"Achiassar." I know that generally Achi is rendered brother; but it cannot be so rendered in all cases: as for instance; ACHI-noam the wife of Saul, 1 Sam. xiv. 50; and another, the wife of David, chap. xxv. 43. xxvii. 3. these, being women, could not possibly be named "the brother of delight;" but "the bond of delight," is expressive of a lovely female, while it is also a true Orientalism. The Arabs use the term in this sense, at this day; so Schultens renders, "vinxit, vinciendo nexuit." The Hebrew and the Arabic, then, may justify the Phoenician; and the fact that the names Obedassar and Achiassar are of the same import is convertible into no weak argument that they describe the same person:-add, further, that if they described two persons, we should have had some hint of it in the plural form of some following word, as, or &c.

6. As the vau is sometimes omitted, by Sir W'.s confession, this objection may be passed over.

7. Sir W. objects to my " with," inserted merely to preserve somewhat of an English connexion: omit it; the sense is the same. "The nominatives absolute are rather unusual;" but so are lapidary inscriptions in Hebrew. We all know that lapidary Latin is sometimes teazing enough to construe precisely; though we discern the general information it communicates. Phoenician Hebrew, in the present state of our knowledge, demands, at least, equal favor.

8. Sir W. objects to my "who," inserted to prevent a repetition of "Melkarth," as Sir W. and Boyer have done: exclude it; provided Melkarth be the admitted reference of the term used.

Thus,

I have no objection to give the particle the sense of or therefore, or inasmuch as; or simply as or any better selected sense; for the difficulty is selection. Thus he heard their voice," or "then he heard their voice," would suit my purpose admirably. May he continue to bless them!" The sense of "continuing to bless" may possibly demand a few words by way of support. I shall adduce an instance or two from the book of Job. Job i. 5. Job said, "It may be that my sons have sinned, nor continued to bless God in their hearts." Verse 11. "Put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, will he then, indeed, continue to bless thee?" Verse 21. "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; continually blessed be the name of the Lord." The Alexandrine copy and Aldus add, for ever and ever," ais roùs alvas. Chap. ii. 9. His wife said, "Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Continue blessing God; and dying."

In the change of curse into bless, which beyond all doubt is the true import of I agree with Mr. Good, whose elaborate version of Job is now in my hands. The sense of continuance he will discern as soon as it is suggested to him.

I fear, Sir, that Sir W. D. must be in some sense answerable for the length of this paper: I shall be happy to find that it gives him any satisfaction; and that it contributes to throw light on a subject so recondite: if but one step be gained, that may lead in time to real learning.

The inscription, thus revised, would read in its simplest form,

To our Lord Melkarthus, Sovereign Divinity of Tyre,

Conservator, to whom love is due; i. e. beloved :

his servant Obedassar, also called Achiassar,

safely preserved, a second time;

Benassar, safely preserved, son of Obedassar ;
As He (Melkarthus) heard their voice,

May he continue to bless them!

Whether the conjecture that Obedassar was priest of Melkarthus is strengthened or weakened by this revision, must be left with your readers. The mention of "safe preservation" certainly implies some danger run; it could hardly be a simple voyage from Tyre to Malta; but if it was from Malta to any great distance, as Britain, then though these persons had not suffered shipwreck, they might properly enough consecrate this votive memorial-tablet: but, if they had suffered shipwreck, though in a short voyage, they might piously record this inscription in a public place, or in more than one, in proof of their gratitude.

ED. CALM.

Observations on Dr. Holmes's Preface, relative to the Syriac Version.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

I TROUBLE you with a few observations on a passage, in the general Preface to Dr. Holmes's celebrated Collation of the Septuagint, relative to the Syriac Version.

The great merit of that elaborate work, which its indefatigable author prosecuted to the very close of his life with equal talent and assiduity, and which is so ably continued by his learned successor, is universally acknowledged. Apprehensive, however, from the concise style in which the general Preface is drawn up, that erroneous conceptions may be entertained upon the subject of the Syriac Version which has been collated, I take the liberty of correcting upon this particular point, what otherwise appears to me almost unavoidable, public misapprehension.

Having spoken of the Italic and Coptic versions, Dr. Holmes thus proceeds to the consideration of the Syriac: "Versionem Syriacam è Græco textu Hexaplari confectam fuisse, nemo, quantum video, denegavit; sed quo auctore, et quo ævo facta fuerit, est controversa res. De hoc argumento consuli possunt Assemanus, Cl. Brunsius in Repertorio, De Rossi in specimine Versionis Hexaplaris, et alii. Bar Hebræus ab Assemano, Bruusio, Bugati ad Danielem, citatus planè testatur; Testamentum verò vetus Septuagintavirale Paulus Episcopus Tela Mauzalet ex Graco in Syriacum vertit. Atque hoc testimonium Bugati loco citato in multis illustrat et urget.

