to which mankind in all nations are sufficiently prone of themselves. We must therefore make five or six suppositions, before we can arrive at Sir W. Drummond's etymology, and say, That if the rites of Baalpeor were of a Phallophorian kind, if these were borrowed from Egypt, if the person who first borrowed and instituted them in Moab had seen the above picture in Coptos, if he took more notice of that single picture than of the numerous other phallophorian representations throughout all Egypt, if it was the Egyptian custom to prefix articles to proper names, if Orus was not mistaken by him for Osiris, if Suidas had any good historic evidence for that sentence, if what Plutarch ascribes to Osiris in one sentence was also frequently the case in Egypt, then it is possible that Pe-or in Moab might be derived from Pi-or in Egypt, though still very improbable, as it is in contradiction to all traditions concerning the etymology of that name by the most ancient Jews and Christians, who agree that it is a Chaldee word expressive of the abominations practised at the rites of Baalpeor or Baalphegor. For this farther if must still be added, whether or not Pe-or was actually the real name of the Idol or Phegor or something like it, yet possibly not sufficiently like it to enable us to discover the name of Orus concealed within it. Lastly, we must not forget the testimony of the author of Psalm 106, who gives an historical relation of the events which happened to the Jews immediately after their exit from Egypt; and if he knew any thing of the subject about which he writes, he certainly ascribes no obscenities whatever to the worshippers of Baalpeor, like the Phallophorian ones in Egypt, but only that they partook of the sacrifices to that Idol, which was the fact also concerning all other idols. "The Israelites joined themselves unto Baalpeor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead." v. 28. However, it must be allowed to be a proof of genius to be able to make something out of nothing, and a plausible etymology by aptly connecting together a mass of incoherent accounts, out of which Leclerc was so little able to extract any certain information, that he dismisses them with these words: "Quæ omnia, cum incertissima sunt, digna non sunt quæ nos morentur," Numer. 25, 3. in which place, however, it appears that the Idol was worshipped in a mountain called Peor or Phegor, from which mountain, therefore, might be derived the name of the Idol itself, and not from Orus and such a distant and unknown country as Egypt. If, then, all these ifs should conspire luckily in favor of the proposed etymology, we may, perhaps, accede to it; otherwise we must seek for some better evidence.

Now, I perceive no other shadow of evidence adduced by the writer to support this new etymology, except that Chemosh was another name for an Idol in Moab (Numb. 21.) but whether the same Idol, or not, is not determined in scripture. If a different one, no evidence can be drawn from it, but the writer here again takes upon him to sup pose that it was the same Deity, and "that this name and worship were also borrowed from Egypt." This, in like manner, he supposes to have been an obscene worship; yet nothing to that purport is intimated here also in Scripture, but rather that it consisted in human'

sacrifices. For the whole 48th ch. of Jeremiah contains prophecies against Chemosh and Moab, in which the only circumstance mentioned relative to the nature of the worship is, "that he offereth in high places and burneth incense to his gods." v. 35. From gods being in the plural one may suspect, that Peor and Chemosh might not be the same; the offering on high places also does not necessarily imply human sacrifices, yet admits it; and the 10th verse seems to relate to the judg ment of blood for blood: "Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood." But, however this may be, there is at least no indication of any obscene worship to Chemosh; therefore, if he was the same as Peor, not to the latter likewise. Why then has Sir W. Drummond supposed it? merely because the name has some resemblance to Chemmis or Chemmo in Egypt, who was the same as Pan and a deity of obscenity, and because Jerom has said, that Chemosh was the same as Peor. What evidence he had of this we are ignorant, but the Scripture affords none, and the traditions also of the Jews say no such thing. But Jerom has said still farther that Peor was the same as Priapus, whereas Sir William says Chemosh was Pan; both were indeed obscene personages, yet very different, and if Jerom was mistaken in this, he might be just as well mistaken in the identity of Chemosh and Peor, and in regard to the obscenity also of either of them. This second etymology then of the names of gods in a country, where some dialect of Chaldee was spoken, has therefore as little evidence as the former in favor of its being derivable from the Egyptian language, in which Chemmo is indeed to be found, but means only a foreigner. (Woidé p. 125.) If some similitude in two names in two different languages is thus to be deemed a sufficient foundation for deriving one from the other, without any connecting evidence to support it, what a multitude of derivations may any one language acquire from any one other? For example Tchar (UP) in Coptic means pellis, skin, therefore, in the language of Sir W. Drummond, it is very probable, and most certain, that from this was derived chair in french, when it signifies skin, e. g. Elle a la chair blanche, she has a white skin. Upon the whole, now that writers have exhausted almost all subjects fit for novels, it only remains, that some ingenious artists should from this similitude between names attempt a new species, by composing a diverting volume of etymological romances: at the same time by dextrously connecting together names and circumstances, which have no connexion of themselves, we may be able to attain to a new species of knowledge never discovered before, which is more credita ble to rational creatures, than ingenuously to confess that we know nothing about the matter.

Norwich.

S.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

YOUR

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

OUR Journal being professedly open to Biblical Criticisms, I venture to send you, for insertion, the following remarks on a passage in St. John's Gospel, if, on perusal, you shall think them worthy of a notice.

The passage alluded to is in St. John, c. iii, v. 13. where our Saviour is teaching Nicodemus the necessity of Regeneration, and, in allusion to himself, speaks of his being in heaven, though at the same time evidently on earth. The words in our translation are, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in heaven.”

That acute and penetrating critic, Jeremiah Markland, in a letter to Mr. Bowyer, the eminent printer, who florished in the last century, confesses his utter inability to give any rational interpretation to the original Greek, without supposing some corruption of the text.

