William Rainey Harper.

The Old Testament student (Volume 4) online

. (page 1 of 60)
Online LibraryWilliam Rainey HarperThe Old Testament student (Volume 4) → online text (page 1 of 60)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


^ ;'^



n 1.4


^u 'Krv




- ^i

*!• t-

■"^^.v '^''^r/


Tliltntru uf

0,V "A^^



)»liTi^^eutci> hn










cc_*-. ^s






-^n^r- O

^^;rv.k «^«.. -^'

^c^ tC


■ ' ( o

\^. ^ "t' ^

-f? «f






Old Testament


WILLIAM E, HAEPEE, Ph. D., Editor,


SEPTEMBER, 1884-JUNE, 1885.


The American Publication Society of Hebrew,

p. O. Address, Morgan Paiik, III.



. Table of Contents.


1. A Recent Theory of the Garden of Eden, Prof. Francis Brown, D.D \-VZ

II. The Blessing of Jael, Prof. Edward L. Curtis 13-18

III. Studies in Archaeology and Comparative Religion, IV., Rev. J. A. Smith, D.D. 19-25

IV. Notes from Abroad, R. F. Hamper 25-27

V. Contributed Notes 28-32

VI. General Notes 32-34

VII. Editorial Notes 35-37

VIII. Book Notices 37-46

IX. Semitic and Old Testament Bibliography 46-48


y^ I. The Work OF THE Prophets, Pro/. F. B. i^emo 49-59

II. Studies IN Archaeology AND Comparative Religion, v., Rev.J. A.Smith, D.D. 59-66

III. The Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Covenant, C. Von Orelli 66-71

IV. The Name Lucifer, Rev. Maurice G. Hansen 71-73

V. Recent Advances in Biblical Criticis.m in their Rel.^tion to the Chris-

tian Faith, Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D.D 73-78

VI. Bibliographical Notes, Rev. J. W. Haley 78-79

VII. Gener.\l Notes 79-83

VIII. Contributed Notes 83-87

IX. Editorial Notes 88-90

X. Book Notices 91-94

XI. Semitic AND Old TESTA.MENT Bibliography 95-96


I. The Value of the Old Testament for the Work of the P.\stor. I., Prof. S.

Burnham 97-103

II. Genesis XVII., 6-8 AND Galatians III., 16, Bei'. James Scoft 103-105

III. Studies in Archeology and Comparative Religion, VI., Rev.J.A. Smit}i,D.D. 105-113

IV. Bible Interpretation: How and How Not, B. Felsenthal, Ph.D 114-119

V. Bibliographical Notes, II., Rev. J. W. Haley 119-122

VI. The Covenant and the Early Prophets, C. J. Bredenkam,p 123-127

VII. Notes from Abro.^d, R. F. Harper 128-129

VIII. General Notes 129-131

IX. Contributed Notes 131-134

X. Editorial Notes 134-138

XI. Book Notices 138-142

XII. Semitic and Old Testament Bibliography 142-144


I. Matter— Eternal or Created? Prof. J. P. Landis, D.D 145-151

II. The Value of the Old Testament for the Work of the Pastor, II., Prof. S.

Burnham 151-156

III. Gains and Losses of Modern Biblical Criticism, Rev. A. A. Pfanstichl 157-161

IV. Studies in Archeology .\nd Comparative Religion, VII., Rev. J. A. Smith, D.D. 163-169
V. Semitic and Indo-European Culture 170-171

