, ptDN. 2. Point D^sctt (z>. 17). 3. ' Forty years ' (v. 21 ). See Traditions and Beliefs, p. 264. 4. ' Since the time of the kings of Asshur unto this day ' (v. 32). Does the writer mean that the sad trouble which has come upon Israel began in the time of the kings of Assyria or in the time of the kings of the N. Arabian Asshur (Ashhur) ? Consistency favours the latter alternative. Cp. Isa. Hi. 4. Chap. xi. 1. The description of Judah as ben- Hassenuah (v. 9) is strange. The original reading was some corruption of ' Ishmael,' as shown on iii. 3. This gives us a clue to the meaning of m»D, which is not 'an official of the second rank' ( Berth. -Rys.), but = ]Dtt, i.e. ^H9D0». Possibly there was a quarter of the city called 1 Ishmael.' Note that in 2 K. xxii. 14 Huldah is said to have dwelt ' in Jerusalem, in Mishneh ' (see Decline and Fall, pp. 19./). 2. ' Zabdiel, son of the great ones ' (@), in v. 14 is as startling as ' Ono, the valley of the crafts- men,' in v. 35. D^n-arr should be n^nxhyn (cp. on bm 9 vii. 49, and on frm, Gen. xv. 18). 3. The idea underlying vv. 25-36 is somewhat like that which is implied in Ezra vii. 25 / There are Jews, not only in the district of Jerusalem, but in the old territory of Judah 62 FRESH VOYAGES regarded as a whole, and it appears that this territory included part of the N. Arabian border- land. The reason for suggesting this is that we have already found reason (see Crit. Bib. on Josh, and The Veil) to think that many of the tribal place-names were originally attached to localities in that region. Not to dwell on other names, it is at least possible that there was a * ravine of Hinnom' in the S. borderland as well as near Jerusalem (Crit. Bib. p. 419). The original form of the name may well have been ]an n* 1 !, where 'n will be an offshoot of SNDrrv (p. 67). For 'inn ■a see on vi. 2. Chap. xii. In z/. 11 note the names srv and 2fiT. The former does not properly mean 1 Yahwe knows/ nor does the latter mean ' known ' {E. Bib., * Names,' § 56). w is a well-attested southern clan-name. Cp. the Yerahme'elite name st, 1 Chr. ii. 28. It was carried far away to northern regions (see 'Yada,' and other names, Johns, Deeds, iii. p. 420). Also, in v. 28 and iii. 22, note archaistic use of Kikkar (cp. Part ii. on Matt. iii. 5). Kikkar may come from Eshkar or Ashkar {The Veil, p. 30). And in v. 42 note ' Elam,' i.e. Yerahme'el (not the familiar Elam). Chap. xiii. 1. 'They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude' (v. 3). Our study of Ex. xii. 38 will have led us to doubt this inter- pretation of art*. Of course, we should point yrs. Cp. also rns, Jer. xxv. 20, 1. 37, Ezek. xxx. 5. NEHEMIAH 63 So here Ed. Meyer, Entst. p. 130 (note 2), but rendering ' Beduins.' 2. ' Tyrians ' (v. 16)? In harmony with Ezra iii. 7 read D^sarn. This seems to me in the highest degree probable. But even if we keep * Tyrians,' do not let us acquiesce in }n"t (note superfluous n). Of course, we should read 'nw, i.e. pnw, ' purple.' Tyrian purple was famous in antiquity. Note the purple garments of the Midianite kings (Judg. viii. 26). But also there was purple from Arab-Ishmael (Ezek. xxvii. 7). And in Isa. xix. 13 *mn trorm should be 'wn ]q™, Ashhurite purple. Also the merchants were not mere hucksters of salt fish, but well-to-do sellers of purple. 3. And now we can hopefully approach another difficulty. The MT. gives, in v. 15^, DVl twi ts didd, 'and I warned on the day wherein (or, I warned when) they sold victuals.' This is very obscure. Steiner, in his revised edition of Hitzig's Kleine Propheten y p. 304, emends, tt^n mrQD Dhpo. Clearly, however, the clause has arisen out of a miswritten gloss, ts represents '-ns, i.e. d^is, or rather we should detach the closing d of d*od (the final forms but slowly became established), and read D'nso. This word ought to stand first ; it has become misplaced. nDD, of course, represents Dpn, one of the offshoots of crrr (cp. DiDrrrra and nip ^a), and dv (as often) has come from 'o\ i.e. jcp (also written jv, i.e. 64 FRESH VOYAGES fworrr). ts, together with n, represents in*, ' Arabia.' And lastly, n*i represents nvt. Thus we get [Dpi] \ai 31? WW d^isd, ' Misrim, that is, Yamanite Arabia [Rekem].' ' Rekem ' appears to be a secondary gloss. The gloss, as a whole, refers to D*ns[o] in v. 16. It explains where the Misrites dwelt. They were not Egyptians, but N. Arabians. 4. We do not expect Philistian women in this context. But there were, no doubt, several Ashdods. See on iv. 7. CHAPTER V BOOK OF ESTHER The Book of Esther is another of the old Jewish romances. Its true character is sufficiently shown by an eminent scholar in a popular way, 1 but of course without discussing the proper names which, as the text stands, are by no means obviously Persian formations. So at least thinks the doyen of our fraternity, Noldeke. On the other hand, Professor J. H. Moulton makes the somewhat surprising remark, 2 ' We must reckon with the possibility that the names are Persian,' and refers to a recent scholar 3 who rightly recognizes that the question of the possibility of Aryan elements in the O.T. may have passed into a new phase in consequence of the precious finds of Boghaz- keoi. It is, however, still difficult not to see that there is a huge amount of corruption in the names of Esther, and that many of the names are but more or less defaced repetitions of the 1 Noldeke's well-known volume of Old Testament sketches. 2 In Hastings, D.B., extra volume. 3 Scheftalowitz, Arisches im A. T. 65 5 66 FRESH VOYAGES same names. Moreover, when once it has been proved that the true and original background of other narrative books is N. Arabian, and that the names too are largely N. Arabian, it is in- consistent to adopt a totally different set of presuppositions and of critical methods in Esther from those which I hope that I have, in spite of initial errors, successfully used elsewhere. Whether there are any grains of history in the story, cannot be absolutely decided. It is — as we have seen — perfectly possible that from time to time Jews became grand viziers to N. Arabian kings. Of course, Yerahme'elites would be equally eligible to this high office, and Noldeke thinks that there is something not unskilful, even if fantastic, in the touch whereby Mordecai and Haman are made to inherit an ancient feud. I would, however, venture to ask whether the feud has been quite correctly understood by the commentators. That Haman hates the Jews is certain. But is he really the representative of the primeval Agag? Surely Agagi (Esth. iii. i, etc.) should be Agabi ( = Ahabi), and the meaning is that Haman represented the Yerahme'elites, who, whether in S. Canaan or in the N. Arabian borderland, were almost constantly hostile to the Israelites. Thus a duly critical treatment of Haman, 'the Jew's enemy,' connects itself with one of the most interesting of the discoveries which I have BOOK OF ESTHER 67 been privileged to make — that of the true mean- ing of Ah'ab. Important enough, too, is it that Haman (jon) has been traced to its source as ]pn: (Yahman), for we see now that Haman (Yahman), in the mind of the narrator, is not primarily a successful individual, but a personifica- tion of the Yerahme'elite foes of Israel. In ©s additions to the Book of Esther, Haman is strangely called a Ma/ceScov. This, however, does not really mean a Macedonian. Makedon is a corruption of Rakman, i.e. one belonging to Rakam or Yarham (Yerahme'el). 1 We have now to account for ' Mordecai,' and, if possible, for a certain chronological difficulty which has, somewhat precipitately, been judged insuperable. The name seems to mean ' belonging to Marduk.' Marduk, of course, was a Babylonian deity, and we have a place-name, Nebo, which, at first sight, looks like a parallel to Mordecai. But how incredible it is that such a name should enter into a Benjamite genealogy ! See also Ezra ii. 2, Neh. vii. 7, where the list of names has no room for a Mordecai (pp. 48/!). For my part I have no doubt as to the right solution of the problem, though I must admit that it raises another problem, not less important. "OTid has arisen out of mil, i.e. one belonging to Bar- Dad. 1 According to Noldeke (in his later article), the allusion is to the bitter enmity between the Jews and their Graeco- Macedonian neighbours, especially at Alexandria (E. Bib. col. 1406). 68 FRESH VOYAGES The same origin may not improbably be given to the famous but ill-understood title ' Baal Marcod.' But then it would seem as if Haman and Mordecai originally bore names of the same meaning. And this is indeed the fact which covers a new problem. Israel and Yerahme'el are enemies ; how is this ? Both are children of Abraham ; how, then, can one Rahman seek to destroy the other ? It is a question which no mere raconteur can answer, but only a true spiritual prophet. Unfortunately there is no spiritual or prophetic element in the book be- fore us. The statement to which I referred in con- nexion with * Mordecai ' is this — that that eminent leader of the Jews was carried away to Babel by Nebuchadnezzar in company with Jeconiah, king of Judah (Esth. ii. $/.). This has puzzled chrono- logists, because it seems to make a Babylonian and a Persian king contemporaries. But the puzzle disappears when we realize that this, like other old Hebrew stories, has been thoroughly re-edited, and provided with a new background. The consequence is that ' Ahashwerosh ' has become transformed from a N. Arabian into a Persian king. 1 In the original story Ahashwerosh was presumably Ashhur, to which a marginal gloss was added, viz. Asshur (just as Nebuchad- 1 See E. Bib., « Ahasuerus.' BOOK OF ESTHER 69 nezzar was Shanbu-Had, 1 to which perhaps 'Arab- Sor 2 was added as a gloss). His capital was Shimshan of Arabia, 3 and his queens were, first, Washti, or rather Asshurith, 4 and then Esther, i.e. Israelith. 5 The name of Esther's father — Abihail ( = ' Arab-Yerahme'el) — records the fact that he was an exile in N. Arabia. The story of the Book of Esther is that of the supplanting of an Asshurite by an Israelite queen and of a Yerahme'elite by an Israelite vizier. There is no need to have recourse for an ex- planation to Elamite mythology. I need only add that 'from India to Cush ' (Esth. i. 1) is, of course, wrong, vm should be TTTT. See p. 151 (on Acts ii. 9), and cp. E. Bib., ' India.' Hadad and Kush were both in N. Arabia. Add also that, in iii. 7, * they cast Pur, that is, the lot ' ; 1 Pur ' is probably a corruption of 'Arab (Arabia). Cp. >od, Gen. xvi. 12, and T. and B., ad loc. A favourite variety of lot must have been called 'Arabia.' This gives the key to ' Urim and Thummim,' i.e. ' Asshurites and Ishmaelites.' 1 See p. no (n. 1 ). 2 Two Religions, pp. 18, 82, and Index. 3 nv:in ]vw stands in MT., but we should rather read ]vdv roryn. The interchange of 1 and d is well attested. Cp. on Neh. i. 1. 4 »n«n should probably be nntr* (ASSurith). 5 From n^K-nr ; cp. ' Judith.' CHAPTER VI BOOK OF JOB The legend of Ahikar appears to have arisen in N. Arabia ; may we suppose that the legend of Job (Iyyob) arose there too? At any rate, the name of the hero Iyyob indicates probably that he lived in that region, for Iyyob is either a modi- fication of Yobab (an Edomite or Arammite king), or both are corruptions of Ah'ab (see pp. 37, 49), which is properly a name of Asshurite N. Arabia. We must, however, admit that the conception of the suffering righteous man was well known at an early date (2000 B.C.) to Babylonian literature. I now beg leave to record some new correc- tions of the text which seem to me of more than common interest, and to point the way to a revision of our literary estimate of Job. 1, 2. Thus in Job iii. 5, 8, we should certainly read : Let the priests of Yaman terrify it, and Let the cursers of Yaman execrate it, Those that have skill to stir up Leviathan. 1 1 T. and B. p. 6 (n. 3) ; Two Religions \ p. 80. 70 BOOK OF JOB 71 The priests of Yaman were famous for their accomplishments ; d^dd is really only a modifica- tion of D^nm, i.e. Yerahme'elites.' Cp. d^d (temple ministers), from trtam, * Rahbulites,' and d^Dn (sacred chanters) 1 from d^iDBn, 1 Ashkarites.' Leviathan is the mythic dragon, identified (as its Hebrew name suggests 2 ) with the oppressive powers of N. Arabia. 3. Job vi. 6 : Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt, Or is there any taste in the white of an egg ? So Auth. Vers. The text, however, is im- possible, and we should almost certainly read : Can I eat my portion (see ©) with leaves of mallow, Or drink purslain broth ? (' Purslain ' should rather be anchusa). So the opening of Eliphaz's fine speech is redeemed. 3 4. Job vii. 6, * My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle.' A far-fetched simile! And will ni* bear this meaning? A comparison of Jer. viii. 7, where the migrations of the swift and the crane are referred to, suggests as the true meaning, * My days are swifter than a crane 1 See Am. v. 17, and Two Religions^ p. 189. 2 \vrh from pwrSieDnv. 8 See E. Bib., * Purslain,' * Mallow.' 72 FRESH VOYAGES 5, 6. Job ix. 25, 26. In a similar vein of complaint. First, Job's remaining days are swifter, not 'than a runner,' but 'than an ossi- frage (mDD).' Then they pass away ' as the ships of reed (?),' or rather ' like the ospreys ' (read \hn niip mwDs). 1 We thus get all the three swiftly flying birds of prey grouped together in Lev. xi. 13, Dt. xiv. 12. 7. Job xviii. 14, 'to the king of terrors' (mnf?l iW?). Several critics have questioned this, but for want of insight into the popular Jewish religion have missed the right reading. This is, ' to the king Rahbal ' (vf*?i = fnm) ; cp. Beliar from Yarbal, and see on xxx. 23. 8. Job xxviii. 2>b. Read, with N. Herz, -riS ir?ra yhs n^TT, ' No cormorant darteth upon it.' 9. Job xxx. 4. The former explanations seem to me to be quite impossible (see E. Bib, col. 2647). I venture therefore to propose a new one. D^m xtnxn should be Dm D^p-isn, and Don 1 ? should be mcAn, anchusa, purslain. Read, therefore, omitting duplications and glosses : Who pluck mallow and the leaves of the shtah, Who gnaw the broom-plants and the purslain. 2 Surely, a striking and natural description of the utmost poverty. 10. Job xxx. 23. ' And to the house of 1 See E. Bib., ■ Osprey, 5 ■ Ossifrage.' 2 See E. Bib., < Juniper.' BOOK OF JOB 73 meeting for all living.' But tf Sd is a very weak expression just here. Read, as also in Gen. iii. 20, Snott. Yerahme'el was also God of the under- world ; see T. and B. p. 64. 11. Job xxxiii. 23. It appears that line 2 is corrupt ; ' Interpreter, one among a thousand/ can hardly be right. Should we not trace N. Arabian influence, and, instead of pfm *od "rrm, ' one among a thousand ' (surely there were not a thousand angels of the presence !), read ]d^ Tintm*, Ashhur-Yaman ? See Mines of Isaiah, pp. 43, 109. 12. Job xlii. 14. 'And the name of the third was, Box-of-eye-paint.' Rather, ' Scent- of-apples (Re ah tappuhirri)' The love of Orientals for sweet scents is well known (see pp. 75 f. y on Canticles). CHAPTER VII SONG OF SOLOMON (?) 'The finest of Solomon's songs' (i. i), or rather, perhaps, ' The finest of songs in the style of Salmah.' The ' tent - curtains of Salmah ' (so Winckler) are referred to in Cant. i. 5. 1 The primary object of the Song was to supply an antidote to sensuous, passionate, transient love. In ii. 7, iii. 5, the 'daughters of Jerusalem' are adjured by Sib'onith 2 ( = Ash tart) not to take lightly such a grave matter as love. The use of the terms dod (beloved) for the bridegroom, and dodah (beloved) for the bride, and ahoth (sister; see p. 98) for the bride, suggests that the Song was based on a popular Adonis-song. 3 If these facts are correct, Ashtart must at one time have repre- sented the principle of love in the divine Triad. It now becomes possible to date the Song 1 See E. Bib., ' Salmah.' 2 To this is appended an alternative reading, ' [or] by Ar'elith of Ashhur.' See short paper in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1911. 3 See T. and B. pp. 19 (n. 5), 47, 56; Two Religions, p. 381 (n. 3). 74 SONG OF SOLOMONQ) 75 somewhat earlier than has been latterly usual, at any rate before, in references to the Divine Company, Sib'onith (a title of Ashtart) was trans- formed into Seba'oth, as in ' Yah we Seba'oth.' Our decision as to the date of the Song must depend on a preliminary revision of the text. In the article ' Canticles • and in supplementary articles in the EncycL Biblica, I have amassed a large number of corrections, and on the basis of the text thus corrected have decided in favour of a * post-exilic ' date. I remain, however, open- minded, as I have shown by the admission in the preceding paragraph. Whether there are Greek loan-words I have expressed my grave doubts (£. Bib., ' Canticles '), also as to the connexion of the mountains with spices. I have now to open the question whether the Jerusalem of the Song was on the site now known as el-I£uds, or the southern city of the same or a similar name. 1 I am now obliged to think that the southern Jeru- salem is meant. Certainly the place intended was near Gilead, Hermon, and Lebanon, and it seems to have been proved that the southern Jerusalem was near the southern hills and mountains of those names. It will, I think, help the reader if I quote a paragraph from my article on this subject (£. Bib., ■ Canticles ') : 'The fondness of the poet of Canticles for spices led the ancient scribes into some very 1 The Veil of Hebrew History, pp. 26, 30, and see Index. 