"When Beza (writes he) could not tell what to do with 'O Ev Toupav (and he must have been very skilful if he could) he contends that 'O v signifies qui erat.-Again, 'O v is spoken by the Son of Man conversing upon earth, and affirming at the same time that he is in heaven. Erasmus' and Grotius's notes seem to come from persons, who thought themselves obliged to say something upon what they did not understand. In the edition of Conjectures on the New Testament (Mr. Bowyer's own) which you sent me, in the margin, against John, c. iii. v. 13. I find these words,If Jos. Scaliger, Jos. Casaubon, Grotius, Salmasius, Bochart, and Bentley, were to give their unanimous opinions that O v might signify who was, I should not believe it without an exemplification.'

"It is impossible that 'O v could be taken in their usual signification here: and therefore Erasmus gives them a new one; Participium certè potest per præteritum perfectum, qui ERAT (he should have said fuit) in cœlo, &c. Beza, who understood it no more than Erasmus did, was glad, however, of such an authority, and so translated it est vel erat! It is no wonder that those who came after, being in the same circumstance of not understanding, should follow such great examples."

So far Jeremiah Markland.

Now, sir, you will think your correspondent very bold, in pretending to comprehend what not only that great critic, according

to his own confession, did not understand, but what even such eminent translators, as Beza and Erasmus, failed of discovering. And yet, without claiming a more than moderate share of sagacity, far beneath the critical acumen of the three great names above-mentioned, your correspondent presumes to think that he has hit the meaning of that contested passage. That Markland should have failed to ascertain its full bearing, is little to be wondered at, because his inquiries on such subjects were confined to mere grammatical speculations; but how it happened that the other two, who were so deeply skilled in Biblical researches, did not succeed in divining the true sense of the passage, is matter of much wonder.

The words, then, appear at first sight, to convey full proof of our Saviour's inherent divinity. A reference to a few parallel passages in the two Testaments, will illustrate this assertion.

1. It is admitted, on all hands, that the New Testament abounds with Hebraisms;—this was naturally to be expected from the writers of that book, not only because they were themselves Jews, but from the circumstance of their so frequently making use of the Septuagint Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Hence that translation, as well as the original Hebrew, must be consulted, in order to gain a correct acquaintance with the phraseology of the New Testament. On referring to Exodus, c. iii. 13, 14. in which Moses explicitly demands, and the Almighty as explicitly gives, His name, we find this self-same expression: Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς, Εγώ εἰμι Ὃ Ὢν, καὶ εἶπεν, οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ, Ο Ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

What idea the Seventy meant to convey by this translation is evident; for the original verb, rendered ow, denotes a state of simple being, such as is peculiar to the Essence of Deity; and it is that root from which, in the opinion of many well acquainted with the Hebrew language, the incommunicable name of Jehovah is derived; according to some, it is only an abbreviation of that name; but, by the confession of all, points out the essential nature of Him who is, 'O"N", or, as in our translation, I AM.

That the Seventy are not singular in the idea which, by their translation, they would attach to the original word, is evident from other translations, paraphrases, and targums. The Syriac, Persic, and Chaldee, retain the original expressions; the Arabic interpret them: The Eternal, who passes not away; while the Jerusalem Targum, and that of Jonathan, add this paraphrase:"He who spake and the world was who spake, and all things existed."-Vide Dr. Adam Clarke's learned Commentary on Exodus.

2. It will not require much labor to show that this phrase, with the same notion of simple essentiality, has been adopted by one of

the inspired penmen of the New Testament, St. John; whose Gospel was composed for the express purpose of maintaining the Divinity of Christ against the Cerinthian heresy. Thus, in the very beginning of his Gospel, after asserting that no one had ever witnessed a personal appearance of the Father, he immediately subjoins, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς, Ὁ Ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. Again, c. vi. v. 46. Οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα τὶς ἑώρακεν, εἰ μὴ Ὁ Ὢν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ· οὗτος ἑώρακε τον πατέρα. And again in his Book of Revelations, c. i. v. 4. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὤν, καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐρχό Levos-a bold and daring construction against all rules of Grammar, but more than compensated by the idea conveyed under the form of expression. And also in verse 8. of the same chapter, speaking of Christ, he again gives him the title of 'O *Q,—¿ navtoκράτωρ.

μενος

παντο

3. This use of the participle will be farther illustrated by referring to a similar employment of the verb from which it is derived. Our Saviour, in a conversation with the Jews, maintains his preexistence in these memorable words: "Before Abraham was, I ΑΜ”πρὶν ̓Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ είμι. John viii. 58.

It is very remarkable, that in speaking of his own pre-existent state, he does not use the same word as he applies to Abraham's birth; though our translation would lead to such supposition,πεὶν ̓Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, before Abraham was created, or born, ἐγώ E-I am, I exist. And that the Jews understood him as laying claim to the incommunicable prerogative of the Most Highest is evident, from the circumstance of their taking up stones to cast at him-death, by stoning, being the legal punishment of blasphemy.

As our translators have not inserted the pronoun he after eiμì in this verse, it is somewhat strange that they should have so done in the corresponding verses 24. and 28. of this Chapter; where our Saviour, as unequivocally as here, lays claim to self and preexistence. Ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ είμι, ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρ τίαις ὑμῶν. 1 ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins. Ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ είμι When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that I am. I am he? Who? There is no antecedent with which the pronoun can make sense, nor in whose place it can be put by any grammatical construction.

---

This interpretation, if correct, will tend to throw light upon another circumstance in our Saviour's history, otherwise obscure; and, in so doing, will add a further confirmation to the point under discussion.

It is related by the same Evangelist, c. xviii. that as soon as Jesus had said to Judas and his company, "I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground." The pronoun he, is, in our