De

"Codex hujus versionis, libros Scripturæ Sacræ historicos complexus, erat olim penès Marium, qui ex eo Josuæ librum edidit. Codice Bibliothecæ olim Regia Parisiis, librum quartum Regum et Danielem in hac versione complexo, admonuit, et lectiones ejus multas protulit Cl. Brunsius in Repertorii loco citato. Denique ex Codice Bibliothecæ Ambrosianæ Psalmos et Danielem in hac versione jam edidit Cl. Bugati è Doctoribus Collegii Ambrosiani, et properat nunc ad edendos prophetas quoque, in eodem codice conservatos. Quod verò attinet ad versionem Syriacanı Pentateuchi, istius aliqua fragmenta exprimit Arabicè Horreum Bar-Hebræi ineditum in Codice quodam Bodleiano. Hæc ergò fragmenta contulimus."

Now it is well known, that there is a Syriac version, both of the Old and New Testament, which has always been in constant use among the Syrians, which has been published in the Paris and London Polyglotts, and which is denominated the Peshito or simplex versio. This, it is evident, was not in the contemplation of Dr. Holmes; because he refers to Critics, who are discussing the existence of a very different version, one, which is supposed to have been made by Paulus, Bishop of Tela, and which perhaps, as a whole, is not now extant. Besides, it is impossible for a man of Dr. Holmes's acquirements and research, to have stated, that no one ever denied, what certainly no one ever asserted, the conformity of the Peshito with the Septuagint, because it has always been considered as a translation from the Hebrew. To the words therefore, Versionem Syriacam è Græco textu Hexaplari confectam fuisse, nemo denegavit, we must necessarily affix the following meaning, that there is a Syriac version made from the Greek text of the Hexapla no one has denied; a meaning in perfect coincidence with the

context.

As an entire work, I have remarked, the version of Paulus probably nowhere exists. A Manuscript, however, of a Syriac version, evidently translated from the Septuagint, containing the historical books of the Old Testament with those of Judith and Tobias, and also with a considerable part of Deuteronomy, was once in the possession of Marius, a critic of no mean eminence in the sixteenth century. This has since disappeared; but Marius has previously used it as the polestar of his criticism in his emendations of the text of Joshua. Dr. Holmes indeed observes, that from this he published the book of Joshua, "ex eo Josuæ librum edidit;" but that intelligent writer, who cannot be supposed to have given an account of a book which he had never seen, could only have meant by such a mode of expression, that Marius published a Greek text of Joshua in exact conformity with his Syriac manuscript. And this has been the constant representation of critics, when alluding to Marius's Joshua, from the days of Walton to the present period. Walton, in the prolegomena of the London Polyglott, remarks, "Ex hoc codice Syriaco, qui ipsissima Origenis Hexapla referebat, librum Josuæ edidit Marius, et asteriscos omnes atque obelos lemniscos etiam et hypolemniscos apposuit, et omnia quàm accuratissimè correxit; ut,' demtis asteriscis, versionem Gra

'What Walton meant by demtis asteriscis will be easily understood by recurring to the 22d section of the same Prolegomenon, in which he says,

"Iden

cam, quæ in Hexaplis extabat, exactè repræsentaret." De versionibus Græcis Sec. 42. From this passage then it appears, that Bishop Walton (whose very expressions, ex hoc codice librum Josua edidit, Dr. Holmes adopts) contemplated the Greek text of Marius as a precise representation of Origen's Hexapla, by being in all points made conformable with, and very carefully corrected by, the Syriac version under consideration. Such was the opinion of Walton; and the stream of criticism, I believe, has since uniformly flowed in the same channel. Its accuracy, however, I confess, appears to me more than problematical. For I apprehend that the object of Marius was simply to give a critical Greek text, approaching indeed as nearly as possible to the Hexapla, but not solely, although generally, conformable with his Syriac version. And also, that not even his asterisks to point out additions made to the septuagint in order to supply its deficiencies, or his Obeli to indicate its redundance, when compared with the Hebrew, were uniformly regulated by the same version. In proof of my assertion, I will quote a passage from the Dedication of his work, in which he thus expresses the object in his view. Ego igitur in Josuâ, et menda omnia, quoad ejus à me fieri potuit, in tantâ pravitatis vetustate, correxi et asteriscos obeliscosque suis locis restitui. In eâ autem correctione emendationeque, cùm aliorum vetustissimorum codicum, et præsertim ejus, qui in Vaticanâ bibliothecâ habetur, fidem sum secutus, tum interpretem Syrum ubique auctorem certissimum habui." p. 6. Here he represents his object to be, a general correction and emendation of the text, and his means of effecting that object twofold; first, by the collation of manuscripts, particularly the Vatican, and secondly, by a reference to his Syriac version, which he considers as his surest, but not his only guide. That he did not always adopt the readings of the Syriac is apparent in chap. i. v. 8. where the word voduras occurs in his text. Upon this word he has the following note: "Pro soduos reddidit Syrus primam personam jodwow, sed ei non assentiuntur alia exempla." p. 125. He therefore rejects the Syriac reading. So also, c. xiii. v. 27. where the word veen, is found in his text. His note is: "Pro Evopex scribendum est VEEX, ut habent Complutenses, aut diviso verbo & ex ut habet Hebraicum, aut denique xa ex ut legit Syrus. Est autem uex Hebræis vallis aut planities, et sic reddidit hunc locum Aquilas atque Symmachus et etiam Latinus. Quia autem mentio loci vez est apud Eusebium, libro de locis Hebraicis, ideo censeo sic esse scribendum." p. 140. Nor is my other position, viz. that he was not always determined by his Syriac version in the placing of his Asterisks and Obeli, less difficult of proof. In c. i. v. 9. occurs the subsequent observation. “ Scribunt Complutenses εἰς πάντα τόπον οὐ ἐὰν πορεύη.