76 FRESH VOYAGES strange textual errors — viz. (i) iv. 6, "to the mountains of myrrh (lan) and the hill of frank- incense " (rim^rr), where ion should be ricnn, " Hermon," and nmS should be pDi^rr (cp. @ B ** A ) ; very probably, also, the correct reading in v. 8 is " from the hills of the cedars, from the mountains of the cypresses" (owra Ttfre Dm* mimo ) ; (2) viii. 14, in "the mountains of spices" (d^dbq), 'mi should certainly be cnmn, to which, if Wellhausen's view of nm *ffr, " mountains of malobathron " {Prolegomena^ p. 409), was that of the early scribes, we may add ii. 17, where we should read erfTO nr?, " mountains of cypresses " (see "Bether").' 1 I will here confess that I have not seen Mr. W. W. Cannon's work on the Song, nor do I know what line he has taken on the general question of the state of the text or on these disputable passages in particular. In the extensive article or monograph from which I have quoted, and in the supplementary articles, such as * Ebony/ 1 Purple,' and especially ' Litter,' Mr. Cannon may have found points to criticize or question. In the last-mentioned article there is a translation of Song iii. J.jf. % to which I still adhere in the main, and which I am prepared to uphold. A few important additions, however, have to be made. In v. 7 &vw is certainly superfluous, both metric- 1 E. Bib. col. 693 Unless Tna should be 'Pethor' 01 * Pathros.' SONG OF SOLOMON (?) 77 ally and otherwise ; but how did it come there ? It is surely a corruption of D^rncrr, which in turn is a corruption of dtudd-i, ' Ramshahites,' i.e. the royal body-guard (Two Religions, p. 303). — In v. 10, just as jddtin should be cicAn, so mm* should be nwnN (Two Religions, p. 228), here used for a kind of timber brought from the mountains of Ashhur-'Arab, and also called hobnim (D^nn or D^mn). — Verse 10 is closed by d^ttm mmo. This is absurd ; but how did it get in ? Read rrumD ^NSDttT, ■ from the hills of Ishmael ( = N. Arabia)/ A gloss on ■ Ah'ab-wood.' I need only add (1) that, in v. 8, vcbhn should be hycw ( = ^NnrrT). Solomon was not thought of as a craven. The 'fear' (ins) was from Yerahmeelite robbers. And (2) that, in v. 9, jthdn comes from ]v rris, a gloss on ^irrr (cp. Cooke, North Sem. Inscr. Index), underlying rvWo. On the important question whether Dr. Driver was right in supposing the Song to be a drama, though not produced on the stage, I have nothing further to say here. Mr. Cannon apparently agrees with the Professor. The wind of critical opinion blows from a fresh quarter. CHAPTER VIII PROVERBS AND ECCLESIASTES The Yerahme'elite wisdom was famous and many - sided ; it is probable that those who cultivated it set the models in some respects for the Aramaean Ahikar, and for the Biblical Hebrew Books of Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. In particular, we seem to gather this from the headings (such as ' Proverbs of Salmah ') 1 in Prov. x. i, xxx. i, xxxi. i, 2 and possibly from the epilogue of Ecclesiastes. In Eccles. xii. n we have, as it seems to me, both a general and a particular statement of no slight importance concerning the Hebrew proverbs. It should prob- ably run nearly thus : * The sayings of the wise are as goads, as nails firmly driven. The citizens of Pathros have given them — the sons of Ashhur.' It will, I hope, be recognized that after the general statement which opens v. 1 1 there are a number of words which are highly suspicious and call for textual correction. ]Yiddn hvi % for instance, what 1 See E. Bib., 'Salmah' ; Wellhausen, Prol® p. 225 (note). 2 E. Bib., 'Massa.' 78 PROVERBS AND ECCLESIASTES 79 can that mean ? Nothing has been said in the context about collections of proverbs such as may be found in the canonical Book of Proverbs and in fragments in Ecclesiastes itself. The text must therefore be incorrect, and underneath mDDN ^20 may lie something analogous to noh'w •hwa. Where, then, was the accepted home of Yerahme'elite wisdom ? Within ' the tent- curtains of Salmah ' ? But this would be almost too conventional ; not in tents, but in spacious guest-chambers, the sessions (Arabic mejlis) of the Arabian sages were held. Of these sages Balaam (Bil f am) was the type. His home is said to have been at Pethor, but this was certainly a corruption of Pathros, which was not in Egypt but in N. Arabia. 1 imn "Qi ('my son, take warning ' ) is not less extraordinary and unnatural. But it is far from hopeless to correct it. Paral- lelism supplies a clue ; we should read TinttN % * the sons of Ashhur.' *imn, like rm (Gen. xxxvi. 13) and nn^ (Ex. vi. 18), comes from intp«. Then come the glosses, inn n^n (' one shepherd ') is a geographical note ; we should restore 315 ino>N, ' Arabia of Ashhur.' So is nnrm im, i.e. N*in crrr intDN, 'that is Ashtar 2 - Yarham.' Ashtar and Yerahme'el are common in old Hebrew for N. Arabia. 1 See T. and B. pp. 189/ ; Two Religions ', p. 89. 2 v is often omitted, e.g. in* above, also ijv and nn\ Erbt's comparison of the Bab. atru^ ' wise,' neglects analogies (Sicher- stellung des Monotheismus^ p. 30). 80 FRESH VOYAGES Surely the Yerahme'elites cannot have been as bad as the Israelite prophets paint them. Nor, surely, can their God and their Goddess have been altogether unworthy of their position, and unqualified to lift their people up to stage upon stage of moral and spiritual enlightenment. An endeavour has been made in my Traditions and Beliefs to shake the prevalent prejudice against what one of its enemies denominates Baalism. The worshippers of the God variously called Asshur, Yerahme'el, and Ba'al, and of the Goddess of many titles, best known to us as Ashtart, must have held commemoration or benediction services in honour of their deity. It is possible that one such eulogy (or virtual eulogy) has been preserved to us in Prov. viii. 22-31. It wears the outward form of a monologue of divine Wisdom, and opens with the words : Yahwe produced me as the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. It is true, the Former of divine Wisdom is, not Yerahme'el, but Yahwe. But originally he was, not Yahwe, but Yerahme'el, as we see from the predilection she {i.e. Wisdom) evinces for her N. Arabian worshippers. Many scholars are of opinion that this fine personification of Wisdom is a late importation from Iran or from Babylon. 1 But why the 1 Bousset, Rel. des Jud. (2) p. 592 ; Probleme der Gnosis, p. 336 ; Cheyne, Kohut Studies, p. 112 ; Zimmern, KAT, pp. 432, 439. PROVERBS AND ECCLESIASTES 81 Yerahme'elites or the Judaites should not have worshipped or reverenced a Wisdom-goddess, it is difficult to understand ; indeed, it is possible to hold that the creative goddess preceded the creative god. Referring for the evidence to the work already mentioned, I venture to quote two sentences from the same book. 1 Divine Wisdom, he says, was the assessor of the Most High at creation, but in spite of this, no sooner were the N. Arabian lands in existence than Wisdom chose to concentrate her favour on the N. Arabian peoples. . . . * And now that creation is finished, is Wisdom's occupation gone? No, truly. Henceforth it devolves upon the Creator's assessor, standing before his works, to interpret the creative words. But none of her delights can exceed that which she has in her chosen land of Ishmael and her chosen people of Aram.' 1 1 T. and B. p. 39. CHAPTER IX BOOK OF TOBIT The varied nature of the contents of Tobit has been well set forth by the latest commentator in Dr. Charles's Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. 1 Popular religion,' he says, ' and magical specula- tion, current mythology and demonology, ethical and moral maxims of his day, traditional folklore and romantic legend, all contributed their quota to the education of the author. They widened his outlook on life without vitiating the spirituality of his religion or the reality of his adhesion to Judaism.' Deservedly the unknown author exer- cised great influence both on Jewish and on Jewish- Christian society. The perception of a N. Arabian background does not interfere with these admissions. Ample, however, as Mr. Simpson's introduction and commentary are, they are marked by one great omission, nothing being said on the question whether the story of Tobit may not, like other narratives, have been remodelled so as to present a new background. For my part, I am strongly 82 BOOK OF TOBIT 83 of opinion that this remodelling is a fact. We have, I think, to discuss this in connexion with another question as to the original background of certain sections of 2 Kings. If the conquerors there spoken of were N. Arabian, we may reason- ably presume that the original background of the Book of Tobit was altogether N. Arabian. My own conclusion is that the King of Asshur spoken of in 2 K. xvii. 6 is a N. Arabian king, and it only remains to test this result by its consistency with the details of the Tobit-story. Constant com- parison of Prof. Moulton's Early Zoroastrianism will be useful. I remain, however, unconvinced. Tobit i. 1-6. Tobit is here represented as the son of Tobiel, i.e. Ethba'al (cp. ' the land of Tob,' Judg. xi. 3, and * Ish-tob,' i.e. Asshur- Ethba'al, 2 S. x. 6) ; also as of the (southern) tribe of Naphtali, where Napht comes from Nabt, i.e. Ethban ( = Ethbal l ) ; al in Naphtali is a forma- tive ending. His town or township was Tisbe\ i.e. perhaps Shab'ith, 2 a title of Astart ; see below. What we know further of the birthplace of Tobit is that it was also the reputed birthplace of the prophet Elijah (2 K. xvii. 3), and that it was to the south of Kedesh-Naphtali, a well-known city in Galilee, above Asher. One notes in passing 1 Veil of Hebrew History, pp. 86/. Cp. Nebat, 1 K. xi. 26, and perhaps Yepheth (Japheth), Gen. v. 32, and Yiftah, Judg. xi. 1 ; and see The Veil, etc., p. 145. 2 Two Religions, pp. 125, 276. 84 FRESH VOYAGES that the original Galil (Galilee) and Gal'ad or Gal'ar (from Gal and e Ar = f Arab) 1 were hardly in accordance with the later geography, also that the traditions of Tobit's house were not of the strictest Yahwistic order. In fact, in the days of his youth the whole tribe of Naphtali fell away from the strict worship of Yahwe as practised in the temple of Jerusalem, and sacrificed to Baal or Ashtart. 2 Tobit himself claims to have been the only ex- ception, because he alone went often to Jerusalem at the feasts, * as it was ordained ' (v. 6) ; this, however, is inconsistent with v. 13. Still, neither Tobit nor Ananias could escape sharing in the national doom ; the whole of Naphtali 8 was car- ried away into the N. Arabian land of Asshur, the capital of which was Yewanah 4 (corrupted into Nineveh), * in the days of Shalman-eser (so read !), king of the Asshurites' (v. 2). Tobit i. 9-14. Tobit's marriage to a woman of his kinsfolk was in accordance with the law against mixed marriages. He was equally strict about his food. Asshur being an unclean land (Hos. ix. 3) he refrained his 'soul (appetite)' from 1 Gal = Yerahme'el (cp. Regel, Isa. xli. 2 ; Mines of Isaiah> p. 86 ; En-Rogel, 2 S. xvii. 17 ; The Veil, p. 59). Note that the second element in Girad or Gal'ad is altered by the popular caprice from l ar into t ad. 2 Ba'al ( = Ethba e al = Ishmael) and Ashtart, with perhaps the addition of Yahwe, formed a divine duad or triad. 3 The exaggeration is obvious. 4 Corrupted into Nineveh (see on xiv. 4). Cp. The Two Religions, pp. 403/ ; T. and B. p. 188. BOOK OF TOBIT 85 eating the bread of his captors (vv. 10- 1 2). Never- theless Israel's God made him so attractive in character that Shalman-eser appointed him pur- veyor to the royal household. Now, it so fell out that, in the course of his business, he had to visit the land of Madai, where he left in trust ten talents of silver with a fellow- Israelite named Gabael (i.e. one belonging to Agab, or Ashhur- 'Arab) ; the name also appears in the genealogy of Tobit (i. 1). As a place-name we should take note of Rages in the N. Arabian land of Madai, 1 where Gabael resided ; like Gabael, it is a record of the wide diffusion of the migratory Yerahme'elites. One of the shortened forms of Yerahme'el is Regel (see note below) ; another is Regem (Zech. vii. 2, see p. 10). Still further shortened forms are Gal and Rag ; Rag is the first element in Rages (as also in the personal name Raguel, iii. 7), and Ash (i.e. Asshur) seems to be the second. I may say at once that I differ from Prof. J. H. Moulton, who regards this as based on a Median folk-story. Tobit i. 15-22. The accession of a new Asshurite king had an injurious effect on the fortunes of Tobit, so that he could no longer go into Madai on his business. Sennacherib (Ishman- Rehob ?) was a wrathful, passionate man, and after his flight from the land of Israel put many to death who belonged to the sacred people. Tobit, 1 See T. and B. pp. 159^; The Veil, p. 102. 86 FRESH VOYAGES however, in accordance with a principle which had long guided his conduct (v. 17), buried the dead bodies of his countrymen privily, so that, when the king made inquiry about them, they were not to be found (v. 18). An Asshurite of the capital therefore accused Tobit to the king, who sought to put him also to death. All, however, that the king could do (for Tobit succeeded in making his escape) was to confiscate Tobit's goods. The punishment was not long delayed. Not five -and -fifty years had passed when 'two of his sons killed him,' and they fled into the mountains of Ashtar {v. 21, see below). So, then, the Asshurites were not humane enough to bury the corpses of men of a different cult from themselves. There seems to have been a general feeling among the N. Arabian races that the fate of a man after death depended on his having received due funeral rites, and especially that of burial, either in a cave or in the clods of the valleys. ' The kings of nations, all of them, lie in glory, each one in his house' (Isa. xiv. 18). Plebeians too are at least housed, even if meanly, in the streets of the city of Death. But the shades of those who in their lifetime opposed the great God Asshur (for instance) and were exclusive Yahwists, will not be released from their mutilated corpses till some one casts these corpses, and many more with them, into some deep pit (Isa. BOOK OF TOBIT 87 xiv. 19). Such at least was the Asshurite form of the N. Arabian view. The reason why Tobit was so careful to bury the dead bodies of Israelites will now be clear. Without such burial their share in the resurrection to life would be imperilled. One remembers that in Isa. xxvi. 19 the summons to rise is only addressed to those who dwell in 'dust,' not to those who are ' cast out of their grave, like an abhorred plant' (Isa. xiv. 19). If we compare the passages from the ode of triumph over the king of (the N. Arabian) Babel with the account of the conduct of the Asshurite king in Tobit i. 18/, we shall probably agree that the underlying ideas are very similar. Nor can I now see any reason to suppose that the Israelite belief in the importance of burial for the imminent resurrection of faithful Israelites unto life was decisively influenced by any Zoroastrian or pre-Zoroastrian belief on these subjects. 1 Verse 2 1 contains several confusing corruptions, especially * Ararat' for 'Ashtar,' 2 'Sacherdon(os)' for ' Asshur-Rakkon,' 3 and * Acheikar(os) ' for * Ashkur-Rekem.' A few lines on the last of these names are not unnecessary, considering the confidently urged theory of the learned historian 1 See, however, Moulton, Early Zoroastrianistn. 2 T. and B. p. 146. 3 Rakkon became Kedon. *Rak,' the short for Rekem = Yarham. 88 FRESH VOYAGES Professor Eduard Meyer. I venture myself to think that ■ the Brother is dear ' is impossible, and that the onomatological scheme on which this is based is hardly worthy of support. Never surely was a god styled 'The Brother,' and, in general, professions of faith such as 'the Brother is precious' or 'God is good,' even if comparatively ancient, are later inventions. The right view is that this is a shortened form for Ashhur, Ab or Abi the short for 'Eber = f Arab, and Hamu or Hami the short for Yarham = Yerahme'el ; also that Kar and Kar are the short for Rekem or Yarham. The Yarhamites were famous for wisdom (i K. v. 30 f. ; Baruch iii. 23), and their representative, among other names, fitly bore the name Ahikar (Ashhur- Yarham), indicating thereby the region from which the wisdom of the Semitic races largely proceeded. It will be noticed that Tobit is partly modelled on Ahikar, whose moral wisdom he has assimilated ; also that Ahikar's servant, in the Armenian version of the legend, is called Beliar, a name which certainly comes from Yarbel, i.e. Yerahme'el. The anachronism involved in making Ahikar a contemporary of Tobit 1 did not trouble the narrator, nor had he any scruple in converting 1 If, however, the whole of Tobit is by one person, we must admit that the author is not consistent with himself, for in xiv. 10 Achiacharos is referred to as a legendary personage, whereas in i. 22, ii. 10, xi. 18, he is the most distinguished member of the family of Tobit, who calls him ' my brother's son.' BOOK OF TOBIT 89 Ahikar into an Israelite of high rank at the Asshurite court. According to the writer, he combined the offices of cup-bearer (cp. Nehemiah), keeper of the signet, steward, and overseer of the accounts (v. 22) ; or, to be brief, he was appointed to be next unto the king, like Joseph of old (Gen. xli. 40) — in a word, to be grand vizier. Tobit ii.