BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

SIR, OBSERVING in the CLASSICAL JOURNAL, NO. VII, p. 125. some inquiries concerning the difficult text of Scripture, Gen. xxxvi. 24. I have anxiously looked for some observations on this subject from some of your learned correspondents; and I hope I shall not long be disappointed. In the mean time, I beg leave to send you a few cursory remarks, which may, in some small degree, be acceptable to your correspondent, J. H. M. S. Gen. xxxvi. 24.

which is thus rendered by Montanus and Pagninus; "hic Hanah, qui invenit mulos in deserto, in pascendo illum (cum pasceret. Pag.) asinos Sibhon patris sui ;" or, this (is) Hanah, who found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed (or, when he fed) the asses of Sibhon his father. But, considering gh to be the true power of y, and ts that of ; and the prefixed to y, as indicative of the genitive, and not of the dative case; the most literal rendering of the Hebrew, according to the more common received opinion of the signification of the word D, would then be, He (is that) Ghanah, who found (ha-yemim, or Jemim,) the mules, in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Tsibghon his father.

In the versions of Mont. and Pag. the g of y, and the t of Y, being omitted, they read Hanah and Sibhon, rendering the y of the last name by h. The English Translators give the same sense as the above; but, rendering the y by A, say Anah; and the by 2, considering its power to be tz, as in the 119th Psalm, and dropping the t, say Zibeon, translating the y in this last word by e.

The Septuagint renders οὗτός ἐστιν ̓Ανὰ ὃς εὗρε τὸν Ἰαμεὶν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ὅτε ἔνεμε τὰ ὑποζύγια Σεβεγὼν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ—or, this is Ana who found Tòv 'Iaμelv in the wilderness when he fed the asses of Sebegon his father: rendering y by A, in Anah; and by g in Tsibghon; and omitting the t of ; therefore, for DD', Jemim, the Hebrew word more commonly rendered mules, with its prefixed, the LXX. have rov 'Iausiv, considering it as a proper name, in the masculine gender, and accusative singular; which, if the genuine reading of these interpreters, and if a mule was so named in their days, would read the Iamein, (or Jamein,) or,

the mule: importing that this Anah found a male mule in the wilderness, and, most probably, the son of a horse by a she-ass. And it is probable, that this is the true meaning of this passage, and that this was the first mule ever seen, and that he was found by him by accident, according to the generally received sense of the word 3, matsa, rendered found.

As the word 'Iaue is given by them as a proper name, it may be believed to be undeclinable in Greek, as other foreign proper names; as aßid, 'Ianwß, &c. And, it may be here observed, that as, in the word 'Iaxwß, in the 6th verse of this chapter, the Ia is the rendering of the Hebrew jod, so also may the Ia of 'Iaus be that of the jod of ; and the might be very naturally translated ev, preferring the final instead of, as being more expressive of a singular noun, and agreeing with the termination of some Greek nouns in their accusative cases, which case the LXX. seem to have wished to express in this place, as seems probable from the masculine article here used being in the accusative case.

Is not the Hebrew word, D, a compound word, forming a significant name for the first creature of this kind produced, as at its first appearance? And may not the following etymology be adopted? Or, is it not thus formed, namely: of, jod, as either formative of the proper name, or as the representative of, formavit, &c.; or rather of its derivative D, Jetsurim, lineamenta, or features; of the particle 2, ab, or from; and of ON, mater, or mother;-importing that the mule, or new animal, found by Anah, being most probably the offspring of a she-ass from the junction of a horse, and who would, therefore, more particularly bear the lineaments of his mother, was thus remarkably distinguished as the son of his mother; or as exhibiting the most striking resemblance of the asinine species; and he had no legitimate father, according to the original appointment of God, and his laws afterwards communicated to the Jews; it having been always considered as confusion and abomination to join animals of different kinds. And the Jews were not even permitted to yoke two animals together of different kinds for common labor.

That it was considered as one animal, and a male, by the LXX. is evident from the Greek article being in the singular number and masculine gender; and, that it was not a contrivance of Anah, may be believed, if, according to many learned interpreters, you allow that means simply the direct finding of a thing existing, without study or contrivance to invent or produce it. "notat reperire quod jam est, non invenire ac excogitare id quod nondum est."

Though the above opinion, that the mother was a she-ass, be

very generally entertained, (and it is the most probable opinion, as they were asses which Anah fed,) it has been believed by some, that Anah only fed he-asses, and that, therefore, the new animals, or mules, were first produced from the junction of the ass and mare; but this opinion is alone supported by that of, chamor, being a masculine noun; which is not always the case, though it be more commonly of the masculine gender. The learned De la Haye observes, " verum est asinum et asinam significare, nomina enim generum et specierum animalium utrique sexui apud Hebræos conveniunt." Anah, therefore, no doubt, fed his father's asses, male and female, and one of the latter might have strayed, without his knowledge, and, accidentally met with a horse; in which case, Anah might know nothing of the matter, until by chance he found a mule, a Jemim or Jamein, or ahuovov, already produced.

Indeed, the junction of an ass with a mare would have also produced a mule, though the asinine features would not, most probably, have been so strongly marked; and, they were asses which Anah fed, among which he perhaps found the mule. And though it may not be believed, with Michaelis,' that no horses then existed in that country; yet, it is very probable, very few were kept there at that early period; but the fewer in number, the more likely was it such an improper junction should take place.