VI. The Explanation of Numerical Difficulties, Prof. T. J. Dodd, .DD 171-174

VII. Gener.\l Notes 174-181

VIII. Contributed Notes 181-185

IX. Editorial Notes t85-187

X. Book Notices 188-191

XI. Semitic and Old Testa.ment Bibliography 191-192


I. The Book of Hose a. Prof. Charles Elliott, D.D 193-203

II. Studies in Old Test.vment Hermeneutics, Prof. M. S. Term, S.T.D 2ii3-305

III. Universality of Serpent- Worship, Pro/. W. G. Moor ehcad, D.D 20.5-210

IV. The Translation of Proper Names, F. J. Gurncy 210-212

V. Studies in Archeology and Comparative Religion, VIIL, Rev. J. A.

Smith, D.D 213-221

VI. Contributed Notes 222-225

VII. General Notes 336-229

VIII. Editorial Notes 230-233

IX. Book Notices 234-239

X. Semitic .a.nd Old Testament Bibliography , 240


I. The Central Problem of Old Testament Discussion, Prof. G. H. Schnddc, Ph.D. 241-345

II. Studies in Old Testament Hermeneutics, II., Prof. M. S. Tcrnj, S. T. D 245-351

III. The Correlation of the Old and New Covenants, Rev. James Scott, D.D 353-357

IV. The Value of the Old Testament for the Work of the Pastor, III., Prof. S.

Burnham 257-261

"<V. The Book of Joel, Prof. Charles Elliott, D.D 261-367

VI. The Dogma of the Resurrection among the Ancient Egyptians, Prof. How-
ard <Miood, D.D 367-375

VII. Notes from Abroad, IraM. Price, M. A 376-378

VIII. Contributed Notes 379-381

IX. Editorial Notes 383-384

X. Book Notices 385-286

XI. Semitic AND Old Testament Bibliography 387-288


I. Old Testament Study for Homiletic Use, Rev. R. S. MacArthur, D.D 389-394

II. Hermeneutics and the Higher Criticism, Prof. M. S. Terry, S.T.D 294-399

III. The Old Testament in the Sunday School: A Symposium, E. C. Bissell, D.D.,

W. Henry Green, D.D., Herrick Johnson, D.D., J. H. Vincent, D.D., G. H. Schoddc,
Ph.D., E. F. Williams, D.D., E. V. GerJutrt, D.D., Rev. W. F. Crafts, C. R.Blackall,
M.D., M. S. Terry, S. T. D., H. Clay Trumbull, D.D., W. J. Bcechcr,D.D., Howard
Crosby, D.D 399-309

IV. " I AM That I am," Prof. S. T. And^^rson, D.D 310-313

V. Contributed Notes 314-319

VI. General Notes 320-335

VIT. Editorial Notes 335-328

VIII. Book Notices 329-334

IX. Semitic and Old Testament Bibliography 335-336


I. Textual Criticism in the Old Testament, Prof. H. P. Smith, D.D 337-344

II. Analysis of Rabbinical Judaism, Rev. James Scott, D.D 345-352

JII. God's Covenant in the Prophets, Prof. C. J. Bredcnkamp 353-357

IV. Some Astronomy in the Book of Job, Prof. R. V. Foster, D.D 358-363

V. Notes from Abroad, Ira M. Price, M. A 364-367

VI. Contributed Notes 368-373

VII. General Notes 374-377

VIII. Editorial Notes : . . . 378-379

IX. Book Notices 380-382

X. Semitic and Old Testament Bibliography 383-384


I. The Story of Balaam, Rev. R. P. Stebbins, D.D 385-395

II. Analysis of Rabbinical Judaism, II., Rev. James Scott, D.D 396-401

III. Textual Criticism in the Old Testament, II., Prof. H. P. Smith, D.D 403-408

IV. Some Suggestions as to Bible Interpretation, E. R. Pope, B. D 409-413

V. The Preacher a Prophet, Rev. L. D. Temple, B.D 413-416

VI. The Land of Uz, Prof. Friedr. Delitzsch, D.D 417-430

VII. Jewish Interpretation op Prophecy, i?6u. T. K. Cheyne, D. D 431-434

VIII. Editorial Notes 435-437

IX. Book Notices 428-430

X. Semitic and Old Testament Bibliography 431-433


'I. The Old Testament Doctrine of the Spirit of God, Rev. P. A. Nordell 433-444

II. The Sunday School Lessons for the Third Quarter, 1885, Prof. Willis J.

Bcecher, D.D 445-454

in. Notes from Abroad, Ira M. Price, M. A 454-456

IV. The Authorized Version and the Revised Version. Some of the More

Important Old Testament Texts Compared 457-474

V. Semitic and Old Testament Bibliography 475-476

VI. General Index to Vol, IV 477-480


Vol. IV. SEPTEMBER, 1884. No. i.


By Prof. Francis Brown,

Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

It is not the purpose of this article to give, even in outline, an
account of the various hypotheses in regard to the position of Eden and
its garden which have found champions at different periods in the his-
tory of exegetical studies.'!" But since a degree of new life has been
awakened in the discussion since the beginning of the present decade,
it seems worth the while to review one of its most striking phases
with the purpose of determining, if possible, the net result.