-iii. 6. Achiacharos, who has just been introduced to us as the highest in rank at the Asshurite court, now ventured to intercede for his Israelite kinsmen. So this model family were reunited in their home at Yewanah — Tobit, his wife Anna, and his son Tobias. Needless to say, Tobit resumed his course of righteous alms- giving and charity towards his needy fellow- Israelites in a strange land. His wife, however, was not worthy of her husband. 'Where are thine alms and thy righteous deeds ?' (v. 14&) she asked. It seemed to her as if God had turned against His servant, and that an immoral God justified immorality in His worshipper. That was, in fact, the position taken up by Jobs wife (Job ii. gf.) ; the blindness of Tobit (ii. gf.) corresponds with the elephantiasis of Job, and the practical atheism of that patriarch's wife to the same psychic condition of Tobit's Anna. Tobit seeks refuge in prayer; he petitions to be 'delivered (by death) out of this distress, and go into the everlasting place,' but is so thoroughly pious as to admit that God 'judgeth truly and justly for ever' (iii. 1-6). 90 FRESH VOYAGES Not the least interesting part of this section is the statement in ii. 10b that Tobit was nourished by Achiacharos two years, till the latter went to Elymais. Why to Elymais ? The current story of Ahikar would rather have suggested Egypt. The answer is that in the earlier form of the story the king under whom Ahikar worked was an Asshurite, but the king to whom he journeyed was king of the N. Arabian Misrim ; and further that ' Elymais,' i.e. Elam, was a district of N. Arabia (see on Ezra ii. 31). More definiteness is impossible, but the existence of the ' Asshurite Elam ' can hardly any longer be denied. Tobit iii. 7-17. It was not only Tobit who * heard false reproaches.' On the same day Sara, daughter of Raguel, 1 residing (but the names have been altered) in Ecbatana, a city of Media, was also ' reproached ' by her father's maids. Ecbatana is altered from Ahmetha 2 (see Ezra vi. 2), which the translator (in accordance with the new historical theory) identified with Ecbatana. Madai, as we have seen, is not Media, but primarily a N. Arabian regional. It will be shown presently that Madai also forms part of the name of the powerful demon noBM or Asmodseus. And what were the * reproaches ' which so 1 See p. 10. 1 See p. 10. 2 See on Ezra vi. 2 (p. 24). BOOK OF TO BIT 91 greatly affected Sara that, like Tobit in like circum- stances, she besought Israel's God that she might die? I will endeavour to answer the question, remarking, however, first of all that Sara's petition for death is coupled with an alternative — ' but if it please thee not that I should die, command some regard to be had of me, and pity taken of me, that I hear no more reproach' (v. 15). In iii. 8 two accounts are recorded: (1) that the fiend Asmodaeus or (see Moulton, E.Z. p. 251) Asmodaus had killed, one after another, seven husbands before they had each left the marriage chamber ; and (2) that Sara herself had done to death these seven persons by strangling them. The second alternative is plainly the fiction of a person who had thrown off the belief in Asmodaeus ; it is an arbitrary alteration of the original story. Asmodaeus is often thought to be one of the evil spirits taken over by Zarathushtra from the earlier Iranian religion, and traced to Aeshma- daeva. This compound name, however, does not occur in our Avestan texts, and lustfulness is no characteristic of the potent prince Aeshma ('Wrath'). Asmodaeus, or rather Asmodaus, can only be explained on the analogy of Ashkenaz. It is a Graecized form of Ashmadai (Asshur- Madai), and denotes the tutelary divinity of N. Arabia. It was hardly charitable of the creator of the Tobit story to convert the not wholly 92 FRESH VOYAGES unworthy goddess -consort of Baal-Ashtar into the lustful demon Asmodaeus. The story further tells us that when, through Raphael, the demon had smelt a certain over- powering smell, he fled into the upper parts of Egypt (so the Greek), where the angel bound him (Tobit viii. 3). According to Mr. Simpson, this was suggested by the Egyptian story of the Possessed Princess. It is perhaps natural that he should think so, but not this way lies the true solution of the problem. For it is but too probable that we have been taken in by early editors whose aims and critical principles were different from our own, and who have consistently altered Misraim (Egypt) into Misrim (the name of a part of N. Arabia). We may, I think, fitly illustrate our passage by Isa. xiv. 13 and Ps. Sol. ii. 30. In the former passage the king of the N. Arabian Babel 1 ( = Rakbal) boastingly says that he will ' sit on the mount of assembly (?), in the utmost parts of Saphon ( = Si* bon 2 ).' It appears that the mountain where the gods dwelt was popularly supposed to be in a distant part of N. Arabia. And so we may reasonably suppose that, according to the under- lying original text of Tobit viii. 3, Asmodaeus * fled into the utmost parts of (the N. Arabian) 1 See T. and B. pp. 185/ ; Mines of Isaiah , pp. 16, 105. 2 T. and B. p. 50 (n. 3) ; Decline and Fall, p. 42 ; Two Religions, p. 375. BOOK OF TOBIT 93 Misrim,' where he had been wont to dwell among the great N. Arabian gods. He found, however, more than his match in the prince-angel Raphael. The other passage needs to be similarly re- stored, if we are to gain a really probable under- standing of it. It states poetically, not that Pompey, but that the mythic dragon, representing Israel's N. Arabian oppressor, would be ' slain on the mountains of Misrim.' It is an interesting passage, 1 as showing that the Hebrew poets did not altogether neglect to mention the moun- tainous character of the land of Misrim. That there were Egyptian as well as N. Arabian and Israelite stories based on a belief in demoniacal possession, need not surprise us. Such an one is the Egyptian story of the Possessed Princess on the Bentres style. In- deed, wherever the belief in demons was a living force, stories about a Stronger than the strong must have been in circulation. Of course, in the original story much more must have been made of the ' binding ' of Asmodaeus than we find in our Tobit. We now return to the story which the editor and the translator have handed on. Both prayers were heard ' before the Majesty of the Great God ' {v. 16), and the twofold mission of Raphael was the practical result. Raphael was one of 1 Point Dnsp, and just before read, underneath rov ciVcty, Skdjtv, a gloss. See p. 95 (n. 1). 94 FRESH VOYAGES the prince-angels. His name was no doubt understood in later times as ' God heals.' Origin- ally, however, it must have belonged to a Yerah- me'elite deity, and have had the form f Araphel = 'Arabel, i.e. 'belonging to Arabia.' Chap. iv. Note that Tobit's first paternal charge to his son Tobias indicates the vast im- portance attached to orderly burial (see pp. %6f.). Next, and surely not inferior in importance, is the honouring of the mother. Then comes another section of the charge (which was origin- ally not intended for its present position), relative to the exclusive worship of Yahwe, to the per- formance of His law, to almsgiving (cp. i. 3), to marrying within the tribe, to the punctual payment of wages, to the 'Golden Rule,' to temperance in wine-drinking, to alms (repeated), to ' pouring out thy bread and thy wine on the burial-places of the righteous,' and to 'asking counsel of all that are wise.' Vv. 63 - iga are 'full of reminiscences of Ahikar ' (Simpson). See introduction, in Charles, i. 192. Is this due to pre-Christian interpolation ? At any rate there is no reason why Ahikar should not be borrowed from, for the N. Arabians (as 1 K. iv. 31 shows) were tutors of the Israelite sages; and (as Isa. xix. 11 demonstrates) the Misrite wisdom was of immemorial antiquity. Now Misrim was doubtless one of the ' kingdoms of Yerahme'el,' i.e. was N. Arabian, so that BOOK OF TOBIT 95 Ahikar naturally went there to offer his stores of wisdom to the king. I do not, however, feel able to admit that Tobit iv. 17 is rightly read and rightly explained by Rendel Harris (Charles, ii.) and by Simpson (ibid. i. 212). A reference to a primitive and questionable funeral rite suits neither the con- text nor the parallel line. The zeugma in * Pour out thy bread and thy wine' is also scarcely tolerable. It is true, in the story of Ahikar, as given in the Arabic and Syriac versions (Ar. and Syr. A), there are parallels to the Greek of Tobit. Both, in fact, render : My son ! pour out thy wine on the graves of the righteous, And drink not with evil (ignorant) men. But here, too, the context is opposed to this view of a, and corruption may be strongly sus- pected in the text on which these versions of Ahikar are based. Certainly the original text of Tobit iv. 1 7 ran : Stretch out, O Yerahmeel, thy hand for a blessing to the righteous, Neither give unto sinners. 1 Yerahme'el means here the N. Arabian audience 1 Read, n'tttsn 1 ? jnn Ski | o'pnx mra 1 ? -\v VKDnv nhv. In explana- tion note that ion 1 ? which the Greek text presupposes (like idkV, Jer. iii. 1, etc.) represents Von-i, i.e. Hxovrv. map (see Greek) has sprung from nana. 96 FRESH VOYAGES addressed in the collection of meshalim or wise utterances from which Tobit iv. 6d-iga appears to be extracted. The context speaks of alms- giving ; v. lya supplements this by a paternal advice to the writer's spiritual children not to spend money on the undeserving, but to * stretch out the hand for a blessing (i.e. present) to the righteous.' This seems to me a genuine and im- portant restoration of the original Hebrew. The close of the parental charge relates to a piece of business which naturally devolved on the son of the house. This was to reclaim the ten talents of silver, which Tobias had left in trust with Gabael the brother of Gabri at Rages- Madai (v. 20). The names are not unimportant. They prove, as I have pointed out, the wide diffusion of the migratory N. Arabian race, but in the first instance they confirm the view that the Jews were very widely spread throughout N. Arabia. Gabael, as we have seen already, is * one who belongs to Ah'ab,' 1 and similarly Gabri ( = Gabri' el) is ' one who belongs to Ah'ab-' Arab.' 2 In this connexion we may notice that the river beside which the travellers lodge, though called Tigris, is no doubt the Hiddekel of Genesis and Daniel, which was early identified with the Tigris, 1 T. and B. p. 63 (n. 4) ; Two Religions^ pp. 228, 240. 2 Gabri is almost certainly from Gab-Bari. Gab is an abridged form of Agab = Ah'ab ; Bar is from Rab=\Arab. Cp. Mika'el = Yerahme'el. Both prince-angels are patrons of Israel. BOOK OF TOBIT 97 in spite of critical and philological objections. 1 Really it seems to represent the compound name Hadad-Gilead, 2 which records the fact (which, in the absence of a sketch of the geography of ancient Palestine and N. Arabia, we can but assume) that the river referred to bounded the district known as Hadad-Gilead. But what was the party that lodged by the * ancient river,' and how did its members come together ? The party consisted of only two persons, — Tobias the son of Tobit, and one in the semblance of a young man who professed to be a kinsman of Tobit who was seeking employment. He it was who volunteered to accompany Tobias to Gabael ' our kinsman's ' house. Really he was none less than Raphael, the angel of God, but this information he kept back till his work on earth should be finished. This was how Tobias and his guide came together. There is one of the travellers, however, whom I have not mentioned — Tobias's dog : 3 ' And the dog went forth with him and journeyed with them,' vi. 2 (1); the spirit seems Hellenic. The adventure with the fish need not be here men- tioned, nor the conversation between Tobias and the angel respecting the marriage, which it was Tobias's ' happy duty ' to contract (Simpson, p. 196). It is more important, however, to notice 1 T. and B. p. 89. 2 Ibid. p. 456 (n. 1). 3 Traditions and Beliefs, pp. 1 94 f. 7 98 FRESH VOYAGES an at first sight strange title given in v. 22 (21) by Tobit to his wife, in vii. 15 (16) by Raguel to his wife, and in viii. 4, 7 by Tobias to his bride Sara — * sister.' This title, as is well known, was often given in old Egyptian songs to married women. The question therefore arises whether it is due to Egyptian influence that in Tobit and in the Song of Songs (iv. 9, 10, 12) the same term is applied to a bride or a wife. The answer seems to be that ' brother ' and * sister ' were terms both in Egypt and in Palestine, and, perhaps one may add, in N. Arabia, for member- ship in a family {gens) or in the nation. There is no need on this occasion to suppose a Palestinian writer to have borrowed from Egypt. We next hear of the arrival and welcome of the travellers by Raguel at Ecbatana as leading on to the marriage. This reminds one of a similar episode in the traditional story of Jacob, and is devoid of any special interest for the critic. We must make an exception, however, for this remarkable passage, already referred to : ■ And Tobias remembered the words of Raphael, and took the liver of the fish and the heart out of the bag which he had, and put them on the ashes of the incense. And the smell of the fish baffled the demon, and he ran away into the upper parts of Egypt ; and Raphael went and fettered him there, and bound him straight- way ' (vii. 2, 3 ; Simpson). BOOK OF TOBIT 99 I am bound to mention that Mr. Simpson's argument here seems to me very weak. He thinks that ' the binding of Asmodaeus in Upper Egypt . . . expresses the author's conviction that Egypt, where he was compelled to live in exile, was the veritable dumping - ground of wickedness and sin, exactly as Zechariah regarded Babylon, the land of exile he knew best, ... as the goal of the flying Ephah, wherein Wicked- ness was imprisoned (Zech. v. 5-1 1 ).' But surely the author cannot be supposed to have differed from the generality of Jews, who (as I have re- peatedly proved) regarded the N. Arabian Babel as the centre of false religion. If he says 'the upper parts of Misrim,' rather than * of Babel,' that is because he has in view the N. Arabian mountains, and the city called Babel was apparently not a mountain - city. With ' the upper parts of Misrim we may compare Psalms of Solomon ii. 30, where the mythic dragon is said to have been " slain on the mountains of Misrim."' 1 Asmodaeus, then, is foiled and punished. Nevermore will he and his company trouble the people of Yahwe-worshippers. Raphael, however, the disguised prince-angel, has still to take part in a business transaction. This he does, and with 1 See further in my review of Charles's Pseudepigrapha in Review of Theology (ed. Menzies), section on 'Psalms of Solomon.' ioo FRESH VOYAGES Tobias returns to the sorrowing Tobit and Anna. To reach Nineveh (the original text, however, had Yewanah) they had to pass by a place called — probably — Ashkari 1 (Asshur-Rekem). It was here that Raphael suggested to his companion that it would be well for them two to run in advance of Sara to prepare the house while they were coming. So they two went together, and the dog followed them. 2 Now Raphael had told Tobias what to do, that his father might recover his sight. When, therefore, Tobit stumbled as he went to the door, Tobias lost no time in stepping forward with his remedy. He first blew into his poor blind father's eyes (vi. 12), then he took hold of him with an encouraging word ; then he 'threw the medicament upon him, and gave it him ; and he pulled off the white films with both his hands from the corners of his eyes.' The cure was complete. 'And he fell upon his neck and wept, and said to him, I see thee, child, light of mine eyes. And he said, Blessed is God, and blessed is his great Name, and blessed are all his holy angels ... for he did chastise me, and 1 See various readings, Charles, i. 229. Underneath lies narit. For Ashkar or Ashkar, see Traditions and Beliefs, p. 380 ; The Veil, pp. 30, 53. 2 R c , however, made the dog run before the party (cp. V, et quasi nuntius adveniens ; an interesting notice of Simpson's in Charles, i. 195). If Tobit were 'unmistakably' a Median folk- tale, this pretty feature would have to be abandoned. At least, the four-eyed dog who drove away the corpse-fiend (Moulton) would hardly become one of the family. BOOK OF TOBIT 101 behold, I see my son Tobias.' Tobias too was not behindhand ; the description is very fine — ' rejoic- ing and blessing God in his whole body ' (cp. Ps. ciii. i). Then, after reporting the success of his journey, Tobias allowed his father to go unattended to the gate of Yewanah (MT. Nineveh) to meet his daughter-in-law, Sara. There, as was seemly, benedictions flowed again, and all the Jews of Yewanah rejoiced. Last of all we are told that 1 Ahikar and his cousin Nabath came rejoicing unto Tobit' (xi. 18). It is this latter notice which specially interests us. Here, like Syr. in ii. 10, the Syriac and the Vulgate represent Ahior, probably a modified form of Ashhur. 1 If so, the narrator on whom both depend may well have known that Ahikar was N. Arabian. It is altogether less conceivable that Ahior should be a corruption of Ahikar. There is also another disputable name. It is doubtful whether the name of Ahikar's kinsman and companion was Nabad or Nadab or Nabath or Nasbas (from Manasseh ?). Simpson accepts Nadab ; it is better, however, to read Nabath, which, like Naboth and Nebat, will come from Ethban; 2 Nabad and Nabath will be parallel to Gilead and Galath. 