בְּקוֹל

other consideration. Let us, in the second place, see whether this verb occurs, or not, in any of the earlier books of the Bible, in the sense here ascribed to it. In Gen. xxxix. 14. we have big big," and I cried (out) with a loud voice:" so also in the next and the 18th verses. Here then the verb is used in an absolute sense, and one equivalent to proclaim, &c. Levit. xiii. 45, 77, "shall cry (or proclaim) unclean;" Exod. xxiv. 7, DR AND 7, "he read (proclaimed or preached) in the ears of the people;" ib.

cried (preached or proclaimed), Jehovah is a merciful and
gracious God;"* Levit. xxiii. 21, 7-877-00877), “and
ye shall proclaim.. a holy convocation;" ib. xxv. 10, ņ877)
, "and ye shall proclaim liberty."
Similar passages

,דְּרוֹר

may be cited from almost every book in the Hebrew Bible;
one or two, however, from the genuine Isaiah, shall suffice
here chap. xxi. 8, 77, "and he cried (or pro-
778
claimed), A lion." I should prefer, and a hero (lion-like man)
proclaimed. Nothing is more common in the East, than to
term a warlike man a lion. The introduction of a lion here in
any other sense seems quite foreign to the context; and, as
this word stands in the place proper for the nominative to
the verb, it will be difficult to assign any good reason why
it should not so be taken. See also chap. xxxvi. 13. vi. 3, 4.
xxx. 7. xxxvi. 13, &c. In our first word, therefore, we
have no Chaldaic, Syriac, or otherwise strange, usage; on the
contrary, the verb occurs in its usual and natural sense the
only anomaly discoverable on the subject is, the new signi-
fication ascribed to it by Dr. Gesenius.

The next word said to be used in a modern sense is V, in the sense of will, occupation, object of care, and the like: certain passages occurring in the latter part of Isaiah, in Ecclesiastes, and Job, are then adduced to shew, that it (y) is here used in the sense of the Syriaca, thing, matter, &c.; and hence is inferred its Chaldaïc usage. I answer, after the most painful examination I have been able to give these passages, I have been able to find only four,

This passage is erroneously translated in our authorised version. See my Heb. Gram. p. 285. I now prefer, however, taking the first in? as the nominative to the verb, contrary to the authority of the accents.

viz. Eccles. iii. 1, 17. v. 7. viii. 6. in which

A

can have

And, if this

the sense of the Syriac, thing, or matter. book was composed by Solomon, which is most probably the case, this signification of the word cannot be adduced to prove, that it must have prevailed only near the end of the captivity. The sense given to it in Isaiah, xliv. 28, &c., as also in Job, xxi. 21, &c., is that in which it is found in 1 Sam. xviii. 25; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; 1 Kings, v. 8; Prov. iii. 15. viii. 13. xxxi. 13; Hos. viii. 8. The word does not indeed occur as a noun in the earlier part of Isaiah; it occurs, nevertheless, as a verb, in its usual acceptation, chap. i. 11. xiii. 17; as it also does in Hos. vi. 6, &c. Nothing, therefore, as far as I can see, can be affirmed of the Chaldaïc usage of this word, in any part of the Bible. If it had the sense of the Syriac matter, thing, in the times of So

lomon, our question will stand unaffected by this circumstance, although the word occur no where in Isaiah in that sense. As well might it be argued, that the English word choose contains a Gallicism, because the French word chose happens to signify a thing, affair, &c.; both the Hebrew and Syriac word above mentioned having that signification (i. e. wish, choose,) when used as verbs.

The word is said, in the next place, to be used in the sense of servitude due to a landlord (Frohndienst), or slavery (Sclavenleben). The passages cited are Is. xl. 2; Dan. x. 1; Job. vii. 1. x. 17. xiv. 14: but in none of these passages is it at all necessary to give either of these senses to the context. The primary signification of this word seems to be arrangement, order, &c.; and hence it is applied to a host either of men, or of the heavenly bodies: it is therefore equivalent to the Greek zócμos, and is occasionally so rendered by the authors of the Septuagint.* Hence, also, it is applied to military proceedings, as warfare, &c. In Is. xl. 2, it has (i. e. ) been, therefore, rendered warfare; "her warfare is accomplished." And perhaps no good reason can be assigned why this should be changed into servitude, as Dr. Gesenius will have it. In Dan. x. 1, the phrase i could hardly be rendered by great servitude, particu

* Gen. ii. 1. wãs ó xóœpos autāv. Heb. ONthe host of them."

Auth. Vers.: "All

py, true is

larly when we find it in connection with
the matter, and, and he understood the thing.
One would be tempted to suppose, that great (was) the
arrangement, apparatus, or the like, is the sense intended
to be conveyed, which will well suit the accompanying
context. Our translators have taken, "the time appointed
was long," which seems to me to be very wide of the mark.
But, be this as it may, certainly great servitude will be most
incongruous, ungrounded, and unnecessary. Let us now
turn to Job, vii. 1. win Ny-by: “is there not a warfare
to man?" &c. So reads our version in the margin; but in
the text, "Is there not an appointed time to man ?" &c. Why
then, it may be asked, should servitude here be substituted,
when the etymology, the context, and the usage of antiquity,
is on the side of the other signification? In Job, x. 17.
servitude will, if possible, be still less suitable to the context,
which runs thus: "Thou renewest thy witnesses against me,
and increasest thine indignation upon me; changes and
(N) war are against me." In chap. xiv. 14. the context is,
bow way orbe, "all the days of my warfare will I wait."
If we substitute servitude (to some feudal lord), or hard
slavery, then shall we put Job into a situation, which, not-
withstanding all his calamities, he never filled.