The immediate and most effective cause of revived interest in a
debate which had been long-continued and somewhat fruitless was the
appearance, soon after the middle of 1881, of the monograph, JVo Lag
das Paradics, by the brilliant Assyriologist of Leipzig. His views had
been propounded some three or four years earlier in a paper read before
the Leipzig Vercin fiicr Erdkuiide, but were now published in a much
more extended form, and fortified by great learning and ingenious
argument. The essential mark of his theory was the location of Eden
in Northern Babylonia, and the identification of the various features
■of the Biblical account (Gen. Ii., 8-14) with the aid of Babylonian
topography and the products of Babylonian soil. This striking
hypothesis, so vigorously presented, called forth a wide expression of
opinion. Most of the notices which appeared in English and Ameri-
can publications were of a favorable nature, — some, indeed, with
considerable reservations, — but, unfortunately for their scientific value,
there was in several prominent cases a lack of discrimination, and an
indication of prepossession, Avhich diminished their real importance.

* Friedi-ich Delitzsch, TT'o Lay clan Paradicx, Leipzij?, issi. Cf. S. I. Ciirtiss, in Sumixtshun on
the Atitcdiluvian Na)Tativcs,—Lcnorninnt, Delitzsch, Haupt, Dillinann;— 7{i?;. Sacra, July, 1883.

t This field has often been surveyed : vid. Winer, ReM-Wocrtcrhuch ; Schenkel, Bihcl-Lexicon;
Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopcedia of Religious Knowledge; Dillmann, Genesis; Friedr. Delitzsch, op.
■cit., etc.

2 The Old Testament Student.

There were two influences, especially, which seemed to incline the
reviewers to over-haste in accepting the new hypothesis; (i), an
excessive confidence, based, indeed, on very remarkable and well-
established data, in the power of Assyriology to solve all historical
problems upon which it could be brought to bear ; (2), the supposed
confirmation of the literal, historic accuracy of Gen. 11. which the new
opinion afforded.*

The scholars of the Continent of Europe were far less complaisant.
The new theory was everywhere discussed, and almost everywhere
condemned. Assyriologists and Non-Assyriologists joined hands in
assailing it. Only a few voices were heard in its favor, and those less
in the way of careful defense, than in allusions and expressions of
personal opinion.'!' In spite, however, of the strong objections
brought against his theory, Professor Delitzsch is understood to
maintain his ground, and this adds a further zest to the examination
upon which we are about to enter. But before beginning it, it is
important to distinguish three possible forms of fundamental inquiry :
(i). Where Avas the Garden of Eden, i. c, as a matter of fact and of
history .? (2). Where did the author of Gen. II., 8-14 think it was .^
(3). What has been the history of belief in regard to it, among
ancient peoples .^ It is not meant that these questions do not have an
intimate connection, and a direct bearing upon each other, but only
that for purposes of scientific study a distinction must be made be-
tween them. In the present case it is the second form of the inquiry
which is adopted, — that form which underlies Professor Delitzsch's
work, in spite of his title, which points rather to (i) — and any light
upon (i) or (3) which may be gained will be incidental and unde-

We are now ready to look at Delitzsch's hypothesis, which it will
be convenient to state in the form of successive propositions :

*The former was illustrated by A. H. Sayce, Academxi, Nov. .5, 1881; the latter by C. H. H.
Wright, Nineteenth Century, Oct., 1882.— C. H. Toy, Proecedinos of Am. Oriental Soc, Oct., 1881, was
much more cautious, and perc.eived the weak points of the hypothesis; my own notice in the
Preshuterian Review, Jan., 1883, may be referred to, since its attitude is considerably modified in
the following- pages.— It should be said that (2), above, received no direct countenance from Pro-
fessor Delitzsch himself.