3 Chap. xii. is in some respects very remarkable. 1 Cp. "m* from "inPK often. 2 Decline and Fall, p. 150 (n. 1) ; Veil, pp. 86/. 3 Veil of Hebrew History, pp. 116 (n. 2), 137/ io2 FRESH VOYAGES It consists partly of a fresh group of maxims of practical religion relating to thanksgiving, prayer, and alms, partly of information respecting Raphael The tendency to revert to the hortatory stand- point is characteristic of the author and his age, and, as we have seen, was fostered by the reading of Ahikar. The peculiarity, however, of the maxims and exhortations of chap. xii. is that they are put into the mouth of "one of the seven angels, who stand and enter before the glory of the Lord" (v. 15). I cannot avoid returning to the subject of the prince-angels to whom Raphael belongs. The ' angels of the Face ' are variously named ; their number, too, is various. We cannot take upon ourselves to assert dogmatically how many of these heavenly Powers there were in Semitic peoples ; nor which of the name-lists is most correct. We may, however, assert, with a high degree of probability, that in the age of developing dualism, when Yahwe and Belial or Satan represented, the one the good and the other the evil (or rebellious) principle, it was believed (with the sanction of the religious authorities) that the good God and the bad god had each a group of courtiers. The names of the courtiers on both sides were adopted from the names or titles which had been borne by the members of the divine triads (other than Yahwe) in Palestine and N. Arabia. Such titles were commonly sig- nificant of the districts where the divinities in BOOK OF TOBIT 103 question were originally worshipped ; one of them was Mikael, another Gabriel, another Raphael, another Uriel. These, or others in the same company, presided (as we may suppose) over the four corners of the earth, which, in primitive times, were specially sacred. The double evolu- tion of Asshur and Yerahme'el (the subordinate companions of Yahwe in olden times) is one of the most remarkable facts of the history of Jewish religion. Raphael and Mikael, Uriel and Beel- zebul, came to have different spheres of action, but were originally the same. 1 Was it usual, however, for prince-angels to go about delivering addresses in the style of the meshalim ? But why not ? In one of his aspects Yahwe was a sage, and certainly the Messiah, 1 an angel of the great council ' 2 (@, Isa. ix. 3), had not only the spirit of courage but of know- ledge. It is true, the authenticity of Tobit iv. 6d-iya, xii. 6<£-n, may be questioned, but at any rate the Wanderschaft of the prince-angels was not an inadmissible theory in the opinion of the early redactor. And how did the early Jews think of the 1 Raphael = Arabel ; Mikael = Yerahme'el ; Gabriel = Ah'ab- Rab ; Uriel = Asshuriel ; Beel - zebul = Baal - Ishmael ; Belial = Yerahme'el. These explanations are thoroughly methodical, but I can only give the barest results. Cp. Traditions and Beliefs for parallels. 2 Both Yahwe and Belial probably had councils of seven. In Zarathushtra's religion the Amesha Spenta were six. 104 FRESH VOYAGES appearances of prince -angels ? Their theory- must have been Docetic, i.e. they or their spiritual leaders must have been conscious that such theophanies were not based on reality but on illusion (Meyer). Speculating further they must have concluded that the prince-angel whom in human form they had seen partook of no human food, and this is what is expressly stated in xii. It is possible, however, that the whole of this chapter has been more or less expanded or interpolated by a redactor. However this may be, the influence of vv. 16-22 on parallel Christian views can hardly be mistaken. It need only be added that chap. xiv. has a general affinity with the Epilogue of the Book of Job. It reveals a spirit of unconquerable optimism. Neither in the Epilogue to Job, nor in Tobit xiv., is there any trace of eschatological system. (Cp. Moulton's Early Zoroastrianism, p. 252.) CHAPTER X THE BOOK OF JUDITH Here we have another historical romance designed to inspire the Jews with courage against their social and religious persecutors and oppressors. The true historical setting is approximately as follows. Nebuchadnezzar, here made king of the Asshurites, 1 proclaimed war against the land of Madai, and sent a summons to the dwellers in Pathros (Sarephath), Yaman, (Mount) Halak, Ramshak, etc., unto Jerusalem and Ethban and Ashkal, and Kashram and the stream of Misrim and Naphtah-Ashhur and Aram- Asshur, and all the land of Gishron until thou comest to the borders of Kush (i. 7-10). The object of his missive was a combined attack on 'Arab- Kashram, king of Madai, i.e. the union of all the N. Arabian territories, including Judah, under one king (the lord of Asshur) and one 1 The name of this king — so familiar that I retain it here — should probably rather be Shanbu-Had-'Arab-Sor. 'Arab-Sor may be a gloss. 105 106 FRESH VOYAGES God (no other than Nebuchadnezzar himself — see iii. 8). After conquering Madai he entrusted the further task to Holofernes, his general (ii. 4), who, after a successful campaign, encountered the first real resistance at the hands of the Jews, but lately returned from exile (iv. 3). The immediate danger was for the fate of a strong city of the Jews called Bethulia, or rather Ethbaal-Yarhu (Ishmael-Yerah), another name for which seems to have been Ethbaal-Misrim. The high priest Yoiakim (Neh. xii. 26), therefore, by letter charged those who dwelt in this city to keep firm hold of the passes. This was carried out, to the great disgust of Holofernes, who straightway called a council of officers of the Moabites and Ammonites, and asked for informa- tion respecting the Jews and their country. At this point one Achior ( = Ashhur) appears — ' the leader of all the sons of Ammon ' (v. 5). He makes a speech in reply, entirely from a Jewish point of view. This speech was greeted with murmurs, and the Asshurite general expressed the official view that Nebuchadnezzar was omni- potent, and therefore divine, and no resistance to his might was possible. What right had Achior to speak discouraging words in a strain only seemly for prophets ? This is rather remarkable, because Holofernes, who censures Achior for 6 prophesying,' falls himself into the prophetic style. His speech for Nebuchadnezzar THE BOOK OF JUDITH 107 might, mutatis mutandis, almost have been spoken by Jeremiah. As a punishment, Achior was cast down, bound, at the foot of the hill on which Bethulia was built. The Jews brought him to their assembly, and a friendly welcome was accorded him. Nevertheless the people com- pelled their rulers to agree to surrender Bethulia in five days if no help were forthcoming, for the water-supply of the city had been cut off. In the remainder of the book (viii.-xvi.) the leading figure is a beautiful Jewish widow named Judith, who is clearly the personification of the Jewish, i.e. Pharisaic, ideal of righteousness. The rest of the story need not be told here. Before we pass on, however, I wish to point out a few omissions in the current textual criticism on this book. The first passage I shall refer to is in Judith vi. 2, 'And who art thou, Achior, and the hirelings of Ephraim ? ' But Achior, we are told, was an Ammonite ; indeed, just afterwards (v. 5), Achior is expressly called 1 hireling of Amnion.' The key is to be found in the N. Arabian theory. ■ Hirelings of Ephraim ' should be 'hirelings of Arabia.' The writer of Judith earnestly believes that Arabia too has a future ; and if Arabia at present supplies only mercenaries, it will one day furnish proselytes. The Ammonites are Arabians. Read, therefore, * hirelings of Arabia ' ( f ardim for 'ephraim). 2. In Judith iv. 4, vii. 3, ' Bel-maim ' should be 108 FRESH VOYAGES * Abel-Yewanim.' Abel, however, in proper names is invariably a modification of Ba'al. Maim for Yewanim, as 2 S. xli. 24. The Syr. identifies with Abel-Meholah, where Meholah is a fern, form of Hamul, i.e. Yerahme'el. 3. In vii. 3 the site near Bel-maim, which in iv. 4 is taken by /ecova, appears to be occupied by Kva/jLcov. The former (kcovo) is almost certainly the true reading, being the contracted form of /cva/jbcova (written /cava) or (preferably) fca/jLfMova. 1 The latter word {jca^aiva) requires critical explanation. Most probably it comes from Akammon. This, however, can only be an intermediate stage. Ak stands, as often, for Ashhur, and amnion for akiman. 2 Among the other place-names one thinks, in the first instance, of Bethulia, which Dr. Cowley (in Charles, vol. i.), with Prof. Torrey, 3 identifies with Beth -el, not the well-known city -name, but a Samaritan title for Shechem ; but Mr. S. A. Cook with Jerusalem. 4 But Bethulia can hardly be equivalent to Beth -el. Like the place-name Bethul and the personal name Bethuel, it most probably comes from Temul = Ethmael (Ishmael). As for ya (za), it probably comes from Yahu = Yarhu = Yerahme'el. Temul- Yah was probably the sacred mountain city of the N. Arabian 1 See E. Bib., ' Camon,' ' Cyamon,' < Konae.' 2 See The Veil, p. it 7. 8 Journ. of Amer. Or. Soc. xx. (1899), pp. 160 ff. 4 E. Bib., * Bethulia.' THE BOOK OF JUDITH 109 borderland. 1 And against Mr. Cook's view one must still regard it as conclusive that from iv. 6 and xv. $f. it appears that Bethulia and Jerusalem were two distinct places. Mr. Cook thinks that the present phenomena are due to a time when 4 the identity of the ideal Bethulia with Jerusalem was forgotten.' But this is pure assumption. In iv. 6 we find Bethulia side by side with another, at first sight, strange place-name — Beto- mesthaim. The place lay 'over against Esdraelon (Jezreel) in face of the plain that is near Dothaim/ Bethulia and Dothaim (Dothan) 2 were both in the N. Arabian borderland, and we may assume that Betomesthaim was so too. The first part of the name (Beto) is certainly (like Methu in Methuselah ; and cp. Bethulia) from Temul or Ethmul. The other part may easily be a cor- ruption of Misrim. Temul -Yarhu and Temul - Misrim closely resemble each other, Misrim being a part of Yerahme'el. Torrey, however, would identify the place with Samaria, and explains it as Beth-mispeh. The main objection to the prevalent view of Judith is that a careful examination of the old Biblical Hebrew narratives elsewhere generally shows that the original background was N. Arabian, and that a subsequent writer has redacted it in accordance with his own views of 1 See Decline and Fall, and The Two Religions. 2 See T. and B. p. 440, and cp. E. Bid., Dothan. no FRESH VOYAGES historical propriety. It is natural to assign to this redactor the geographical and historical in- accuracies which now strike the reader. First, as to the names of the two kings and of the general of one of them. Nebuchadnezzar 1 is the name of an Asshurite (i.e. North Arabian) king, whose capital was probably called Yewanah 2 (whence, by corruption, Nineveh). Arphaxad comes from 'Arab-Kashram ; his kingdom was the N. Arabian Madai, and his chief city was Ahmetha. Olofernes or Orophernes is probably from 'Arab-Sin. Of the other personal names one may mention Achior (described as ' the leader of all the bene Ammon '), which, judging from the analogy of Arioch, should come from Ashhur, though Dr. Cowley, in Charles, vol. i., passing over analogies, explains it very improbably as ' friend of the Jews ' (ahihud). Bagoas is most probably a transformation of Gabi, i.e. one belonging to Gab (or Akab ; cp. on 'Beth-Phage'). 1 From Shanbul-Had-'Arab-Sor, or Shanbul-Rekem-Sib'on. 2 See my Two Religions •, pp. 403 /. CHAPTER XI I MACCABEES It is not improbable that even the First Book of Maccabees, which has so long been regarded as a historical record of the second century B.C., is really based upon a record of a persecution of faithful worshippers of Yahwe by N. Arabian tyrants which took place much earlier than the second century b.c. — perhaps in the sixth century. This fact is, I think, enforced upon us by Dan. iii. ; and it is, as I now see, suggested by two passages in i Maccabees, viz. i. 54 f, and xii. 7. The former passage runs thus : 'And on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they set up upon the altar an abomination of desolation, and in the cities of Judah on every side they established high-places.' The phrase ' an abomination of desolation ' is, of course, suggested by the traditional reading and rendering of Dan. ix. 27, xi. 31, xii. 11, on which Dr. Oesterley (in Charles, i. 70) comments, € ue, the abomination which brought about profana- iii ii2 FRESH VOYAGES tion ( = desolation),' which few critics, I suppose, will accept without a qualm. For surely Eberhard Nestle has long since shown ' that ' Baal of heaven 7 is at any rate nearer to the author's meaning than the highly unnatural reading presupposed in the Greek text. Now, however, that a step in advance of this has been taken, and that it has been shown that shamem frequently stands for ishman 2 {i.e. Ishmael), there is no reason for not adopting both in Daniel and in i Mace, shikkus ishrnan, i.e. ' idol of Ishmael.' With this we may compare a similar title of the same deity in Dan. xi. 37, where ' the desire of women ' should be ' the desire of Ishmannites ■ ; N. Arabian men and women were, surely, equally devoted to the kind goddess Ashtart (cp. Jer. xliv. 15, where, let me venture to suggest in passing, that 'the queen of heaven ' should probably be ' the queen of Ishmael '). These passages, I think, are highly suggestive. They confirm the view that an ancient editor has interfered with the text of First Maccabees ; indeed, when Jeremiah and Daniel suffered so much, how should this fine narrative book alto- gether escape ? It thus becomes in a high degree probable that the author of First Maccabees had access to, and employed, an earlier writing in which the oppressor 1 See E. Bz'd.f 'Abomination of Desolation.' 2 See T. and B. p. 1 8. 1 MACCABEES 113 of the Jews referred to was an * Ishmaelite ' or N. Arabian. Of the details of his story we know nothing definite. It is, however, as good as certain that this oppressor aimed at religious as well as political unification for his extended dominions (cp. Judith iii. 8). We shall presently find reason to believe that the Jews expected sympathy and aid in their resistance, surely not from the Spartans, but from the Sarephathites. The name of the great enemy may be hidden underneath Antioch[os], just as another name of the same oppressor may lie hidden underneath Nebuchadnezzar. It indicates that the tyrannical king was an Asshurite, Ashhur was corrupted into Arioch, and Arioch (if we may be bold) into Antioch[os]. In passing, I may venture to record a much more certain discovery, viz. that the name of the great antagonist of the Graeco-Syrian king was properly Akabi 1 (one who belongs to Ashhur- 'Arab). Akabi was first shortened into Kabi, and then expanded into Makabi, or, to separate the syllables, Makkabi. Is not this a step further towards the full truth ? 1 See T. and B., Two Religions (Index, ' Ah'ab'). CHAPTER XII BOOK OF DANIEL The reader has here well - considered supple- mentary notes to the usual commentaries. My thesis is that, in this as in other books, the original background has been painted out, and a new one, both historical and geographical, sub- stituted. 1 Dan. i. 2. The land of Shinar is that of Ishman-'Arab (Gen. xi. 2, Zech. v. 11). — i. 3. Ashpenaz is abridged from Asshur-Sib'on. — i. 6. Mishael is from Aram-Shaul. — i. 7. Belteshazzar, from Ashbal-Azzar ; Shadrak,from Shahar-Rekem; Abednego, from 'Arab-Nebo (in Neh. vii. we hear of Nebo-Ashhur ; Nebo — see p. $3 — is from Shanbul or Shambul) ; Meshak, from Aram- Ashhur. — ii. 14. Ariok, from Ashhur (Gen. xiv. 1). Dan. iii. is most important for the light thrown on the spread of the deification of kings and on the Book of Judith. Nebuchadnezzar makes a gilded image (of himself) — a symbol of the religious 1 Mines of Isaiah^ p. 1 86. 114 BOOK OF DANIEL 1 1 5 unity enforced on all his subjects. It is also im- portant to notice that, just as in Isa. lxvi. different conveyances take the place of ethnics (see Mines of Isaiah), so, in Dan. iii. 2, the supposed official titles of rulers are really N. Arabian ethnics. 1 One of these ethnics (Ashdadi) passed under the editor's hands into ahashdarpenim ; another {petkorim) becomes in the same process tiphtaye. Dan. v. Belshazzar (cp. Belteshazzar) figures here as son of Nebuchadnezzar ; the reference is not to kings of Babylon. In fact, the greatest N. Arabian kingdom must have been inferior in power to the Babylonian, in spite of the repeated reference to * all the peoples, nations, and languages,' which only means those included in the N. Arabian empire. The writing on the wall (vv. 24 f.) has received numerous explanations, 2 but is really a not unparalleled form of soothsaying. What we most readily expect is the name or names of the successful plunderers. And this we seem to get, for the interpretation in z>. 28, * given to the Medes and Persians,' is essentially correct. d^d in pD^D must be a regional or ethnic. Can we hesitate as to the meaning ? Must not Paras, here as in Ezra i. 1, Esth. i. 3, Dan. vi. 8, etc., be the name of a distant part of N. Arabia, equivalent to Pathros ? The final -in may be elided. 