We have now gone over all the passages adduced, in which the word has been said to have a Chaldean signification; not one of which will bear out the assertion. But has this word any such sense in the Chaldaïc or Syriac? No such thing. Buxtorf* will assure us, that in Chaldee it is used in the significations just noticed; and, in the Syriac, it has quite a different one, as we may see in Castell. The whole, therefore, is a mere fiction, as unworthy of the object for which it has been framed, as it is unfavourable to the reputation of its author, either for patience of investigation, or soundness of decision.

The next word adverted to, is Ty (auftreten, to arise, &c.), used, as it is affirmed, in the sense of , to arise. The passages cited are Is. xlvii. 13; Dan. viii. 23. xi. 2, 3, 20. xii. 1, 13; Eccles. iv. 15; 1 Chron. xxi. 1. Here I think, Dr. Gesenius has, as before, unhappily misled himself. It is

See his Chaldaïc, Rabbinic, &c. Lexicon, sub voce.

+ Lexicon Heptaglotton.

very true, we may, in many instances, translate this word Ty by the sense proper for 7, and no violence will appear to be done to the context; but in this we are by no means confined to the passages just cited. The truth is, Josh. xxi. 42. xxiii. 9; 2 Sam. xx. 11, 12; Is. iii. 13. xi. 10, with many other places, may be so translated, without doing any apparent injury to the context. The same nray be done with almost any words which are nearly synonymous; but this will be a very different thing from affording proof, that such words are truly synonymous. And this is precisely the case here: the proper signification of T is, to stand, including also the idea of strength, firmness, stability; which is also the signification most proper for it in all the instances just adduced, e. g. Is. xlvii. 13. , let them stand* (firmly), and let them save thee. So also in verse 12,

Stand (fast) now with thy enchantments, &c. Dan. viii. 23,

a king powerful in countenancet shall ,יַעֲמֹד מֶלֶךְ עַז פָּנִים

stand (firmly). So xi. 2, nh, three kings shall stand (firmly); xii. 1, pp Ty, Michael shall stand; ib. 7, he who standeth up; and verse 13, y, and thou shalt stand. Eccles. iv. 15, ana by ¬ws, who standeth in his stead. 1 Chron. xxi. 1, by Ty and Satan stood up against Israel. There does not appear, therefore, any good reason, from these passages, why we should recur to the sense of, arise, in order to translate them intelligibly and well. There are, however, cogent reasons why we should not ascribe to this verb the sense of

. One is, that there are various passages in the Bible to which this sense cannot be applied; another, the etymology of the word itself. With regard to the first, we have, in

pillar of the cloud descended, and stood at the door of the

* Dr. Gesenius gives here in his translation: "So lass denn auftreten.” So then let step forward, arise, &c.

+ But in verse 12: "Beharre denn." Persevere, remain, then, &c.;

.קום which is not the sense of

This, Mr. Bertholdt says, means barbarous, barbarisch, which he cites Deut. xxviii. 50. to prove: no proof, however, can be derived from that place, except that the nation so mentioned shall utterly overcome the Jews: and this we know was done by the Chaldeans, a powerful, but not a barbarous, people. Bertholdt's Daniel... neu übersetst, &c. Erlangen, 1808. Zweite Halfte, p. 534; a work more daring, and worse supported, if possible, than that we are now considering.

N

, he shall * he shall

tabernacle; where, I think, arose at the door of the taber-
nacle, would be nonsense. See also Josh. x. 13; 2 Kings,
xv. 20; Is. xlvi. 7, where the following,
not remove, is sufficient to fix the sense of
stand. See also ib. lxvi. 22.+
prophet, chap. x. 32. xxi. 6.

many others might be added.

So in the former part of this
xxxvi. 2, 13: and to these

Y,

Let us now come to the etymology. If we turn to the Hebrew Lexicon, we shall find the root (TA) followed by, he set up, constituted, established; a pillar, as in the instance above given; mapy, subsistence, a place in which one may remain, &c.; Typ, a station, &c. These significations easily and naturally flow from the primitive signification above given. Eichhorn, however, in his edition of the Lexicon of Simonis, directs it to be compared with the Arabic Heb. □, with which it is apparently synonymous. But Winer has, in the last edition, very properly struck this out, retaining only its parallel Arabic word as TAY. I shall not detain the reader with the significations given to the Arabic root; these he may see in Golius and Castell: I will merely affirm, that they are in perfect harmony with the significations just given; and the same will be found to be the case in the Ethiopic and Samaritan, as far at least as the word is used. According to Castell and Buxtorf, it may occasionally be rendered in the Chaldee by rise, arise, &c. But there seems, from the passages adduced, to be no real necessity for this; and, in others, to stand, persevere, or the like, is manifestly the only sense which can fairly be ascribed to it. In the Syriac, sos, amūdó signifies a pillar, as in the Hebrew; but why the verbas, ămád, has been used in the sense of baptizing, none have been able to say. The real solution of this difficulty is, the Syrians confirm their children at the time of their baptism: the rite, therefore, is termed, not

I A

which

baptism, but confirmation, Isoss, mahmuditho, which will account for the use of this word. The learned conjectures, therefore, of Michaelis on this subject may now be disre

me.

So Dr. Gesenius in his translation, " Da steht er." There he stands, &c. + Heb. ?. Dr. Ges." Vor mir bestchn!" To stand before Dr. Ges. "So besteht auch." So also stands, &c.

16. by 12.