Before considering the geographical and other diffi- culties in the way of this identification, it is desirable to investigate the derivation of the word tl'^lii. Various etymologies supplied by Jews all proceed on the suppo- sition of the identity of the Moriah of Genesis with that on which the Temple was built. The oldest, that of Onkelos and Gerundensis, was that it was derived from ^^^Ci, myrrh, as in Canticles iv, 6, "I will go to the mountains of myrrh." Fuller (in Misc. Sacra, ii, 15) maintains that the ^ISart of Canticles -was an abbrevia- tion of fl^"nsrt, and referred to the holy mount where- the great king had just erected his Temple. Rabbi Sol- omon supposes it to be derived from ilXTin, instruction^ because thence the word of the Lord went forth into all Israel. Kalisch (Comment, on Gen. ad xxii, 2) approach- es this interpretation by saying that it springs in all probability from i^^~i"ib, "Jehovah is my instructor," from n^^, the root of the great derivative H^in. Jon- athan derives it from X^I^O, fear or reverence, and im- agines that the word was used anticipatory of the wor- ship and fear of God there solemnized (Lightfoot, Opei-a, Descriptio Templi, i, 553). Fuller (Misc. Sac)-a, ii, 15) maintains that the word represents an abbreviation of fn^~riX"n^, comjndetur Jehovah, because there event- ually the Son of God would appear in human flesh. Knobel insists that it is a compound of HX'n'2 (a dual form of nx"), to see') and rT^ ; and Hengstenberg (Dis- sert, on Gen. of Pentateuch, ii, 159-163, Clark's transl.), Kurtz (Old Covenant, i, 272), Gesenius (Thesaurus, p. 819), Fiirst (Lex.), all agree as to the presence in the word of the elements of the name of Jehovah. Vatke, j Vater,Van Bohlen, the early opponents of the genuine- ness of the Pentateuch, even based a portion of their antagonism on this proof of a later date. Bishop Co- lenso (Pentateuch and Joshua, pt. ii, ch. ix, x) labors to demolish the etymology, but without much success. The existence of a proper name Moriah would be a proof of the existence of the name and worship of Je- hovah before some of the modern documentists would find it at all satisfactory. Hengstenberg states that the word fl'^'liBil is a compound of ilX'^'2, the Hophal participle of tlXI, to see, and means that which is shoivn, or the appearance oj" Jehovah. Colenso objects to the sense of the interpretation, and maintains that there is no explanation of the disappearance of the characteristic radical N. Gesenius accounts for the form in^"i'2 by a combination of the Hophal participle of ilX'n and the jod-compar/inis common in derivatives from verbs of the form of !l"h. Thus nx"ir;, combined with t^'^, would suffer the following change, in^-'X"iri = ri^'nb. There is another proper name, derivable from the same root, which has lost its characteristic radical it — viz. H^^, from n^lX"), beautiful to look upon (Ruth). But what- ever may be the precise nature of the contraction, the obvious interpretation of the writer is given in ver. 8 : riNI'l' '^"^1^% which is the name given by Abraham to the place where Jehovah saro his agony and provided a
MORIAH
610
MORICE DE BEAUBOIS
victim in place of his son. Here it was that the prov- erb was originated, " In the mountain Jehovah shall be seen." Moriah was the name permanently attaching itself to the place, just as "j^J? had been the abbrevi- ation of Eve's exclamation, C"^!* T'^?)^ i ind it was used by the narrator 400 years afterwards to describe a district, a land, a mountain which had always gone by that name ever since the proverb had first been uttered, amid the very circumstances he was then proceeding to describe. It would be presumptuous to assert to what extent the knowledge and worship of Jehovah was dif- fused, c.i the ground of the mere presence of the name Jehovah in this proper name ; still, there is nothing to shake the conclusion. It is curious that the Sept. trans- lates the "^^"''3in""]'11X by I'lQ t>)v yTfv v\pr]\i]v; and it also renders by some similar expression the various references to the oak or plains o/'Mokeii, wcat Sichem (Gen. xii, 6); where the Hebrew text has tini-a yhi< the Sept. reads Tt)v dpvv ti)v vxpriXi'iv (see also Deut. xi, 30). The translation of Aquila in Gen. xxii, 2 is fig Ti}v yi/v Tt)v KaTa(pavi'i ; and Symmachus has eig Tr)v yj/" I've oTrraaiac, closely resembling the in ter- rain vitionL'i of the Vulgate.
Ur. Davidson (in Introditction to the 0. T. voL i) con- jectures that Monk was the original rcailing ; but nei- ther Kennicott, Do Kossi, nor Dr. Davidson himself (in his Printed Text of the O. T.) give any diplomatic au- thority for such a reading. The translations of Aquila and Symmachus may have originated with some read- ing resembling that in the Samaritan text, nXTl^, and signifying "far seeing" or "conspicuous." Hut when Josephus wrote {Ant. i, 13, 2), it is quite clear that the reading in Gen. xxii, 2 and 2 Chron. iii, 1 must have been identical, as he speaks of the place of Abraham's sacrifice as to upog k(j)' oh to iipui' Aal3ict]Q 6 jiacnXevg vartpov icpvtTai. In 2 Chron. iii, 1 the Sept. docs not attempt to translate tlie proper name iT^'liBn, but writes tv opn roiJ 'A^twpia. It is true that there is no reference to the original manifestation of God on this site to the patriarch, and express mention is made of ■ secontl and additional reasons for this hill being called Moriah (see 1 Chron. xxi, 16 ; xxii, 1-, 2 Sam. xxiv, 1 ; 2 Chron. iii, 1). This was in perfect harmony with the law of CJod that forbade the offering of burnt sacrifices in any place which the Lord had not consecrated by his visible manifestation (Ilengstenberg, JHss. ii, 32 sq.). The geographical conditions supplied by the narrative in Genesis are not inconsistent with the Samaritan tra- dition (see Kobinson, Biblical Researches, iii, 100) that Gerizim was the scene of the sacrifice, and that the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal, from their neighbor- hood to Moj-eh, a spot well known to Abraham, were the mountains in the land of jVIoriah (Colenso, pt.' ii, ch. x). They have led dean Stanley (<S'//r. and Pal. p. 250 sfj. ; Hist, of Jewish Church, i, 4H. 4'.t) to decide on (ierizim as the scene of the event. His arguments are woiglity, but not conclusive. (1.) The distance from BocrshelJa to the plain of Sharon, from which Gerizim might be seen "afar off," corresponds with the two-days' journey of Abraham; while the third day, which would be oc- cupied by the great event, would be sufficient for the journey to the sunnnit and tlie return. The same thing, however, may be said with greater certainty of Jerusalem itself. (2.) Stanley objects that there is no spot from which the " place" where tlie sacrifice was to be ofTered could be seen from "afar olT;" that the hill of Moriah is not visible at all initil the traveller is close vpon it, at the southern edge of tlie valley of llinnom, from whence he looks down upon it. as on a lower emi- nence. Now the narrative informs us that Abraham lift- ed up his eyes and saw i\\c place of which the Lord had spoken to him. That "place" was the iTIian V"iX, or, as (Jesenius translates it, the land about Moriah, just as '^'S'n j^'iK is the land about Ai. It is very possible