1 E. Bib. col. 4459. 2 See special article in E. Bib. cols. 3020/ n6 FRESH VOYAGES This gives us the key to the other parts of the word-group. Mene (mo) must be a corruption of ]«d ; the first pfi is = Yerahme'el, and the second = Ishma"el, unless indeed it should be Madai. Tekel (bpn) too is corrupt ; we should restore Sm[«] ; see The Veil, pp. \zff-> 5 2 » 7 1 - Thus we get the fatal announcement, ' Yerahme'el, Madai, Ethbal, and Paras.' Dan. vii. 13 f. The Celestial Agent of the Enthroned Ancient of Days is called, in vii. 13, * one like a man ' (lit., ■ one like a son of man '). As Professor N. Schmidt 1 of Cornell and 1 2 have (I think, independently) shown, the Being like a man was the prince-angel Mikael. I must now add (see T. and B., Index) that ^n^d, which occurs also as a personal name, 1 Chr. v. 13, is certainly from Sndd["iJ, Yerahme'el, the supreme God of the Yerahme'elites, but, as the Jews believed, was degraded by their victorious God to the rank of First Prince- Angel. It may be doubted, however, whether he can be distinguished from Ben-Dod, i.e. from the Messiah. Both figures are ideal representatives of Israel, only differing in what we may call their early history. The question, however, arises whether ' one like a man ' can have been enough to make it clear who was in- tended. The kingdom appointed for the Celestial Hero was formed by the combination of Judah and 1 E. Bib., « Son of Man.' 2 Cheyne, Bible Problems (appended notes). BOOK OF DANIEL 117 N. Arabia. Is it not probable that this would be indicated by the description of the Hero ? Has there not been some omission ? Dan. viii. 2. Shushan (p. 37). Ulai = Ulami. The real or partly imaginary streams of N. Arabia indicated by their names the land where they flowed. Ulam (1 Chr.) = Yerahme'el. — viii. 13, ix. 27, etc. — see p. 112. — viii. 20 f. The kings are N. Arabian, Madai, Paras or Pathros, Yawan or Yaman. So at any rate in the original form is x. 4, ' the great river, that is, Hiddekel,' thus identifying Perath and Hiddekel. In fact, Ephrath and Hiddekel may be the same stream. On the latter, see T. and B. pp. 88/!, 263, 456 (n. 1). — x. 18, ' one like the appearance of a man ' — see p. 116. — x. 21, ' Mika'el your prince 7 — cp. xii. 1. See T. and B. Index. The references under * Michael ' will, I hope, be found profitable. — xi. 6, 'the king of the south* and 'of the north.' In the original form 'the king of Yaman ' and ' of Saphon.' — xi. ^y t ' the desire of women.' For ndshim rather read ishmanntm, 4 Ishmaelites ' — see p. 112. Dan. xi. 42, 43. The MT. gives as the names of countries Misraim, Lubim, and Kushim. In Nahum iii. 9 1 we find the same regionals with the addition of Put, and in 2 Chr. xii. 3 with the addition of Sukkiim. Clearly Misraim should be Misrim, and Lubim should be Rakbulim 1 T. and B. p. 173. u8 FRESH VOYAGES ( = Yerahme'elites), while Kushim and Sukkiim ' are in any case N. Arabian. Our conclusion must be that both parts of the Book of Daniel depend on earlier writings with N. Arabian background. 1 Both names may come from Ashkarim. CHAPTER XIII I BARUCH For a summary of previous criticism I most gladly refer to Dr. Whitehouse in Charles's monumental work. I trust that here too the 1 little ship ' in which I myself voyage has been guided aright. In i. 4 the exiles are described as * those that dwelt in Babylon by the river Sud.' * Babylon/ however, is based on the false reading ^m, which is corrupted from hxn (Rakbal), and * Sud ' in like manner is a corruption of ns, Sor (the southern Sor ; cp. Ps. lxxxiii. 8, lxxxvii. 5). Similarly in z/. 1 1 ' Baltasar ' is said to be the ^on of ' Nabuchodonosor.' The original text, however, had different names which we can still detect underneath the present, viz. Shanbul- Had-Arab-§or and Ethbal - Asshur, or some intermediate forms implying N. Arabian origin. But this is not all that we owe to the newer criticism. In iii. 23 the true text has also been badly corrupted. What have the 4 Agarenes ' to do here ? They were not specially wise. Almost certainly -un XQ (Hagarites) should be d^n, 119 120 FRESH VOYAGES i.e. D-QNrrN (Ah'abim). 'Ah'ab' is equivalent to 4 Canaan ' ; more strictly it represents ■ Ashhur- Arabia.' The passage (iii. 23) thus (' sons of Hagar') should be aa* m ('sons of Agab'). Agab (cp. Agabus) is equivalent to Ah'ab, i.e. 1 Canaan/ Yarbal in 1. 2 also implies an obvious correction. The passage thus becomes : The sons also of Agab that seek understanding, Yarbal, Midian, and Teman. None of these, says the writer, have found the object of their quest — true wisdom. Of the con- nexion between wisdom and the N. Arabian peoples I have had to speak in dealing with Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. PART II NEW TESTAMENT 121 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY The strong romantic atmosphere in the Books of Chronicles has, I fear, blinded the eyes of many to the existence of underlying traditions and lists, partly genealogical, partly geographical, of old personal and local Hebrew names. With regard to the former, it is Prof. Torrey's opinion that the Chronicler 'scattered the names of his like-minded contemporaries (in a rather helter- skelter way, it is true) all through his account of the Restoration, showing that these families were the ones which " returned " with Zerubbabel and Ezra, signed the pledge against foreign marriages and the agreement to support the cultus, built the wall of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah, and helped to dedicate it. Here he took the only possible way of placing orthodox Judaism safely beyond the reach of the Samaritans and of the rest of the pan ds (which included all the apostates of Israel) : the pure blood and the 123 124 FRESH VOYAGES true worship were transmitted only by way of Babylonia' 1 It is certainly an ingenious theory that the Chronicler, in framing the lists of Ezra-Neh., used the names of his like-minded contemporaries ; but how did he become possessed of the very numerous names in i and 2 Chron. ? If the lists in 1 and 2 Chron. are, to a large extent, drawn from comparatively old sources, why should those in Ezra-Neh. be either solely or in the main derived from the Chronicler's large acquaintance with strict Yahwists ? It appears to me that the work of the Chronicler has suffered many things at the hands of a re- dactor, but that we can still detect a predominant reference in the names (alike of Chron. and of Ezra-Neh.) to N. Arabia. This seems to suggest as the object of the Chronicler that of showing that racial and religious purity were with those Jews who had a N. Arabian connexion. And here I will not withhold what I venture to think a highly reasonable conjecture. This is that, in the time of the first formation of the Gospels, there were still extant lists of persons and places which, whether the framers of those Gospels knew it or not, were connected with that, for the Jews, most important place of sojourn and 1 Ezra Studies, p. 212. The italics are Prof. Torrey's. For ' Babylonia ' my own studies would incline me to substitute N. Arabia. INTROD UCTOR Y 125 inward development. Much ingenuity has been lavished on the explanation of the various names which I shall quote, but with a very slender amount of cogency. I am therefore well within my rights in attempting fresh methodical explana- tions, and if some hasty reader should be tempted to call them impossible I may presume to reply that with an expanded horizon he will see more truly and judge more justly. It is only the narrowness of our horizon which bars critical progress, and prevents us from climbing to distant summits. But can we not hear a mur- muring sound of falling fences ? He who would be in the van of progress will call no reported discovery impossible, but will, rejecting all prejudices, count no trouble too great to put himself at a new point of view. Prof. W. B. Smith of New Orleans, author of that brilliant work Ecce Deus, is not altogether blind to the importance of a new study of Hebrew names, but has not yet adequately considered the effect which the N. Arabian theory may be destined to have on the study of New Testament names, and perhaps too of the central New Testament story. For I cannot conceal my opinion that the study of the Gospel narrative has already passed into a new phase. The first part of the transition was effected when it was shown 1 to be more than 1 Hibbert Journal, April 191 1, p. 658 ; Mines of Isaiah, pp. 2.%ff.\ also Bible Problems, 1909. 126 FRESH VOYAGES probable that the conception of a suffering and yet triumphant divine-human Being was current in the East in very early times. How the Jews can have escaped hearing of it till the second or third century a.d. I (like others) am unable to understand, just as I find it now a hard saying that Israelite eschatology was a pure * post-exilic ' product. 1 Our records unfortunately are but scanty, and I must leave to special scholars in a somewhat narrower department the criticism of the use which has lately been made of a Naassenian (Gnostic) hymn and an adjuration by ' the God of the Hebrews, Jesus.' The second part of the transition will be accomplished by the discovery of fresh literary monuments and by a keener in- vestigation than is perhaps usual of the personal and local names in the story of the Nativity and the Ascension. To this investigation I will now devote myself. We read in Matt. i. 20/ : 1 Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary (i.e. Mariam) thy wife : for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Breath. And she shall bring forth a son ; and thou shalt call his name Jesu[s] ; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.' There are three names in this narrative which lend themselves to the mythic interpretation, viz. 1 H. Gressmann, Eschatologie. INTRODUCTORY 127 Joseph, son of David, and Mariam. The divine Father and the divine Son may either have the same name, or the relationship between them may be indicated by 'son of.' * Dod (friend) was one of the popular names of the chief of the gods, officially more often called Yah we, Jerahmeel, Ishmael, Hadad, or Rimmon. Either he, or a son of his, sacrificed himself in human form, for the good of man. The religious authorities, how- ever, and those Jews who followed them, altered Dod into David, implying that the God-man of the old popular belief was merely an exalted human king like David, just as they probably altered the name of the goddess Seba'ith into the innocent word Seba'oth, " hosts." This took place as early as the shaping of the well-known legend of King David's birth at Bethlehem. There must have been a sanctuary of Dod at Bethlehem (there was also one at Beersheba), where the initiated took part in the ritual lamentations over Adon ( = Adonis) and his sister or spouse, 1 as Jerome (by an anachronistic fiction ?) asserts that they did in his day. . . .' 2 * Now, perhaps we can see how Jesus came to be called son of David and why Bethlehem became his birthplace, more clearly than was possible under the guidance of Prof. Drews. Whether the dying and rising God-man can have been called "son 1 Decline and Fall, pp. 53-55. 2 Hibbert Journal, April 191 1, pp. 659/ 128 FRESH VOYAGES of Joseph" as well as "son of Dod," I may- consider later. But if M Joseph " is really a divine name, no thanks are due to [Prof. Drews], whose extravagance here passes all bounds.' 1 The preceding paragraphs were written in 191 1, but the substance of them will be found in Traditions and Beliefs (1907), pp. 46/!, 56/], where, among other things still worthy of a con- sideration which has been denied them, it is quite correctly mentioned that both Dod and Ben- Dod were popular titles of that superhuman Being the Messiah. I hope to have augmented the evidence for my thesis by throwing fresh light on the ritual lamentation for Adon and Dodah, and both in articles in the Hibbert Journal and in Mines of Isaiah I broke fresh ground by discussing the possible reference by name to the self-sacrificing divine-human Friend of Israel. Lastly, in Bible Problems I ventured on the field of Daniel and the Apocalypse. In one of these books I offered the necessary conjecture that the later Jewish belief in a Messiah ben- Joseph, who was to die by the sword of Gog and Magog, 2 is connected with an early popular Messianic belief different from what we find in the canonical writings, and which was itself a development of a still earlier myth of the death and resurrection of a divine Being. 1 Hibbert Journal \ April 191 1, p. 660. 2 See Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, 1888. INTRODUCTORY 129 There is indeed no evidence that the Jewish Messiah was ever called by the name of Joseph. But the title Ben-Joseph given in later times to the suffering Messiah cannot really have been a late theological fiction. Nor is it probable that the Supreme God, regarded as the Father-God, had no special and distinctive name. That name was Joseph ; it represents El Elyon in his character of Father- God, and his divine Son could, consistently with Hebrew thinking, be called so too. But He was, doubtless, more commonly called Ben-Joseph, not specially as the Messiah who suffered, but as He who devoted Himself to death for the sake of Israel. Just so, the Messiah was called both Dod and Ben-Dod, and both Yarham-Asshur and (presumably) Ben- Yarham-Asshur. We have now to explain the Messianic name Joseph. The ordinary views are hardly any longer acceptable. So then atfr* and il&r having often to do duty for *Dflp or ^nsdbp, it is natural to think first of all of hy& (Yishbal is one of the forms of Ishmael). But though this is not im- possible, another view seems more probable. There is a divine name well known to students of the Phoenician and Egyptian inscriptions (it was probably introduced into Egypt from Phoenicia) ; it is Reshef, apparently a war-god. 1 Most probably this god-name was brought to 1 See Cooke, N. Semitic Inscriptions, pp. 5 dff. 9 130 FRESH VOYAGES Canaan, and so to Egypt, from N. Arabia. It is a helpful peculiarity of the Phcen. inscriptions that they always append a qualifying word to Reshef ; and this as a rule appears to be a place- name. Thus Reshef-hes is equivalent to Reshef- hasar (see T. and B. p. 57), and Reshef-MKL to Yerahme'el- Reshef, and (in a pers. name) Reshef- yathan is = Reshef of Ethan ; so, too, in a N. Syrian inscription 1 (that of Panammu), though at first Reshef has no added name, but is simply given among the other great gods of Ya'di (close to Rekubel, i.e. Yerahme'el), we find mention, later on, of Arku- Reshef, i.e. Ashhur- Reshef. We cannot hesitate, therefore, to explain Joseph, in Matt. i. 18-25, as a corruption of Yarham- Reshef (the omission of R and the difference of the sibilant 2 are unimportant). Let no one be deterred by the novelty of these results of long and independent study from giving them a thorough consideration in their context. It is no doubt strange that so many divine names should consist of regionals, but the fact is sup- ported by abundant evidence. Even Reshef, which appears at first like the name of a god of pestilence (hes, ■ arrow,' being taken metaphoric- ally), turns out to be no exception to the general rule. For Reshef, agreeably to many analogies, must be a contraction of Raf'ash ; just as Par'osh 1 Cooke, N. Semitic Inscriptions^ pp. i$9J^. G. Hoffmann's view is too forced. 2 Cp. mso and mm. INTRODUCTORY 131 (the supposed flea-clan !) must come, by trans- position, from the same compound name Raf'ash, i.e. Arab-Asshur. 1 Asshurite Arabia was, in fact, the country from which the cult of the God of the Mysteries reached the Israelites. The other names of that God here given are Dod and Yarham-Asshur. 1 Mariam thy wife.' Mariam, too, is a con- tracted compound divine name. The full form is Aramath-Yaman. We find this underlying the Massoretic ■ Ramathaim' (1 Sam. i. 1) and ' Mera- thaim ' (Jer. 1. 21). Again and again an appended Yam 2 (i.e. Yaman, as in Isa. xxiv. 14) has been mistaken by the early Jewish scholars for the dual ending aim. Aramah is the feminine form of Aram (Two Religions, p. 276), better known in the slightly shortened form of Ramah. 8 In the later N. Arabian temple-archives the fuller forms of the names of the Father-God, the Mother-God, and the Son-God were probably still preserved, but the priestly scholars who watched over these archives will have felt the impact of the tide of religious progress, and have consciously and deliberately obscured the true meaning of those sacred names. More and more Yah we be- came possessed of full monarchic rights, and the names Joseph (Yarhu-Reshef), Mariam (Aramath- 1 See the evidence in T. and B. p. 178 (on Arpakshad). 2 See 1 K. xiv. 31, xv. 1. 8 For the masculine form Ram, see 1 Chr. ii. 9, Num. xxvi. 38 (Ahiram = Ashhur-Aram), and 2 K. viii. 16 ( = Yarhu-Aram). 132 FRESH VOYAGES Yaman), and Joshua (Yarhu-Asshur) became attached, two to a simple man and woman of Galilee, and the third to a gifted prophet and teacher. But in the great Jewish -Christian Apocalypse we still find a wondrous visionary- scene in which the woman 'arrayed in the sun/ the child -king of the nations, and the Divine Protector on his throne, are introduced in splendid form, and the dragon their enemy (Rev. xii. 1-9). 