66

Origenes, cùm omnium non esset magna hæc volumina (viz. Hexap.) comparare, aliam editionem elaboravit, solius versionis Sept. cui asteriscos et obelos apposuit." But Montfaucon, in the præliminaria to his edition of the Hexapla, refutes the supposition that these marks did not occur in the Hexapla. Hæc," he remarks, "ad verbum retulimus contra quosdam nuperos, qui existimant notas illas Obelorum et Asteriscorum non in editione zwy Hexaplari positas fuisse ab Origene, sed in alia seorsim adornata.” p. 38.

Sed quando verbum rómov neque Hebræum habet, neque alii boni libri, nihil muto. Si quis tamen adscribendum putet, is notet obelisco." p. 126. To this I shall only add one quotation more, which, I trust, will be deemed decisive. In his text, c. iv. v. 7. he prints the words o'lógdavos потaus, the latter of which words he marks with an Obelus, as not being found in the Hebrew; and thus remarks upon it in his Annotations: Scribe καὶ σὺ δηλώσεις, habeatque pronomen obelum appositum. Eadem nota scribatur quoque apud participium λέγων, et ulterius apud nomen ποταμός, quod nomen tamen & Syro non est lectum." p. 123.

But there is another paragraph in the passage quoted from Dr. Holmes, which seems to require a little correction as well as elucidation; I mean the concluding one, referring to the Horreum Mysteriorum of Bar-Hebræus, viz. "Quod verò attinet ad versionem Syriacam Pentateuchi, istius aliqua fragmenta exprimit Arabicè Horreum Bar-Hebræi ineditum in Codice quodam Bodleiano." The word Arabicè, I presume, must have been a mere slip of the pen for Syriacè. It is indeed true that this work is extant in Arabic, as well as Syriac, 'because Asseman remarks, that both Hottinger and Renaudot cite it under its Arabic title, the latter of whom, he adds, "testatur hoc opus extare in Biblioth. Mediceâ Arabicè Charactere Syriaco." Bibliotheca Orientalis, V. II. p. 277. And we know that Bar-Hebræus wrote some of his works in both languages. But the copy referred to in the Bodleian Library, is indisputably Syriac, and not Arabic, so that here Arabicè should be considered as an error of the press, or as an error imputable to the haste of transcription, and inadvertently printed.

With respect to the character of the particular version thus collated, and described under the title of Syrus in Horreo Bar-Heb. and as Syrus apud Bar-Heb., the learned editor seems to have contemplated it, certainly as a Syriac version translated from the Septuagint, and probably as the identical version before alluded to, which was ascribed to Paulus, Bishop of Tela. With submission, however, to authority which I cannot but highly respect, I must confess that it appears to me in no other light than as the version of Bar-Hebræus himself, who, writing in Syriac, rendered the Septuagint into that language, precisely as he did the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. This, I think, is evident from the Preface to the Horreum Mysteriorum, (a critical commentary on the whole bible) in which Bar-Hebræus states that he takes the Peshito for his text, because it is in the hands of every Syrian; but that he gives extracts "from the Greek, that is, from the version of the Septuagint," by way of confirmation; but from the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, as also from the Pentapla and Hexapla by way of elucidation only, not of confirmation. Accordingly the word i. e. the Greek, which is written in red ink to catch the eye, perpetually occurs either at full length or abbreviated. Thus in his comment on the phrase "without form and void," Genesis c. i. v. 2. after giving the reading of Peshito he adds, JALLY NOW A 1 2001 Al sa i. e. "in the Greek, was invisible and unadorned," which corresponds with the text in the common edition of the Septuagint, ήν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος. He