t Among the more important criticisms were: In Germany, Th. Noeldekc, Z. D. M. G., xxxvi.,
(1882) pp. 17;J-184; Fr. Philippi, Theiil. Lit.-Zeit., ATpv. 8, 1882, Col. U7sq.; J. Oppert, Gucttinysche
Gel. Amciije, June 28, July .5. 1882, pp. 801-831.— France, J. Halevy, Revue Critique, Dec. 12-19, 1882,
pp. 457-46:!, 477-48.5; Fr. Lenormant, Les Origines de VHistoirc, II., i., 1882, pp. .529-539.— Holland, C. P.
Tiele, Tlieolngisch<chrift, Mar. 1882, pp. 2.58, sq.— Similarly, A. Dillmann, Gc»c»'i.s<,1882, pp.57sq.,
Herkunft dcr Urncschichtlichen Sagen dcr Hebraeer, in Sitzunnshcr. dcr Berl. Akad., Apr. 27, 1882,
transl. in Bib. Sacra, July, 1883; cf. K. IJudde, BilM'^che UrgescMchte, 1883, pp. 82, 270; E. Schrader,
KAT2, 1883, pp. 26sq., 40 sq.— F. Hommel, ho^vever, Augsi). Alhjem. Zeitumj, 1881, Beil. 229-231,
devotes ten columns to a hearty endorsement of Delitzsch's position, without, at all points,
helping the cause by perfectly judicious argument.

A Recent Theory of the Garden of Eden. . 3

I. The luritcr conceived of the territory where the garden ivas as
in existence in his ozon time, supposed himself to knoiu its locality, and
desired to comnumicate to his readers such knoxvledge as he had.
Par. pp. 2, 3, 44. The first statement and the last are undoubtedly-
true, witness the various details of the description,* — mostly unimpor-
tant for his narrative, and of use only as means of identification.
It might be that the second statement was true only in a limited
sense, i. e., the degree of precision attaching to his conceptions of
the locality is a matter for special consideration.

II. Various details indicate that Eden zcas conceived as having
a southern, tropical climate (pp. 7 sq.); (i), that God walks in the
garden "in the cool of the day," (2), that fig-trees were available for

girdles. To which may be added the fertility of the soil. None of

these, however, gives material for a definite conclusion as to
locality. With the addition of irrigation, they would suit Arabia
(Halevy) as well as Babylonia. Unfavorable to Babylonia,'!' if not
conclusive against it,:}: is the use of fig-leaves, since the fig is rare
in Babylonia.

III. TJie analogy of other early narratives of Genesis, and fa-
vorable local conditions, point to Babylonia as the site of Eden (pp.
45 sq.); e. g., (i), the ark was doubtless built in the lowlands, and
Babylonia is suitably near Eastern Armenia, where the ark rested ;
(2), the Land of Shinar was. in Babylonia ; (3), the names Tigris and
Euphrates point to the same region ; (4), the well-watered garden,

and (5), the position of it " eastward" (/, e., from Palestine. )§ No one

could call these points conclusive. Granting (i) and (2), they prove
nothing certainly to the point ; (3) is adverse to Babylonia, since it
is not in Babylonia that these rivers take their rise (see below) ; (4)
and (5) suit Babylonia. Four of these particulars, then, may have

* It is not in conflict with this to say that the author is describing the reg-ion as it was in the
earliest times. Vv. 8, 9 refer to the past; probably also X>", v. 10 i,So Del., Dillra., Gcn.i, ad loc,
—otherwise Gen."— Philippi, loc. cit., etc. In that case T)i3% ri'm, also, would be historical

t So Schrader, KATi, p. 38, Dillm. Genesis^, on iii., 7.

* Not conclusive— because it is not certain that there never were more flg - trees there than at
present, or than in Herodotus's time. (Herod, i., 193). See also Ritter, Enlkunde, vii. 3, p. 541.

(" selbst noch Bagdad bringt keine guten Feigen." " Das wahre Feigenland be-

ginnt erst mit dera inittlern und obern Tigris-und Euphratlandc, mit Mesopotamicn

vorzueglich ist es aber auch hier nicht die Flaeche, sondern das Huegelland, Oder vielmchr noch
der eigentliche Klippenboden, in welchem der Feigenbauni sich wohlget'aellt." The paper of
Solms, cited by Dillm. Gcncsist, p. 72, 1 have not been able to see.) And because, in any case, De-
litzsch might be willing to modify his view so far as to suppose the Hebrew writer to transfer
the tree of Palestine to the Garden of God.

§ This is the most likely interpretation of Dtj5p, if it is genuine. See Dillm., who, however,
cites Lagarde, GcneHin, {jracce, (1868) Pref., p. 23 f., according to which the word was once lacking
in Heb. and Syr. text.

4 The Old Testament Student.

weight in connection with positive evidence ; one will have to be
overcome by such evidence.