1 First of all, however, let me try to imagine the process of development through which may have passed the originally mythic tradition of the self-sacrifice of the three closely-united deities personified (in the Docetic manner) as a single human being born at Bethlehem. Clearly there must have been at least a bare recital of the facts of the tradition. The supposed birthplace must have been mentioned, viz. a cave at a N. Arabian spot called Bethlehem (' house of Yerahme'el ')» The divinity of the Person was also impressed on the hearers or readers. But supreme among the facts was surely the love which prompted the unique self-devotion of the triune God, who was born and died and gloriously rose again for man. It must also be assumed that embassies proceeded from the far parts of N. Arabia to the sacred mountain city of Yeho-Asshur (mentioned, it appears, in 2 K. xxiii. 8), 2 where, in the sanctuary 1 See Cheyne, Bible Problems (with appended notes). 2 D. and F. p. 27. The city and the theo-anthropic Victim INTRODUCTORY 133 precincts, mystic rites were celebrated by the initiated. The embassies spoken of have found an enigmatical and highly poetical record in Matt, iii. 1,2: 1 Behold, Magi came from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that was born king of the Jews ? For we have seen his star at its rising, and are come to do homage to him,' The earlier form, however, of essentially the same tradition must (unless, to satisfy Prof. Moulton, 1 we reject multitudinous evidences for the N. Arabian theory en bloc) in the Hebrew record have had a N. Arabian background. 'Magi,' which baffles contending Iranian scholars, must have been ■ Gamrim ' ; 2 ' the east ' {avardkai), * Rekem,' ■ Yerahme'el.' The homage about to be proffered by the Gamrim implies that one at least of the Yerahme'elite or N. Arabian peoples is prepared to submit to the yoke of Israel and of Yah we. It has been shown that both Israel and Yerahme'el had ambitions. That of Yerah- me'el (represented by Koresh) was to unite all the N. Arabian peoples, and Judah as well, under one head ; that of Israel was to subject those same Yerahme'elite peoples (say, Misrim and Asshur) have the same name (Yarhu-Asshur), which indicates N. Arabia as the region where the Passion and the Glorification took place, and where the commemorating sanctuary was built. 1 Moulton, Early Zoroastt ianistn, pp. 428-430. 2 See D. and F. (as above). 134 FRESH VO YA GES to Yahwe and to Israel. 1 It may be doubted whether, as the capital of this neo- Israelite empire, the northern or the southern Jerusalem 2 was intended. Most likely, however, it was the southern and more central city of that venerated name. The mention of the star will be at once clear when we refer to Num. xxiv. i yd : A star beams out of Jacob, A sceptre has arisen out of Israel ; He smites through Ephrath of Moab, And [destroys] all the sons of Ashtar {gloss y Ashkar). 3 The star is the Messiah ; but the star gives no friendly light to the sons of Ashtar. To them the star -spirit becomes a heavy, overpowering mace or sceptre (cp. Ps. ii. 9). The framers of our tradition may possibly have thought that the oracles of Balaam would reach the eyes or ears of the Yerahme'elites, and that Judas the Maccabee would have appeared to them as the predicted ' mace ' or * sceptre ' of the oracles. Would that we could obtain absolute certainty on this point ! At any rate, the temper of these N. Arabians is wholly different from that of the rulers of the 1 Mines of Isaiah, p. 12. 2 The Veil of Hebrew History, pp. 26, 34/, 38, 45 > 7** 3 Two Religions, p. 102. INTRODUCTORY 135 Messiah's own land. The hostility of Herod, who seeks to slay the young child, is but a specimen of that which surrounds all the mythic children for whom a high destiny is marked out. The temple-record must have referred to this, and it may well have mentioned the Ashtarites as the persecutors and the N. Arabian Misrites as the people among whom the young child and his mother sought refuge. So much had to be premised that the reader might get the right point of view for this fruitful but neglected study of New Testament names. I still find it needful to complain of the ignoring of my books by Biblical students, English and German. Cp. Two Religions, p. 430. Incident- ally I have found occasion (I hope) to throw a bright light on a few of the most interesting of these names, Bethlehem, David, Joseph, Mariam. Let us begin with those which are attached to localities. CHAPTER II NAZARETH AND ITS RELATED TRADITIONS. BETHLEHEM i. Nazareth. That there was no such place-name or regional as Nazaret or Nazareth, or Nazara, in pre-Christian times, is hardly probable, 1 but almost equally- hazardous is it to connect Nazoraean or Nazarene (so W. B. Smith) with the Hebrew root NZR, ' to guard,' as if this name meant a worshipper of the deity honoured by the cultus title noser, 'Guard.' Analogy leads us to expect, not such a vague title as ' Guardian,' but the name of the place or people of the god's worshippers. And the place where the most gracious of Gods was, in pre-Christian times, specially worshipped was (reading under- neath the text) in the valley of Gamron 2 (Zech. xii. ii ; see p. 167), a place which several indica- tions prove to have been in the N. Arabian borderland, and, as we may plausibly conjecture, in the southern Galilee. 1 See E. Bib., ■ Nazareth ' ; W. B. Smith, Der vorchristliche Jesus. 2 See T. and B. pp. 56, 326, 438/ ; Mines of Isaiah, p. 29. 136 INTRODUCTORY 137 I will first of all justify this heresy of my own by recording the * desperate conjecture' of an eminent living critic. It is well known that some of the ancients connected ' Nazarene ' with T13, ' a Nazirite,' lit. 'one consecrated,' and Prof. Burkitt 1 hazards the conjecture that Na&peO is ' really con- nected with TW and the vow of the Nazirites.' He admits, however, that ' it is a desperate con- jecture,' and that ' he would not make it, were it not that the ordinary view of Nazareth seems to him wholly unproved and unsatisfactory.' Now the difficulty of the implied interchange of s and t is greatly exaggerated by Prof. Burkitt, and I would not criticize him on this account. There are, as a fact, many instances of such an inter- change in the popular speech of Palestine. I venture, therefore, to propound a new theory, or rather, if I may speak freely, a discovery, which has relieved my own mind from an intolerable burden. It arose in my thoughts quite naturally through the perception that the original names of places or regions may often be detected underneath the later names. Of course, we must assume the common figure of metathesis as well as the cor- ruptions and interchanges of letters characteristic of popular speech. Indeed, if a word seems obstinately closed to investigation, our first step should be to try the effect of metathesis, not arbitrarily, but in accordance with some proved or 1 Burkitt, Syriac Forms of N.T. Proper Names, p. 18. 138 FRESH VOYAGES probable theory of the history of the period. In the present case we shall do well to accept a sug- gestion from the theory which alone solves the difficulty of many parallel problems, viz., that some name which underlies the plainly corrupt form Nazareth is an old synonym for Galil, i.e. the southern Galilee. (That there was a southern Galilee, I have not had to learn from Resch. 1 There was such a district situated not very far from the religious capital of the N. Arabian borderland. The parallelism is curiously exact.) What, then, is the old synonym for Galil underlying Nasr, Nazar, or Nazor ? (We will consider the feminine ending of Nazareth pre- sently.) It is Resin or Rezon ; both forms are attested — only as personal names, it is true, but we know that many personal names began by being regionals. From this came the popular modification Nazareth, as if ' region of D'HSS,' i.e. shooting plants. Resin itself is not the original form ; it comes (like Birsha from 'Arab-Asshur, Bedad from 'Arab - Dad, Besalel from 'Arab- Ishmael) from Bar-Sin. And what does Bar-Sin mean ? Bar, as in all proper names into which this enters, is modified from Rab, which in all compound proper names comes from 'Arab 2 (Arabia). Sin too is a shortened form. It comes 1 See E. Bib., « Matthias.' 2 D. and F. p. 57 (n. 1) ; T. and B. p. 109 (n. 2); Veil, p. 86 (n. 3). INTRODUCTORY 139 from Sib'on ( = Ishmael) ; an intermediate form is Soan. Thus we get, for Bar-Sin, 'Arab- Sib/on. The name has developed in another very in- teresting way, if I am right in regarding Chorazin 1 (Matt. xi. 21, Luke x. 13) as a corruption of Bar- Sin. 2 It is easier, however, to take Chorazin as being for Achor-Sin, 3 i.e. the Galilaean part of the region called Achor. We have an exact parallel for this in the place-name Chor-Ashan. But we have still to account for the ending et in Nazaret. In spite of the Greek vowel e, the Hebrew ending of Bar-Sin may have been atk. Rab-§inath may have been a title of the goddess Ashtart, who was originally a member of the divine company of three. 4 It is by no means uncommon in these old Jewish writings for the name of a deity to be supplanted by a title, and, as a rule, this title indicates the region from which the Israelites derived this divinity's cult. Such titles are often only known to us in a mutilated form — take, for instance, Zonah in Dt. xxiii. 18 and Jer. v. 7, which is surely a corruption of SiVonah, i.e. Ashtart. Similarly Resinath (Bar-Sinath) is most probably a mutilated title of the same great goddess. When the inclusion of a goddess in the inner council of deity had become repugnant to the most religious Israelites, the title of the goddess 1 For the Greek readings see E. Bit., ( Chorazin. 5 2 Hibbert Journal, July 19 13, p. 918. 3 Ibid., July 19 1 1, p. 892. 4 See Two Religions, Index. 140 FRESH VOYAGES had to give way to the imaginary city -name, 1 Nazareth. But the original form of the gracious deity's name was Yarhu-Asshur-Rabsinath. 2 2. Bethlehem. There is no reason why the incarnate God should not have been born at Beth-Lehem. But which Beth-Lehem ? For it is probable that there were three places which bore the name Beth-Lehem ; nor can we wonder at this, con- sidering that Beth-Lehem is merely a record that here in olden times was a settlement of N. Arabians ; in short, Lehem is not a loaned Babylonian god-name, but a witty popular modi- fication of Yerahrneel? One of these three was reckoned to the tribal territory of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 15), another to that of Judah (1 S. xvii. 12), and a third appears to have belonged to the Israelite N. Arabian borderland. The second, according to our authorities in their present form, was the birthplace of David, and, presumably, so soon as the Messiah belief (originally popular) received official sanction, the Judaite Beth-Lehem began to expel the N. Arabian as the supposed birthplace both of David and of ' great David's greater son.' The framers or expanders of traditions, however, were slow to abolish all the 1 The case is similar to that of Yahwe Seba'oth. See T. and B., Index. 2 Hibbert Journal, July 191 3, p. 919. The name became corrupted into Yeshua-Nazaret. 3 T. and B. pp. 51, 419/ INTRODUCTORY 141 traces of N. Arabian influence on the Israelite race, culture, and religion, and in 1 Chron. ii. 50/. Salma abi Beth-Lehem is reckoned to the family of Hur, i.e. Ashhur, who is N. Arabian. 1 We may also note that in Gen. xxxiii. several glosses indicate that Beth - Lehem was situated in N. Arabia. 2 Now if, on the one hand, there was a chronicle of the temple-history, and of the matters which were interesting to temple-worshippers, what event would so surely stand at the very head of the chronicle as the incarnation of the gracious divinity to whom doubtless the sanctuary of Yarham-Asshur 3 was dedicated ? And where can the incarnation more easily be imagined than in a cave ? I cannot, however, bring myself to follow Winckler, 4 who holds that the chest (aron) of 2 S. vi. 3 contained the newly born Tammuz- Yahwe. The identification of Yahwe-Yerahme'el with Tammuz is very probable. 5 But how shall we say that in David's time Yahwe was only 'lately born'? In the mysteries, at any rate, the birth of Yahwe-Yerahme'el must have been primeval. There is no period in which it could not have been said, * In all their affliction He was afflicted.' 1 On the genealogy, cp. Gemoll, Grundsteine> pp. 156 /. '3K in such verbal collocations is, in my opinion, the short for ■uk = any. 2 T. and B. 3 See D. and F. p. 27. 4 Geschichte Israels, ii. 95. 5 See E.B., 'Tammuz.' CHAPTER III MORE PLACE-NAMES GETHSEMANE, GOLGOTHA, BETHANY, ETC. An archaizing and not always intelligent tendency- is unmistakable in the later Old Testament writers ; a failure to observe this has marred much 'higher criticism.' It seems to me that there is a trace of this tendency in the Circle (kikar) of Jordan, in the account of the ministry of John the Baptist (see Matt. iii. 5, Luke iii. 3). For the first and the third evangelists would hardly have used the expression 77 irepi^Qo^ unless they had had before them a Hebrew tradition in which reference was made to ( the kikkar ' (i.e. the Eshkar or Ashkar) of Jordan. Now the expres- sion ' the circuit, or circle, of Jordan ' really implies an entirely wrong view. It ought to designate a portion of the N. Arabian border- land, 1 but it came to be understood of a part of the Gkor, i.e. of the Jordan- valley. The framer of the tradition misunderstood. 1 The Veil of Hebrew History , pp. 16, 134^; Two Religions, p. 166 (n. 3). 142 PERSONAL AND PLACE-NAMES RE-EXAMINED 143 Another solution of the problem is offered by Martin Gemoll (Grundsteine> p. 252), but I will not digress by discussing it. We have other examples of the archaizing use of ' the kikkar' in Neh. iii. 22, xii. 28 ; the use of Gethsemane, Gabbatha, and Golgotha is partly parallel. Other Place-names 1 . Beth- Phage, The usual theory connecting this name with unripe figs is almost as unsuitable as the pre- vailing theory of the Mount of Olives. As in Bagoas and Bigwai, there seems to be a reference to N. Arabia, from which land the Israelites and Canaanites came. Probably Beth-Phage comes from Beth-Gabbim (see ' Gabbatha '). Or may we not restore, as the original form, Beth- Gabbith ? See ' Bethany/ 2. Gethsemane. The name, I well know, is one that opens the fountain of religious emotion. There are, how- ever, some objections, not devoid of probability, to the acceptance of this name as accurate. On the analogy of the 'threshing-floor of Araunah (?) the Yebusite,' we should expect the second part of the name now read Gethsemane to be the personal name of the ancient proprietor. As it stands, however, the name is hardly acceptable. 144 FRESH VO YA GES Gath, of course, should mean 'a wine -press,* and shemen means 'oil.' But does gath always mean ' wine-press ' ? As a city-name this seems not at all a suitable sense, and I have therefore proposed the theory that the city-name Gath may (rather, must) be a shortened form of Golath or the like (cp. Goliath, Gullath), which in turn may (must) originate in ■ Gilead.' I have also suspected, and the suspicion has been amply justified, that Shemen is not always ' oil/ but sometimes the short for Ishman (= Ishmael). It is my opinion, agreeably to what I have written on Nazareth and Bethlehem, that in the archives of the Israelite temple in the N. Arabian borderland was a record of the wonderful experiences of the incarnate Saviour- God, and that this record contained various names of places and persons which would harmonize with the N. Arabian theory. Three such place-names, which occurred in the original story of the Passion in irrecoverable contexts, are Gethsemane, Golgotha, and Gabbatha. The first of these has now been explained ; it means Gilead of the N. Arabians, the region in which the southern Jerusalem stood. The others will be treated next. 3. Golgotha. Golgotha, the scene of the Crucifixion, means apparently 'skull.' Efforts have been made to PERSONAL AND PLACE-NAMES RE-EXAMINED 145 take off from the strangeness of this, but there is still some appearance of force : for myself, I venture to think that underneath gulgoleth there lurks golath, and under golath lurks giVad. Gilead, as we have seen, probably comprehended the southern Jerusalem. 4. Gabbatha. This name, at any rate, has not been plausibly explained. It reveals its secret, however, to those who have shaken off prejudices. Gab, Gob, and Agab (in ' Agabus,' the name of a New Testament prophet ; cp. also Bagoas in the Book of Judith) are corrupt forms of Ah'ab, 1 which comes ultimately from Ashhur- r Arab, one of the current names of the N. Arabian borderland. I suppose that ' John ' found this name in an ill-understood context, and was unwilling to forego the evidence of topographical accuracy which it seemed to afford. I am glad to notice that Professor W. B. Smith speaks very emphatic- ally of the ' futility ' of the search for Golgotha and Gabbatha. Thus far indeed it has been ' vanity of vanities,' 2 but may not this be because we have not gone the right way to work ? 5. Bethany. Was it really a village (John xi. 1)? Or 1 T. and B., Two Religions, Mines of Isaiah, The Veil of Hebrew History ; in each case see Index. 2 Cp. E. Bib., ■ Gabbatha,' ' Golgotha.' 10 146 FRESH VOYAGES was it a part of the great northern suburb of Jerusalem? 