111. Hence others (as Jerome, Theodoret, Origen, ■Chrysost., Arias Montanus, K. Bechai, Paul liurg., Jlun-
ster, Grotius, Scaliger, Selden, Eosenm., Gesenius, and Eichhom) prefer tracing "^"13" to the verb "l^i', to pass ore?; or the noun ^2^, fke region or country heyonj. By those who favor the former etymology, " Hebrew" is regarded as equivalent to "the man who passed over;" by those who favor the latter, it is taken to mean " the man from the region beyond;" and mider both suppo- sitions it is held to be applied by the Canaanites to Abraham as having crossed the Euphrates, or come from the region beyond the Euphrates to Canaan. Of tliese etymologies the former is now generally aban- doned ; it is felt that the supposition that the crossing of the Euphrates was such an miparalleled achievement as to fix on him who accomplished it a name that shoidd descend to his posterity, and become a national appel- lation, is somewhat too violent to be maintained ; and, besides, as the verb ",'^'2 signifies to pass from this side to that, not from that side to this, it would not be the term applied by the people of Canaan to designate the act of one who had come from the other side of the Eu- phrates to them. The other etymology has more in its favor. It is that sanctioned by the Greek translators (Sept. o TitpdrijQ, Aq. TrepaiVj/e) ; it is in accordance with the usage of the plu-ase ^nrri 111^, which was employed to designate the region beyond the Euphra- tes (Josh, xxiv, 2, 3; 2 Sam. x, 16; i Chron. xix, 16); and it is not improbable that Abraham, coming among the Canaanites from beyond the Euphrates, might be designated by them " the man from the region beyond," just as Europeans might call an American "a trans- atlantic." But, though Bleek verj' confidentlj'^ pro- nounces this view "without doubt the right one" (Jiin- leitung ins A. T. p. 72), it is open to serious, if not fatal objections.
1, There is no instance of "l!a5> by itself denoting the region beyond the Euphrates, or any other river ; the phrase invariably used is ^n^rt ^3y. Eosenmiiller, following Hyde (Ifistor. Reliff. Vet. Pers. p. 51), seeks to supply this desiderated instance by taking 13" as ep- exegetical of I'm; X in Numb, xxiv, 24 = "affligant As- syrian! et totam transfluvialcm regionem." But the learned writer has in his zeal overlooked the second 132!, which quite precludes his exegesis. Knobel avoids this error by simjily taking "mrX=AssjTia, and nnS =Mesopotamia; but in this case it is the proper name 13", Eler, and not the preposition ISS", trans, which is in question. 2. If '^'^^'2.'^J was the proper designation of those who lived on the other side of the Euphrates, we should find that name ajiplied to such as continued to dwell there, not to a race descended from one who had left that region never to return. 3. Though Abra- ham, as having been originally a transfluvian, might be so called by the Canaanites, it is improbable that they should have extended this name to his posteritv, to whom it in no sense applied. No one would thiiik of continuing the term " transatlantic" to persons born in Britain on the ground that a remote ancestor had come from across the Atlantic to settle in that countiy ! As to the sanction which this etymology derives from the Sept., no great weight can be attached to that when we remember how often these translators have erred in this way; and also that they have given (jSpaiovQ as the rendering of 131" i33 in Nimib. xxiv, 24 ; " Plus vice simplici hallucinati sunt interpretes Gra-ci eorum nt no- bis standum cadendumve non sit autoritate" (Carpzov, Crit. Sac. V. T. p. 171). We may add that the author- ity of the Sept. and Aquila on such a point is urged with a bad grace by those who treat with contempt the el^-mologies of the Hebrew text as resting on mere Jewish tradition; if a Jewish tradition of the time of IMoses is subject to suspicion, h fortiori is one of the age of Ptolemy Lagi and of Alexandrian origin. Ewald pronounces this ilerivation " quite micertain." 4. This
HEBREW OF THE HEBREWS 131 HEBREW LANGUAGE
derivation is open to the strong objection that Hebrew nouns entling in "^ are either patronymics or gentilic nouns (Buxtorf, Leusden). This is a technical objec- tion which— though fatal to the irepc'iTtjs, or appellative tleri\'ation as traced back to the verb— does not apiily to the same as referred to the noun "inr". The analogy of Galli, Angli, Hispani, derived from Galha, Anglia, Hispania (Leusden), is a comjilete blunder in ethnogra- phy ; and, at any rate, it woidd confirm rather than de- stroy the derivation from the noun.
iV. Parkhurst, whose works occasionally present sug- gestions worth consideration, has advanced the opinion that iia:' is a derivation from the, verb "isr in the sense oi passing throwjh or from place to place (compare Gen. xviii,5; Exod. xxxii, 27 ; Ezek.xxxv,7; 2 Chron. XXX, 10, etc.) ; so that its meaning would be a sojourn- er or jjf/.sser throngh, as distinct from a settler in the land. Tliis undoubtedly exactly describes tlie conilition of Abraham and his immediate descendants, and might vcrj' naturally be assumed by them as a (ksigiiatiim : for," as the apostle says, '-they confessed tliey were strangers and pilgrims on the earth" (Heb. xi, 13). In tl\is case tlie statement in Gen. x, 21 ; Numb, xxiv, 24, must be understood as referring to the posterity of Eber generally, and not to the Hebrews specially or exclu- sively. The most serious objection to Parkhurst's sug- gestion arises from the form of the word "ilS". A word from "las', to convey the meaning of transitor, or one passinff throiir/h, we should expect to find in the form "121^ or "^rt'-