IV. // is highly probable that the Babylonians had a legend of a
Paradise, and of a Fall of Man, zuhose natural location zvonld be Baby-
lonia; this is indicated by (i), the evidence of Babylonian accounts
of Creation, Ten Patriarchs, and Flood, more or less distinctly parallel
with the Hebrew accounts (pp. 84 sq.) ;* (2), a belief that Babylonia was
the home of the first men (p. 92); (3), the "tree of life," constantly rep-
resented on Assyrian and Babylonian tablets, and probably, also, the
"tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (p. 91); (4), the significant
names Kar = (or Gin =) Diinias, for the district immediately about
Babylon, and Tintir, ior the city itself (pp. 64 sq., 136 sq.); (5), the
Cherubim, believed to be known in Babylonia (pp. 92,93, 150 sq.);
(6), the consciousness of guilt among the Babylonians, and their attrib-
uting of suffering (in particular, the flood) to guilt, with the contrast
between the excellence of the original creation, in which they believ-
ed, and the actual state of the world as they must have observed it
(pp. 86, 145); (7), the activity of the dragon, or serpent, Tiainat,
•enemy of the gods, whom Merodach overcomes (pp. 87 sq., 147 sq.).

(i) affords a presumption, but nothing more, and the Flood-story is

the only one of the three whose details can be satisfactorily compared
with the corresponding Hebrew narrative ; (2) is supported by the
Babylonian localization of the Flood, and by the fact that Berossus
makes Aloros, the first of the antediluvian kings, a Babylonian ; (3) is
admitted in its former statement, but the latter cannot be indepen-
dently proved, since the only reason for holding to a Babylonian "tree
of the knowledge of good and evil" is the peculiar form of the tree rep-
resented on the cylinder referred to below, — under (7)t; (4) the names
"Enclosure of the god Duniash," and "Grove of Life" can give only
general hints, no proof; (5) is possibly true, although the exact rela-
tion between the winged bulls {Sedtt = Kiriibnf) of Babylonia and
Assyria, and the Hebrew conception of D*!}^^ is still in dispute. But
it was not the only office of the DO"lD to guard the entrance to the
lost Paradise, and their existence in Babylonia would not prove that
they had this office there ; (6) is a good argument, as far as it goes,
but points less to a Paradise, i. e., a topographically defined garden of
innocence and peace, than to the facts of consciousness ; (7) is the most
important of all, and must be carefully examined.

* See, however,— somewhat too skeptically adverse to any close connection between the
Babylonian and the Hebrew stories,— Dillmann, UrgeiichicMliche Sagen der Hehracer.

+Dillm.,(TC)i.t p. 49, maintains that this tree is peculiar to the Hebrew narrative; soK.Budde,
Bihlische Urocschichte, p. T9. There is certainly no positive evidence as yet to the contrary.

A Kecent Theory of the Garden of Eden. ^

This is clear, that, while the Babylonians, like the Hebrews, and
other peoples, attached no necessarily bad idea to the notion of a ser-
pent, but rather the contrary,* yet the representation of Tiamat
(Chaos), who is commonly a dragon, when personified at all, is also some-
times a serpent, called by that name {Par. p. 89), and even so figured. t
Delitzsch compares (p. 89), not without reason, Rev., Xll., 7-9, XX., 2
sq., and the innH"'?^ "lb^ of the Kabbala. On the same page we have
also a mention of the mutilated tablets which seem to connect Mero-
dach's battle against Tiamat with the exhortations to men to fulfil their
duties toward the gods. No certain conclusion, however, can at pres-
ent be drawn from this. But Delitzsch lays the chief stress (p. 90),
upon the famous little cylinder which bears a rude tree, with fruit
hanging at each side, and two sitting figures, with long garments ; the
one at the right has horns on the head, the other a cap or turban,
while behind him (her ?) a serpent appears standing on its tail. The
right hand of one figure and the left of the other are extended toward
the tree, which rises between them.:{: That this naturally rcviinds
the beholder of Gen. ill. (so Baudissin, p. 291) can hardly be denied;
that there is really a connection is not thereby demonstrated. Noth-
ing proves the different sex of the sitting figures ;^ their long robes
are not primitive, neither is their head-gear ; their outstretched hands
have the palm turned upward, and the fruit hangs below them. There
is no sufficient reason from the form of the tree to distinguish it from the
familiar "tree of life," — (see above). If we were sure of the existence
of the legend in Babylonia, these difficulties might be overcome, and
supposed to depend partly on the rudeness or carelessness of the
engraving, and partly on the transference of later habits [e. g., the
robes) to primitive times, partly perhaps (as in the case of the head-
gear), on some unknown symbolism. But, with our present light, this
interesting and striking scene can hardly be admitted as a definite
proof of a Babylonian story of the Fall.§

And it must be clearly kept in mind that such a story would not

*See Del. Par., pp. 87, 88, 146 sq., and cf. Num. xxi., 5-9; 3 Kgs. xviii., 14; also Dillni. on
Genesis, iii., 1.

