see Buttmann's Gr. Grammar § 39 sq. Thus far, then, the etymology suggested by Mr. Smith must perhaps be regarded as doubtful.On the other hand, if we follow out this latter suggestion in respect to the root ending in d, we find indeed nothing in the few remains of the Phenician, that can give us any light. But on turning to the kindred and contemporary Hebrew, we have at once the root p to leap, to skip, to dance; from which a regular form would be p (Marcod)" place or time of dancing;" though this form does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. The same root is found in Chaldee and Syriac ; and in the former we have the participle Pael p a dancer. In this way, then, we arrive at a like meaning of the name BAЛMAPK?Ɛ, viz. Baal of dancing. Thus the general result of Mr. Smith here receives a new support, in a way less open, perhaps, to exception than the one adopted by him.

VII.

NOTES ON BIBLICAL GEOGRAPHY.

BY THE EDITOR.

In a preceding note (p. 497), some extracts have been given, showing the new interest awakened among European scholars on the subject of Sacred Geography, since the publication of the Biblical Researches in Palestine. That note was hardly sent to press, when the fourth number of the Theologische Studien und Kritiken for the present year arrived, containing an extended article upon the same work by Gross, a scholar of Würtemburg. This periodical, under the care of Ullmann and Umbreit, is well known as the leading theological journal of Germany; and the view it takes of the work in question is even more favourable than any former notice, excepting perhaps the article by Olshausen of Kiel, in the second number of the Wiener Jahrbücher for 1842.

A pamphlet has also recently been published by Prof. K. von Raumer of Erlangen, entitled Beyträge zur biblischen Geographie, intended as a supplement to the second edition of his Palästina. In it he goes over much of the ground covered by the Biblical Researches; and in an alpha

betical list of eighty-seven places under which additions or corrections are made, the new matter is derived, in not less than eighty of the cases, either wholly or in part from that work, which is everywhere cited. Yet with all this frequent citation, the writer of the pamphlet omits no occasion of exception or polemic remark; while, on the contrary, there is nowhere the slightest word of acknowledgment in behalf of the Researches or its authors, except a single phrase in connexion with Eleutheropolis. This in itself is a matter of no conceivable importance; but it serves to show the spirit in which the pamphlet is written.

I take this opportunity to subjoin a few notes on some points, which are now susceptible of further illustration.

EXODUS OF THE ISRAELITES.

The Israelites broke up from Rameses, Ex. 12, 37. The view given in the Biblical Researches was, that Rameses was situated in the land of Goshen, on the valley through which passed the ancient canal between the Nile and Red Sea, near the middle part; and on the map it is marked at the spot called Abu Keisheid, where are ruins. Thence the Israelites were supposed to have marched directly to the Red Sea near Suez, a distance of some thirty or thirty-five miles, by a level and open route; which they could easily accomplish in three days, the time specified in Scripture, allowing from twelve to fifteen miles as a day's journey, as is done in the case of a well appointed army.'-The same view was taken by Hengstenberg in his little work on Egypt published in 1841; in which he also goes far to remove all doubt as to the identity of Rameses with the ancient Heroöpolis.

Raumer, in a former work,3 following the Jesuit Sicard, had adopted the theory, that the Israelites passed from the neighbourhood of Cairo down the Besâtin route to the Red Sea, through the valley now called et-Tih. In his present pamphlet he admits the location of Rameses as above assumed; and makes it the head-quarters, at least, from which Moses and Aaron, and the people immediately with them, broke up. But he still insists, that they proceeded first to the region of Cairo and then down the Besâtîn road, as before.

Now a glance at the map shows, that the distance from Rameses to Besâtin is greater than from Rameses to Suez. From Besâtin or from Cairo to the Red Sea by the shortest route is not less than seventy miles, or five days' journey for the Israelites. It follows then, from the position of Raumer, that Israel fleeing in haste, pressed by fear of the Egyptians, and wishing to reach the Red Sea in the least possible time, avoided the direct route of three days, which accords with Scripture, and chose to

1 Bibl. Res. I. p. 79 sq.

2 Die Bücher Mosis und Egypten, Berl. 1841, p. 48 sq. Translated by R. D. C.

Robbins, Egypt and the Books of Moses,
Andover, 1843, p. 50 sq.

3 Zug der Israeliten, Leipz. 1837.

march first three days in a contrary direction, and then five days more to reach the sea,—in all eight days, instead of three! The mere statement demonstrates the absurdity of such an hypothesis.