That the Hebrew word D (without a second ") now found in the text, is genuine, seems highly probable; or, perhaps it was pronounced Jamem, or Jameim, originally, and in the days of the LXX., and afterwards, or until the Jewish Targumists, Jonathan, and others, had settled it as their opinion, that it was a plural word, and its correct reading Jemim; and it then followed, that a second jod was either to be understood or inserted. And hence, probably, the wavering of Aquila, who seems to have at first considered it as a singular word, after the Septuagint; and afterwards as a plural. And, as the Jewish opinion was very generally followed, it may be thus accounted for why the restorers of the text of Aquila prefer the latter; and also, why so many MSS. are found with a second jod inserted, as in Kennicott, De Rossi, &c.

De Rossi, after mentioning that many MSS. of Kennicott, and of his own, almost all the German, with Sonc. Bibl. read the word fully with the second jod, though all these may have thus followed the Jews, observes, "Meorum unus legit præterea per patach Ajamim," &c.; and further, "Jamim per patach legerunt LXX. Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion in Hexaplis, et Hieronymus. At vero apud Hieronymum Aq. et Sym. 'Ep,"

See Sup. ad Lex. Heb.

&c. And he says, that two of his codices of the Targums read mulos; that R. Parchon rendered mules, then Kimhi, and from him most Lexicographers. De Rossi renders, "thermas,” vid. App. x. Vol. IV.

I

According to Drusius, in Crit. Sacr. Aquila at first rendered OÙY TO σμεiμ. rendering the Hebrew particle N by ùr, with, and in the singular number, and no doubt with the masculine article, and according to the most usual regimen of the Greek preposition; and had he considered the Hebrew particle only as the sign of the accusative, he would doubtless have followed the Septuagint by rendering in the accusative singular, and with the masculine article; he afterwards, according to Hieron. as quoted by the same learned man, rendered roùs iausiu in the plur. accus. mas.; and was followed by Symmachus, who also rendered Toùs iausiu and Theodotion afterwards restored the reading of the LXX. rendering Tòv iausiu with them, as thus witnessed by Hieronymus : " Septuaginta vero et Theodotio æqualiter transtulerunt τὸν ἰαμείν.”

It has been believed by many, that the LXX. endeavoured to retain the Hebrew word in Greek. And this they seem to have done, and with as little deviation as might be expected; which is a presumptive proof that the Hebrew word D was then con

sidered as a proper name. And Hieronymus having mentioned the

opinion of some, that Anah had admitted wild asses to the others, &c. "ut velocissimi ex his asini nascerentur,” adds, “ qui vocantur Jamim," ib. So that mules, thus begotten, were called Jamim in the days of Jerome. And as he is now speaking in the plural number, and conceived the Hebrew word to be plural also, the name thus expressed must be considered as plural; and it may have been differently pronounced in the singular; and probably, as the LXX. wrote it. Or, may it be considered as an indeclinable word, and as being the same in the singular and plural? If so, still the gender, number, and case of the Greek article, clearly point out those of the Hebrew word, according to the opinion of the Greek translators.

This was a new animal, unknown before, and therefore required a name; and a name descriptive of his origin would, most probably, be, providentially, given to him; as it was intended to be mentioned in the canon of Scripture, and therefore to be afterwards understood by the Jewish nation. And what name could more significantly point out to them the irregularity of his geniture, so contrary to the divine law communicated to them in the same, than DD, according to the etymology above given ?

That the Hebrew word D, Jemim, (without a second jod) now found in the text, is genuine; and that the rendering of the LXX. is so also, and even more correct than their general manner

1 An erroneous ☛.

:

2

of rendering proper names; seem highly probable: or, perhaps, it was pronounced Jamem originally, and in the days of the LXX.; and afterwards, or until the Jewish Targumists had settled that it was in the plural number. And the LXX. seem, as already observed, to have wished to retain the original word, and, perhaps, its pronunciation as nearly as the Greek manner would allow; as the change made is very small indeed. Dr. Geddes observes, that the Targumists render mules,' and also the Persic; and that the Sept. and other three Greek translators retained the Hebrew word, though it was difficult to say whether they followed. the Hebrew or Samaritan lection. And in the copies of the Sept. he found it in all the following varieties— αίμην, ἀμην, αἰαμην, ἐαμιν, ἐαμειν, ἰαμειν, ἰαμων, ἰαμην. One MS. only has ἰαμειμ; and Jerom read Jamim and this I take to be the original reading." Crit. Rem. on. Heb. S.S. But the Dr. has omitted to collate the article, which might have thrown some light upon the subject. He renders hot-baths. May not these different readings have been produced in copying even from a MS. written according to the present reading, lauer, which seems to be correct? For taking it for granted that the rendering of the word is there distinguished from that of its prefix, and that the jod was, as in that of apy, rendered by the LXX.; the change, or transposition, of the first two letters is easily thus accounted for, in the 1st and 3d.; in the 2d. the is omitted; in the 4th and 5th. might easily occur, and be written for, as there is another in the word: (and this, with the Samaritan reading, may have confirmed the idea to some, that the emims, or giants, were meant ;) the 6th is correct, and so is the 9th, only with a final instead of y, and therefore more like unto the Hebrew original; and the various readings of the remaining letters, as found in the above different copies, might have happened in transcribing: or, would you conclude, that μny comes nearer to the original pronunciation of the Hebrew, than any of the present copy of the Septuagint? At any rate the difference is but small; and, therefore, these various readings seem rather to confirm the truth of the original, and to support the etymology above given, than to diminish our belief of either; and particularly so, if the mas. sing. article be constantly present.

μειν

Among the various readings published by Dr. Holmes, I observe those which hereafter follow. I may first notice that, in some, the article ó is substituted for the pronoun ouros. The Dr. having just mentioned, "Euge Tov iau.] gignere fecit malos. Arab. 3.," immediately passes on to the word "Iapsiv]" without paying any

He should have excepted Onkelos.

2 It may be asked, Did the Samaritan text then exist?