+ See W. H. Ward, The Serpent Tempter in Oriental Mytholoyii, Bib. Sacra, Apr., 1881, p. 224.
Dr. Ward discovered the cylinder, here depicted, in the possession of the late Dr. S. Wells Wil-
liams; it was first published, after his impression, by A. H. Sayce, in Geo. Smith's ChaJ<Ja:^an Gen-
esis, 2d ed. (1880), p. 90.

* See, further, W. H. Ward, I. c; A. H. Sayce, I. c, p. 88; W. Baudissin, Studicn zur Scmitisch-
en Rcliijionsoeschichte, I., p. 2.58 sq.

•! That the difference in head-gear does so (Del.), is surely very doubtful. The distinction
between bearded and beardless (Ward, I. c.) would be better, but I am not able to convince
myself that there is this difference between these two faces.

§ See criticisms of it by Tiele, and Budde, I. c. ; cf . Menant, Empreintcs dc cylindres Assyro-
Cluildeens, p. 48; Halevy, I. c.

6 The Old Testa^ient Student.

necessarily bring with it a " garden of Eden," and that such a garden
is the very thing of which we are in search. It might very well be
that the fact of the Fall, and the manner of it, quite outweighed for
the Babylonian priests, who would probably transmit the legend, the
place of the Fall, and that the garden, with its river, dividing into
four, might be entirely strange to them.

V. Eden (["T^) (i) denoting a land distinct from otJier districts
of similar name (|1^ 2 Kgs. XIX., 12 = Is. XXXVII., 12, Ezek. XXVII.,
23, Am. I., 5) (p- 3 sq.), (2) 7iot an invented name (land oi delight) (p. 5
sq.), (3) nor yet to be connected with Gin Dunias (or Kardunias = Baby-
lonia), (p. 65 sq.), (4) may be explained by reference to Akkadian edin,
Assyr. edinu = Assyr. seru, "field,'' 'flain,'' "desert" — originally "loiv-

land," "depressio7i,'' (p. 79 sq.), a name applicable to Babylonia. (i)

is at once admitted; (2) is, from the absence of T'nX, in Gen. II., 8, and
the apparent wish of the writer to define the locality, probably correct,
at least to this extent, that whatever the meaning he attached to the
word, he connected it with some particular part of the earth's surface;

(3) is most likely, notwithstanding Sir Henry Rawlinson's high author-
ity, — not so much on the ground proposed by Delitzsch, that Kar-
Diinias ("enclosure — garden? — of the God Duniash") would not explain
X^V ^"^^^. since the "land" of Eden might result from a misapprehen-
sion,^ — but because Gin-diin-i-sa is a very late form (Asurbanipal,
B. C. 668 — ), and still more because Kardunias itself is not traceable
earlier than the Cossaean dominion (B. C. 1500+) — see below;

(4) gives a very plausible etymology, but there are several missing
links in the argument which destroy its stringency: a. it is not proved
that edinn was ever applied to Babylonia, or any part of it, as a proper
name; b. it is not proved that edin = sern in the sense "depression,"
"lowland," and not rather simply in the sense " plain;" in that case
the comparison of Zor, "depression," an Arab, name of Babylonia
(Wetzstein, in Delitzsch Jes. 3. Ausg. p. 701) is much less significant.*
On the other hand, it is not clear that the name might not have been
applied to some level country, and the fact that it is elsewhere em-
ployed in the phrase sabe edini, "warriors of the steppe" would not
hinder the derivation of ["!J,^ from edin (against Halevy, /. e.). But
D*7pp, "eastward," "to or in the East" is too general to point definite-

Online LibraryWilliam Rainey HarperThe Old Testament student (Volume 4) → online text (page 1 of 60)