1 It is at any rate referred to by name in connexion with Bethphage (Mark xi. i), which appears to have been part of that suburb. Are Bethphage and Bethany the same place ? They must at any rate have been close together, and the expression in Mark xi. i looks as if the redactor were not quite sure of his ground. To prove this, or at least to make it a very reasonable conjecture, we must be able to show that the two place - names are equivalent. And they are, if Beth - Phage is from Beth- Gabbith, and BrjdavLa from Beth - So'aniyyah. There is abundant evidence that the worship of Ashtart was very prevalent even after Josiah's so-called Reformation, and that the worshippers of this great goddess under the title of Sib'onah ( = Sib'onith) resorted to a temple sacred to her we may gather from the true text of Jer. v. 7. Here the Judaites are accused of cutting their flesh (ritually) in the house of the soanah (this is altered, from a religious scruple, into zonah, * harlot ' ; soanah is a shortened form of Sib'onah). 2 The same scruple, which shows itself in the alteration in Jer. v. 7, may be accountable for the reading * Bethania,' i.e. mas 8 rri became rraMTHfc The result is that there were two names for the sanctuary of Ashtart in the great suburb of 1 E. A. Abbott, E. Bib., ' Lazarus,' col. 2747. 2 Two Religions, p. 51 (n. 3). 8 rrajw — mfafc PERSONAL AND PLACE-NAMES RE-EXAMINED 147 Jerusalem ; the one was ' house of the Ah'abbite ( = Gabbite),' the other 'house of the Sibonite.' In Gospel times, however, the temple was no more and the place-name was corrupt. 6. Bezetha, From what will presently be said on the * Moun- tain in Galilee' my readers can have no difficulty in understanding my view of Bezetha. As Dr. Abbott says, 'It seems clear from [Josephus] that Bezetha, or Bezethma, was the Jewish name for Kainopolis or M New-town," and that the two names did not denote different places.' l Josephus, however, does not apparently understand what he probably learned at his mother's knee. For in reality the name Kainopolis is based on a pretty frequent mistake of ancient scholars ; i.e. Ir Hadashah, 'New-town,' should be 'Arab-Ashhurah, * Ashhurite Arabia.' 2 This is only another form of the name underlying the more ordinary form Bezetha, which is 'Arab - Ashtar. 3 That Ashtar and Ashhur are equivalent, has been shown again and again, and can hardly be dis- puted, unless indeed the whole fabric of the N. Arabian theory can be subverted. 'Arab-Ashtar may well be a name of the N. Arabian quarter 1 E. Bib.y ■ Lazarus,' col. 2747. 9 Ibid., ' Hadashah,' ■ Kir-Hareseth.' 3 For the omission of k' in 3K ( = my) cp. the personal names Birsha, Baasha (T. and B. p. 237). 148 FRESH VOYAGES of Jerusalem, another ancient name of which may be traced in Zeph. i. io. 1 7. The Mountain in Galilee. In Mark xvi. 7 it is said by the angel, 'Go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee : there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.' And in Matt, xxviii. 16, 'But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them/ Luke, however, places the scene of the Ascension near Jerusalem (Luke xxiv. 50), ■ He led them out until they were over against Bethany,' and again (Acts i. 12), 'Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet.' Lastly, the apocryphal work called the Acta Pilati affirms with much insistence that the greatest of the appearances was on Mount Mamilch. 2 Now we may reasonably suppose that the chronicle of events interesting to those who were initiated into the mysteries of Yarham-Asshur, recorded not only the incarnation of the gracious deity, but also his death, resurrection, and ascension. It is, I believe, not impossible to find by a keen criticism traces of the original record. Thoroughly 1 Two Religions (if the northern Jerusalem is meant), p. 409 ; Decline and Fall, p. 1 9. 2 Badham and Conybeare {H.J., July 191 3) take Mt. Mamilch to be between Samaria and Galilee, and refer to Judg. v. 14 and xii. 15, where, however, the true background is N. Arabian. See Crit. Bib., 'Judges.' PERSONAL AND PLACE-NAMES RE-EXAMINED 149 non-historical as many of the records in the temple chronicle must have been, we can, by the use of right methods, extract some grains of histori- cal truth. This is what I am endeavouring in these chapters to do. The difficulties may be great, but every grain of truth, even as to beliefs which, as wholes, have long since faded away, is a satisfac- tion to the searching impulse of the human mind. The synoptic evangelists, as we have seen, are not in agreement, and 'John' does not lose a word on the story, though, in his spiritualistic way, he alludes several times to it. I venture myself to suppose that the ascension or assump- tion, as well as the death and resurrection, of the compassionate Saviour-God, was recorded in the temple-archives. I am also very clear that the Jerusalem of the temple-record must have been in or near the southern Galilee. Between this Galilee {gall!) and Gilead (gil'ad) there cannot have been a great distance. Now, there is, as I have sought to show, one mountain which had special claims to be mentioned in mythic narratives — Mount Ashtor or Ashhur (the two names are equivalent). The former is the name of the mountain or mountain-range on which the ark was said to have rested ; 1 with a prefixed Yaman it is the designation of the mountain from which Yah we came to Israel. 2 The latter, with 1 T. and B. p. 70. The traditional text corruptly gives Ararat. 2 D. and F. pp. 1 66/. ISO FRESH VOYAGES the addition of Yerahme'el, is the name of the mountain on which legend originally placed the attempted sacrifice of Isaac. 1 It is, moreover, the latter with which we must identify Mount Mamilch, i.e. Mount Yerahme'el. It appears that near Mt. Ash tar there was a city of nearly the same name which shared the sanctity of the mountain ; and it may perhaps have been Og's royal city Ashtereth, or, if I may venture on such a heretical opinion, it may have been the southern Jerusalem or Urushalem ( = Asshur-Ishmael). Elsewhere I have remarked — in connexion with this subject — that ' the original narrator of Gen. xxii. very probably identified this sacred mountain with that on which was the threshing-floor of Araunah (Ado- niyyah) the Yebusite, and referred also to 2 Chron. iii. i.' 2 It may now be added that the supposed reference to the ' Mount of Olives ' in 2 S. xv. 30 was not always attached to the familiar hill near el-Kuds. Even after the text-reading has been corrected we must still affirm that ' the ascent of the Ashtarites ' did not originally belong to the familiar hill. That is all that I need say here. The ' Mount of Olives ' should be ' the Mountain of the Ashtarites,' and the mountain referred to was in N. Arabia. 1 D. and F. p. 143. See T. and B. p. 328. 2 Veil of Hebrew History, p. 45. CHAPTER IV N.T. LISTS OF COUNTRIES OF THE DISPERSION (Acts ii. 5-13 ; 1 Pet. i. 1) The sound as of a mighty wind brought a band of inquirers together, representing, as the redactor tells us, 'every nation (country) under heaven' (v. 5). Underneath the list of countries in vv. 9-1 1, however, it is easy to read a much more modest summary, apparently designed for the special use of those Judaeans who had an abid- ing interest in the N. Arabian Dispersion. The most suspicious of the pairs or triads are : the first, beginning with ' Parthians ' ; the third — 'Judaea and Cappadocia' ; and the last — ' Cretans and Arabians.' There is an ancient correction (D) of ' Judaea,' viz. ' India,' but this too is plainly unsuitable. The list should probably run nearly thus : 1 Pathros and Madai and Elam, And those that dwell in Aram-naharaim, In Hadad and Caphtor, 1 On the names see Traditions and Beliefs and Two Religions (Indices) ; also E. Bid., « India.' 151 152 FRESH VOYAGES In Put and Asshur, In Arpachshad and Pul, In Misrim and the parts of Lubim about Kir, [And sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,] Kerethites and Arabians. Parallels in the Old Testament are by no means wanting; see e.g. Isa. xi. n and lxvi. 19 (where the return of the exiles is limited to the N. Arabian countries). The sermon of Peter does not, it is true, develop the idea of the expan- sion of the Jewish race, but this exhortation was, of course, not derived from the same source as the list of countries. May we infer from the latter record that the missionary interest of the first disciples was at this early period specially attracted by the Jews of N. Arabia ? It would not be at all an extravagant conjecture. Early in the second century a.d. a writer, who has assumed the mantle of Simon Peter, addressed his exhortations (nominally at least) to the Jews of various N. Arabian districts, and in the opening lines gives proof of his acquaintance with the list of countries in Acts ii. The passage runs as follows when the original text has been restored : Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Put, Gilead, Caphtor, Asshur, and Ethban. 1 1 See T. and B. Index. PERSONAL AND PLA CE-NAMES RE-EXAMINED 1 53 Doubtless it is a pure romance that Peter had any personal connexion with Jewish -Christian communities in N. Arabia, and sent round a letter of general exhortations to the other Christian bodies, himself sojourning the while in the ancient city of Babel. 1 But so, too, it was a pure fiction, that assembly of representatives of all the N. Arabian Jewish communities and that sermon of Peter's to the multitude. I will only quote one more passage (1 Pet. v. 13), 'She that is in Babel, elect together with you, saluteth you/ Here the Greek gives Baj3v\(ov, but when we have once seen under- neath the opening verse we cannot doubt that Ba/3v\cov means, not our familiar Babylon on the Euphrates, but the capital of one of the principal N. Arabian kingdoms. There is, of course, no evidence that Peter evangelized N. Arabia, but there may be a grain of truth in Acts ii. 9- 1 1 , 1 Pet. i. 1, v. 13, viz. that the first disciples sent representatives to carry the Glad Tidings to that region. 1 T. and B. pp. 187/; Two Religio?is, pp. 59, 361-363. CHAPTER V NAMES OF APOSTLES AND OTHERS (BARABBAS, BARNABAS, ETC.) The names of the Apostles gain in interest when we see that, as belonging to a body of twelve spiritual leaders, they are mostly of very doubtful historicity. For when we see this, a new and exciting task devolves upon us — that of explaining how and why the authors of the Synoptic Gospels fixed upon precisely these. The answer to the first question is that these writers, like the Chronicler, had access to and employed lists of names. These names presumably were those of Jewish Christians, and the remarkable thing is that they are apparently all planned on the same model, all, in their original forms, being derived from S. Canaanitish or N. Arabian place- names or clan-names. And to the second ques- tion we answer that these place-names or clan- names stamped their bearers as genuine and (if the word may be applied) orthodox Jews. The lists of Apostles' names in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are in Mark iii. 154 PERSONAL AND PLACE-NAMES RE-EXAMINED 155 16-19, Matt. x. 2-4, Luke vi. 14-16, and Acts i. 13. In spite of the authority assigned by critics to Mark, it is difficult to believe that the distribution into pairs given by Matthew and Luke is (except perhaps for the first two) original. ( 1 ) Let us begin with ' Simon who is called Peter [Petros] and Andrew his brother.' Evidently Simon (Symeon in Acts) is Shimon (1 Chron. iv. 20), which consists of Shim, i.e. Shema ( = Ish- mael), and on, a formative appendix. Peter or Petros is certainly either from Pathrosi, 'one be- longing to Pathros,' 1 or from Perathi = Ephrathi. 2 At an early date, however, Petros was explained from the Greek as Rockman, etc., and a new Aramaic surname was coined as a substitute, viz. Kepha, 'rock' (cp. Matt. xvi. 18, John i. 49). Bar- Yona is also found as a surname. We might explain this either ■ son of a dove ' and find here a trace of primitive totemism, 3 or 'son of Yonathan.' 4 Neither view, however, gives a good sense ; and we have also to consider bar. Now, it has been shown elsewhere that in compound names like this, initial bar or rab invariably comes from 'arab (Arabia). 5 It has also been shown to 1 See T. and B. pp. 155, 189 ; Two Religions, pp. 88/, 302. 2 See Two Religions, pp. 102, 119, 180, and note that one of the Bethlehems was in Ephrathah. 3 SetE. Bib., 'Jonah.' 4 E. Bid., 'Johanan.' 5 Two Religions, pp. 403/, 412. 156 FRESH VOYAGES be almost certain that the capital of the N. Arabian Asshur was a city called, not Nineveh, but Yewanah. 1 So then we cannot well hesitate to explain Bar-Yona as "Arab-Yewanah,' i.e. that part of Arabia which comprehended Yewanah, and to take Simon Petros Bar-Yona as an emphatic statement that the person so called gloried in his descent from Israelite exiles in Yewanah. (2) 'And Andrew his brother.' The same key will also unlock this fresh riddle. 'AvSpeas is not ' manly ' (E. Bib. ), as if of Greek origin ; the 8 is euphonic, as in "Eo-fy>a and &t Intr. pp. xii, xiii^", 37, etc. 11 162 FRESH VOYAGES notable bandit named Bar-abba[s], we cannot tell. And what is the ultimate explanation of the circumstances in which he plays so singular a r61e, we are equally ignorant. Meantime I am content with the light from Babylon. There are traces of a primitive custom of decking out some person of inferior rank as king, and finally putting him to death in place of the real king. On the occasion of what ceremony this took place, does not appear, and it seems plain that the author of the Barabbas story only knew of 'a far-off reflection of the primitive custom in the shape of a popular story.' 1 As for the name nsn "rn> it is obviously corrupt, but the true reading is as easy to interpret as we can wish. In Bar-abba[s] the only element which has been thought suspicious is the second. * Son of the father ' is not very natural, even if ■ father ' be explained as meaning 'rabbi.' Hence various explanations involving the minimum of alteration have been proposed. 2 But these, too, fail in naturalness, and it becomes needful to refer to well-tested parallels to discover the ' inwardness ' of the name. The only corruption is in the innocent -looking bar. We want a personal name, but personal names do not begin with bar ' son (of).' Generally bar comes from 'arab. But this will not do here, because ab is also = 1 Hibbert Journal, April 191 1, p. 661. 2 See E. Bib., ■ Barabbas.' PERSONAL AND PLA CE-NAMES RE-EXAMINED 163 'arab. 1 We must therefore read, for bar, kar, and those who have studied my previous volumes with assent will at once see that kar-ab(ba) re- presents Yarkam-Ardb, i.e. Arabian Yerahme'el. No form of name is more common than this. The bandits who sought to subvert the fabric of Roman civilisation in S. Palestine were there- fore, to a large extent, N. Arabians. BartimcBus (Mark x. 46-52). Here, as elsewhere in the E. Bib., Prof. P. W. Schmiedel is almost exhaustive in his collection of facts and theories, but his own result is curiously out of proportion to his philological learning and dialectic ability. Since this able scholar wrote, Wellhausen has held the possibility of a Greek origin, comparing Tolmai for Ptolemaios. But, as we have seen, Bar-Tolmai comes from 'Arab- Temuli ; Bartimaeus, therefore, will probably come from 'Arab-Ethami ('HDrPN-ms). Probably all that the framer of the story knew was that Bar-timai occurred in a list of families which were believed to have returned from N. Arabia. The symbolic character 2 of the blind beggar remains undisturbed. 1 m or '3K represents my, both at the beginning and even (as in Huram'abi) at the end of personal names. 2 See W. B. Smith, Ecce Deus, pp. 322-4. I venture to hold that Bartimaeus is a symbol of the N. Arabian Jews and proselytes who recognised the transformed Jesus as ' son of Dod,' i.e. as the Messiah. « Ben-David ' is a later substitute for * Ben-Dod.' 164 FRESH VOYAGES Bar-Jesus and Elymas (Acts xiii. 6). It is surprising that no explanation is given of the name Bar-Jesus. Did the person so named claim to be, in a special sense, a ' son,' or disciple, of Jesus ? But what had Jesus Christ in common with Bar-Jesus ? The compiler certainly regards the latter as one of those false prophets who are wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt. vii. 15). We must, therefore, change our point of view. Many personal names consist of regionals ; Bar invari- ably stands for 'Arab. Bar- Jesus, therefore, stands for 'Arab-Yarhu-Asshur. This Jewish prophet and magician came of a family which had a traditional connexion with N. Arabia. This region was the home of magic and of unethical prophecy. It is even not impossible that Bar- Jesus himself came from N. Arabia. Apparently Bar -Jesus had another name (Acts xiii. 8) — Elymas ; we may consider this as a surname. The redactor volunteers the infor- mation that it is equivalent to Magos (magician, sorcerer). But how is this equation arrived at ? Acts ii. 9 may furnish an answer. The Elamites there mentioned are, not sojourning Jews from the familiar Elam, but have come to Jerusalem from * the other Elam,' or rather ' the Ashhurite Elam,' in N. Arabia (Acts ii. 9; see p. 151). Now, N. Arabia was, as we have seen, the centre of false religion. Elymas, therefore, PERSONAL AND PLACE-NAMES RE-EXAMINED 165 is to be taken as = 'HXa/tetTq?. Can we possibly evade this solution of the problem? nb^x, of course, like dSip, = f?Nom\ Barnabas (Acts iv. 36). 