Further, the Israelites at the end of the second day came to Etham "in the edge of the desert," before they came to the Red Sea. If then they went by the Besâtin route, Etham must have lain in the valley at some distance west of the sea; and so Raumer, following Sicard, assumes it at eight leagues from the shore. But the Israelites, after passing through the sea, go three days' journey into the desert of Etham. The desert of Etham, then, was on the eastern side of the sea, which is here fifteen English miles broad; while Etham itself was on the western side, at a distance from the coast, and not in sight of it. Yet it lay "in the edge of the desert," and gave its name to the desert. Here is a difficulty which the advocates of this theory seem to have overlooked.-According to the view of Hengstenberg and the Researches, Etham lay not far from the north end of the sea, and might therefore well give its name to the adjacent desert stretching along the eastern shore.

With this idea of an approach to the sea by the Besâtin route, there likewise falls away of itself the notion of the passage through the sea at that point; to say nothing of the insurmountable difficulties of various other kinds connected with this hypothesis.

ARIMATHEA OR RAMAH.

Monastic tradition has connected this place with Ramleh, from a fancied identity of the names, and because there is ancient mention of a Ramah or Ramathem somewhere in the vicinity of Lydda. On the other hand, it was shown in the Biblical Researches, that the two names have nothing in common; that according to Arabian writers and the historians of the crusades, Ramleh is a modern place, the origin of which is known; and further, that the Ramah anciently mentioned was in the Tamnitic region, and therefore must have lain eastward of Lydda.

Raumer in his Palästina took up the former opinion, and this he now still endeavours to sustain; striving to make me say that Ramleh lies upon a hill, instead of a low sandy swell, one of the slightest undulations of an immense plain; and affirming, that as we do not know the bounds of the Tamnitic region, so we do not know but that it might have included Ramleh.

But, thanks to Mr. Smith, we now know more about Thamna; and can therefore form a better conjecture as to the general limits of its toparchy. Josephus mentions in the north of Judea four toparchies, viz. Acrabatene, Gophna, Thamna, and Lydda; which, as the nature of the country shows, probably formed long parallelograms, lying parallel to each other, ex2 See p. 484, abɔve.

1 Zug der Israeliten, p. 12

tending in length from north to south. The first occupied the eastern side of the water-shed upon the mountains; the second, the western side of the same, still upon the mountains; the third, Thamna, lay upon the western slope of the mountains, including the lower region of hills; while the last, Lydda, occupied most of the plain. South of the Thamnitic toparchy was that of Emmaus; while Joppa and Jamnia had jurisdiction over the towns adjacent to them.' As Lydda was the head of its own toparchy in the plain, and Thamna with its region lay among the hills and on the slope of the mountains, there is certainly every probability, that the latter toparchy lay wholly eastward of the former; at least there is a moral demonstration to every unbiassed mind, that it could not well have extended round upon the southwest of Lydda, so as to have included the site of Ramleh.

With this view all the other notices of Eusebius and Jerome are easily reconcilable. When Jerome says that Arimathea was not far from Lydda (haud procul ab ea), we must remember that a higher authority says of Lydda itself, that it was near to Joppa, although the two places are in fact three hours distant from each other. These fathers, we know, were often very indefinite in their specifications. Thus they say of Thamna: "Ostenditur hodieque prægrandis vicus in finibus Diospoleos euntibus Æliam." Here they cannot mean "in the borders of Diospolis or Lydda," for Thamna had its own toparchy; and we must therefore understand "on the borders," etc. Thamna also was certainly not on the direct way to Jerusalem from Lydda; yet men were probably accustomed to take it on their way to the Holy City, in order to avail themselves of the great Roman road at Thamna; just as, at the present day, the great route of travel between Gaza and Jerusalem, is by way of Ramleh.

DEPRESSION OF THE DEAD SEA, ETC.

On p. 17 of this volume, the results of Lieut. Symonds' trigonometrical survey are given, as furnished by himself to the Rev. E. Smith, before leaving Syria. The depression of the Dead Sea is there stated at 1337 feet, and that of the Lake of Tiberias at 84 feet, below the level of the Mediterranean. In the annual address of the President of the Royal Geographical Society of London, in May last, the measurements are given as follows: Depression of the Dead Sea, 1312.2 feet; and that of the Lake of Tiberias, 328.1 feet. This of course is the official statement; but I am not able to account for the discrepancy, especially for that in respect to the Lake of Tiberias.

Some further remarks, in confirmation of the identity of Eleutheropolis and Betogabra, and on Megiddo, must be deferred till another opportunity.

1 Joseph. Ant. XIV. 11. 2. B. J. III. 3 5.

2 Acts 9 38.

INDEX.