'And Joseph, who by the apostles was sur- named Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of exhortation).' Either the apostles or the re- dactor may have identified this Joseph with Bar- nabas. At any rate, Barnabas looks like one of the names which the religious leaders of the early Christian community found in the list of the exiles who ' returned ' from N. Arabia. ' Barnabas ' is a corruption of • Arab-Ishmael,' ' I shmaelite Arabia/ the intermediate form being Rab-sanibu (we find Sanibu in Assyrian inscriptions as the name of an Ammonite king). 1 There is no trace of Baby- lonian religious influence in this innocent name. It is important to notice again (see p. 13), in passing, how often Semitic epigraphy is helped by a keener criticism of the Biblical names. Bar- Nebo, for instance, in a Palmyrene inscription, 2 and Bapvefiov? in a N. Syrian inscription, are best explained as coming from 'Arab-Nebo ; Nebo- bad (-bar) in like manner comes from Nebo-'Arab. 8 1 In this intermediate form two points may strike us, viz. n for m % which is so common and natural as to need no defence, and bu for but, for which compare lyu for ^u?y. See also Mines of Isaiah^ p. 135. 2 See E. Bib. col. 485 (with n. 1) ; Cooke, North Semitic Inscr. p. 187. 8 Ibid. 166 FRESH VOYAGES It should also be noted that in Neh. vii. $2> (rev. text) we hear of an 'Ashhurite Nebo.' Now Nebo comes from Shanbul = Shambul. Barsabbas (Acts i. 23). To Prof. Schmiedel l the name Barsabbas (so Westcott-Hort) suggests the meaning ' child of the Sabbath ' ; cp. the name Shabbethai (p. 34). The comparison is plausible ; but both names are not free from suspicion. Shabbethai should prob- ably be Shib'athi ; the double b makes up for the elided s. Similarly Sabbas in the former name might be from NnsntD or nsit&. The name is difficult. I prefer to regard it as a contraction from Ishpal (a form of Ishmael) ; here again the double b makes up for the contraction, in comes from art* ; the evidence is absolutely over- whelming. 1 E. Bib., ' Barsabas or Barsabbas.' CHAPTER VI APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN It is hardly possible to avoid seeing that the great Christian Apocalypse is based upon a Jewish work ; indeed, that possibly more than one Jewish record has passed, after due adjustment, into the Christian. It appears to me to be also probable that some of the Christian portions of the Johan- nine Apocalypse had originally a different geo- graphical background. The letters to the Seven Churches, for instance, were not perhaps originally addressed to seven Christian communities in Asia Minor, but to the same number in N. Arabia. The original names are no longer fully recover- able, except that Sepharad may underlie Sardis, and 'Arab-Gomer (Rab-Mag) may lurk behind Pergamon. It is plausible, however, to suppose that, as in Acts ii. and i Pet. i., the names of churches addressed were suggested by the N. Arabian Christian communities. This appears to fit in with the circumstances of those com- munities so far as we can form some probable idea of them. If so, we should in all probability in Rev. 167 1 68 FRESH VOYAGES i. 9 restore 'Arab-Pathros for 'the isle (•>« from •Qn = m* = ms, as often) that is called Patmos.' Two passages in the Johannine letters may be specially appealed to in behalf of this theory. One is a passage relative to the N. Arabian soothsayer Balaam (Rev. ii. 14), and the other (Rev. ii. 20) to a too seductive woman, ' who calleth herself a prophetess, and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.' No doubt, wherever any form of soothsaying prevailed, a Jewish writer might refer its origin to its typical ancient representative. 1 Still there would be a greater appropriateness in doing so in a writing addressed to residents in N. Arabia than to one inscribed, \ To the church in Thyatira.' The other passage too receives fresh light from the N. Arabian theory, for the name of the seduc- tive false prophetess is 'Izebel. This, of course, is a historical name. But its historical bearer certainly did not claim to be a prophetess. 'Izebel, therefore, is not a mere opprobrious nick- name, but has a special significance to N. Arabian false prophets. Vsnt comes from SnriN, i.e. f?ims. The name here given to the head of the false prophets indicates that that prophetess herself and her methods of procedure reached the Jewish Christians from outside, i.e. from the ancient N. Arabian paganism. 1 Two Religions, pp. 85-89. APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN 169 There are also five passages in which the hand of the Greek-writing redactor may probably be traced. 1. Rev. ix. 14, xvi. 12, where 'the great river, the Euphrates,' was originally, perhaps, 1 the stream of Gilead, the stream \ (called) Perath.' » 2. Rev. xvi. 16, 'And they gathered them to- gether into the place which is called in Hebrew Har Magedon.' Formerly I may have thought it enough to say that the mountains in mythical geography could not be localized. But though this statement may be true, the ancients could not be withheld from localizing them. Har Magedon is, from our present point of view, a corruption of Har Gamron, which means the highland region in which the Gamrite ( = Garmite, 1 Chr. xxvi. 11) clan was settled. 2 Was this the mountain range ( = Hermon) on which the fallen angels descended ? Or that ( = Ashtar) on which Noah's Ark grounded ? At any rate, N. Arabia has, I think, been shown to be the region in which the heroes of Genesis met their more than human visitors. And the Apocalypse is the story of the New Genesis. I will add that Gog and Magog, mentioned in Rev. xx. 8, as ' in the four corners of the earth,' are by our best authority (Ezek. xxxviii.-xxxix.) closely connected with N. Arabia, 1 T. and B. pp. 262/ 2 See p. 20 ; D. and F. p. 1 8. But see E. Bib., ■ Armageddon.' 170 FRESH VOYAGES so that ps, as often, should be rendered ' land,' i.e. N. Arabia and Judah. 1 3. BapvXav (xvii. 1-6). Almost all the O.T. passages in which fm occurs refer to North Arabia. 2 It is probable, in my opinion, that the Babel spoken of here was, in the original text, also in North Arabia; min ^im should be fm ' T - T I T lisn, Arabian Babel. Unrepentant dwellers in this Babel shall have no access to the New Jeru- salem ; ' without are the Rakbulites, 3 and the sorcerers, and the fornicators' (Rev. xxii. 15). 4. Rev. xiii. 18, ' Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast ; indeed, it is the number of Ishmael, and his number is Six hundred and sixty and six ' (or ' Six hundred and sixteen '). It is true, the Greek translation has, not 'the number of Ish- mael,' but • the number of a man ' ; but the parallel of xxi. 1 7, where an explanatory gloss is inserted, 4 seems to me to make all clear ; 'enosh is, in fact, like ska on, a corruption of Shimon (= Ishmael). 5 'The number of Ishmael' is the mode of calcula- tion, gematria, in special vogue in Ishmaelite Arabia, just as, in xxi. 17, 'the measure of Ishmael (or Yerahme'el)' means the measure in use among the N. Arabian merchants. And what originally 1 See T. and B. pp. 157/ 2 Ibid. pp. 187/ 8 See Mines of Isaiah, pp. 86, 137. 4 In Rev. xxi. 1 7 (restored Hebrew text) 'enosh is glossed by maPak, which, however, is based on a corruption of Yerahme'el. 6 For other parallels see Mines of Isaiah, p. 156 (n. 1). APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN 171 was the signification of the I shmael- number ? Surely not * Nero Kaisar,' but ' Ashhur-Ramman.' In xvii. 5, ' Mystery, Babel of Arabia ,' is parallel. 1 Asshur-Yerahme'el ' had been deposed, but was still the royal consort of Babel. 5. Rev. xvii. 9, * Here is the mind that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth,' etc. Not that the N. Arabian Babel was really planted on seven mountains, or that a great harlot really sat en- throned beside 'many waters' (vv. 1, 17). It is all mythological. The 'great harlot ' is a goddess, and the mountains and ' many waters • came down from heaven ; l they belong to what may truly be called eschatological geography. The symbols do not always appeal to us, but, on the whole, how grand is the fusion of divers elements ! Would that we could read it in its original form and share the author's understanding of his recondite symbols ! The interpretative function I cheerfully resign to Dr. R. H. Charles, in the hope that some of the four keys will gain due recognition. One of these is the later Jewish literature ; another is the textual methods applied by myself; a third is the comparison of Babylonian religious records, and a fourth that of the earlier and later Zoroastrian literature. The last of them, I was, I believe, the first to apply critically, in a book 1 T. and B. pp. 83/ 172 FRESH VOYAGES called The Origin and Religious Contents of the Psalter, The eschatology of the Johannine Apocalypse, so Zoroastrian in its symbols, specially attracted me. I would fain resume the task. Failing this, I would lay it upon the consciences of my younger colleagues to de- termine whether they are making the most use that they could of what I have offered them. To have recovered so many lost facts is surely no paltry title to respect. It is not yet too late to comfort me in my sorrows by greater fairness and generosity. Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. But who shall interpret olim ? INDEX I. SUBJECT MATTER The Poem of Indian origin which follows the Dedication will have made it plain to the reader why the author is incomplete in his Index. No work is more irksome than index- making, but an imperfect Index may be of no slight worth to the user of the book. 1 x Abar-nahard, 21, 26 Abbott, E. A., 146-7, 161 Abomination of desolation, 111/. Abrahamic peoples, ambitions of, 133 Achior, 106^ Agabus, prophet, 145 Agagi, title of Haman, 66 Ah'ab, Akab, 27, 49, 66, 113, 145 Ahasuerus, 24 Ahava, a stream, 28 Ahikar, 70 Alphaeus, 159 Amalim = N. Arabians, xvii, 7 Ammonite explained, 18 Andrew, 156 Apocalypse, based on Jewish works, 167 its Zoroastrian affinities, 172 Apostles, names of, 154^ Arioch, 113 Armageddon (Har Gamron), 169 Artaxerxes, 19 Aryan elements in O.T. (?), 6$ff. Ashtart, goddess of love, 74 her festival, 60 her titles, 34, 74, 83, 112, 146 Asmodseus, demon, 98^; Asnappar, 19 ASurbanipal, 49 Babel, the name explained, 7 in N. Arabia, 153, 170 Bagoas, no, 145 Balaam, 168 Bar-abbas, explained, 161 ff. origin of story, 162 Bar- Jesus, 164. See Elymas Bar-nabas, 165 Bar-sabbas, 166 Bartholomew, 158 Bartimaeus, 163 Baruch, First, 119/. Ben-hadad, 158 (». *) Benjamin, 158 (n. *) Bertholet, Alf., 58 Bethany, 145-7 Bethel, explained, 9 antiquity of name, 9 Beth-lehem, 132, 140^ Beth-phage, 146 Bethulia, 108/ Bezetha, 147 Boanerges, 156 Border-streams, southern, 29 Bousset, W., 80 (n. 1 ) Burkitt, F. C, 137 Burney, C. F. , 29 (n. 2 ) Cannon, W. W., 76/ Casiphia, 31 Charles, R. H., 171 Chorazin, 139 Chronicler, the, 3, 46 Cook, S. A., 42, 108/., 159 Cooke, G. A., 12/, 13 (». 2 ), 77, 130 (n. l ), 165 («. 2 ) Cowley, A. E., 108, no Cyrus, n, 17/, 58 Daniel, Book of; N. Arabian back- ground of first part, 114^ Darius, 12/., 18 173 174 FRESH VOYAGES Dod and Ben-Dod, 128, 163 {n. 2 ) Dothan, 109 Driver, S. R., 77 Elam, Elamites, in N. Arabia, 21, 52, 62, 131, 164 Elephantine, Jews in, 9 Elymas, a soothsayer, 164/ Erbt, H., 79 (*. 2 ) Esther, a romance, 65 its background, 68 its theme, 69 Ethbal, Ethmael, Ethmul, 17, 108/ Ezra, missioner of the law-book, 26 his journey from Babel to Jeru- salem, 28/ Gabbatha, 145 Gabriel, 96, 103 Galilee, southern, 136/ and often the mountain in, 148-150 Gamrite clan, 169 Gemoll, M., 141 (n. 1 ), 143 Gethsemane, 143/ Gilead, southern, 9, 84 God — names of the inner divine council, 80 heaven -gods, 11-14 Golgotha, 144/ Guthe, H., 16, 28, 33, 43/. Haggai, 7 Harris, Rendel, 95 Hermon, southern, 169 Herod and the Messiah, 135 Herodotus, 17 Hiram, craftsman, 13 Holofernes, 106 India, 69, 151 Israel, foreign influence on, 94 James (Jacob), 157 Jeroboam's mother, 161 Jerusalem, southern, 144, 150 Jeshua or Joshua, high priest, 8, 48 Jezebel, 168 Job, Book of, its relation to Ahikar, 70 suggested by Babylon, 70 references to birds of prey, 72 John (Johanan), 157/ Johns, C. H. W., 48, 54, 57, 62 Judas Iscariot, 160 Judith, Book of, its object, 105 N. Arabian background, 105^ Lebbaeus, 159/. Levi, 159 Maccabee, origin of name, 113 Judas, the, 134 Maccabees, First, its N. Arabian basis, 112/. Madai, 85, 105/, 151 Magi, the underlying Hebrew, 133 Mamilch, Mount, 148 Marquart, I., 15 21, 24 Matthew, 159 Megabyzos, revolt of, 37 Messiah, the, in Balaam's oracle, 134 the suffering, 129 Meyer, Ed., 12, 15, 19-21, 26, 41, 49-5L 88 Mikael, 96 («. 2 ), 103, 116/ Misrim, part of N. Arabia, 34, 52, 64. 94. 99. "7. IS 2 . l6 * Mordecai, 48/, 67/. Moulton, J. H., 65, 83, 87, 91, 100 (with n. 2 ), 133 Mountain - sanctuary in borderland, 108, 136/: Nazareth, Nazarene, 136^ Nebuchadnezzar, 68/, 105 (n. 1 ), no Nehemiah, Book of, a historical romance, 36 Nehemiah, his extraction, 37 his office, 37 what does Tirshatha mean ? 57 Nestle, Eberhard, 159 Nethinim, 30-32, 45, 53/ Nineveh, the underlying name, 84, Noldeke, Theod., 36, 37 (». 1 ), 52, 55. 65. 67, 157 Oesterley, Dr., in Olives, Mount of, 150 Par'osh, impossible theory, 50, 130 Pathros, 11, 78/., 151, 163 Patmos, isle of, 168 Persian names disputed, 49^ Peter, romance of his travels, 152/. his names, 155/. Philip, 158 Pur (Purim), 69 Purple from N. Arabia, 63 Rab-Mag, 20, 158 («. 1 ), 167 Raphael, 97/, 100 Regem-Melek, 10 INDEX 175 Reshef, Syro - Egyptian war- god, 129 Resin explained, 139/. Samaria, Samaritans. See Shimron, Shimronim Sanballat, 38/, 45 Sarephath, 42, 49, 56, 113 Schmidt, N., 116 Schmiedel, P. W., 163 Sennacherib, 85 Shabbethai, 34/., 166 Shalmaneser, 85 Shenazzar, 15 Sheshbazzar, 15 Shethar-bozenai, 15/., 28/ Shimron, Shimronim, 22, 24 Simon Peter. See Peter Simon the Cananaean, 160 Simon the Leper, 161 Simpson, D. C, 82/: Smith, Prof. W. B., 136, 145, 163 Song of Solomon — is it a drama ? 74 or based on a popular Adonis- song? 74 place of its composition, 7$ff. Stade, B., 29 (n. 2 ) Tabeel, 19 Tattanai, 23 Thaddaeus, 159/. Thomas, 159 Tigris in Tobit, 96 Tobiah, his ethnic connexion, io, 39 son of Tobit, an Israelite, 97 his dog, 97, 1 00 Tobit, Book of, its varied culture, 82 Egyptian influence not traceable, 92 Hellenic detail about the dog, 97 Iranian elements exaggerated, 100 its ethical dependence on Ahikar, 94 N. Arabian background, 96^ interest in works of mercy, especi- ally in the burial of bodies of dead Israelites, 85^ Torrey, C. C, 3-6, 16/, 46/., 52, 58, 108/, 123 Valley of smiths, 51 Wellhausen, Jul., 49/, 76, 163 Winckler, Hugo, 15, 22, 31, 40 Wisdom, a N. Arabian product, 81 ■ evidence in Prov. and Eccles. , 78/ Yahwe, in one of his aspects a wise God, 103 the antithesis of the Evil Power, 102 Yerahme'el becomes the Evil Power, better known as Belial (Beliar) or Satan, 102 Yerahme' elites, their wisdom, 78 ; copied by Israelites, ibid. ; in- cluded skill in cursing, 76 mysteries of their great God Yar- ham, 148 painted too darkly by prophets of Israel, 80 Zacchaeus, 161 Zerubbabel, 7, 18 176 FRESH VOYAGES II. BIBLICAL REFERENCES, ETC. Here, I confess, the pen refuses to follow the guiding will. The number of references is so great. I therefore beg the reader to mark with coloured pencil in the margin the most important references. There is much extracting of a supposed original text from under the superincumbent weight of Massoretic conjecture, but not too much. Prof. Marti would confine himself within the narrowest possible limits, but there is no mean between the Massoretic rewriting and the steady scientific restoration after which I have aimed. I do not despise the former ; it gives what early scholars thought that the original writers would have said, had they survived ; but for the history of religion the work I have done is surely indispensable. See, further, Introduction to the second edition of my Psalter. This is why I beg the student to take much trouble, and to mark and classify the corrections. But I trust I shall bear bravely whatever lot may be mine, even if this appeal to fellow-scholars should be in vain. Like Arjuna in one of the Indian epics, I shrink from contending with my friends. But the saying remains true — 1 In the multitude of the sorrows which I have in my heart, Thy comforts have refreshed my soul.' Genesis iv. 22, p. 8 xxxvi. 39, p. 15 Joshua xviii. 23, p. 10 1 Samuel x. 2i, p. 15 1 Kings v. 4, p. 22 2 Kings xviii. 4, p. 8 xix. 12, p. 20 1 Chronicles iv. 7, p. 8 Ezra »• 3. P- x 4 iii. 7, p. 17 Nehemiah xi. 25-36, p. 61 1 Esdras ii. 16, p. 20 iv. 42- v. 6, p. 12 vi. 12, p. 13 vi. 28, p. 14 («. x ) viii. 44, p. 31 ix. 34, p. 34 ix. 44, p. 59 2 Esdras iv. 9, p. 20 Jeremiah v. 7, p. 146 EZEKIEL xxvii. 12, p. 16 Hosea xii. 3, p. 46 Joel iv. 4, p. 17 Zechariah i. 8-11, p. 8 ii. 11, iv. 14, p. 7 ii. 12, p. 8 vi. 10, p. 9 v. 5-1 1, p. 99 xii. 11, p. 136 Psalmi Solomon is ii. 30, p. 99 Acts xiii. 6, p. 164 Johannine Apocalypse ii. 14, 20, p. 168 xiii. 18, p. 170 xvi. 12, 16, p. 169 xvii. 1-6, p. 170 xvii. 5, 9, p. 171 xx. 8, p. 169 xxi. 17, p. 170 xxii. 15, p. 170 THE END Printed by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh. RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT TO— ^ 202 Main Library LOAN PERIOD 1 HOME USE 2 3 4 5 6 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW J UN 08 1995 Deceived Mar n « 1995 CIRCUl ATION DFf >T I. FORM NO. DD6 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY, CA 94720 ?s HflflW M312202