1846.] Situation of Dan. 211 that from Bâniâs to form the Jordan. The size and renown of the city Paneas, and the splendid decorations of its fountain, may perhaps have been enough to lead popular usage to regard that stream as the most important; as it is likewise the larger of the two. Dan. There is perhaps scarcely a fact in ancient topography, which Beems to stand out more clearly and prominently, than the distinction both in name and position between the places Dan and Paneas. Josephus in the four passages last quoted, affirms the distinction with all possible definiteness, as compared with three of the passages quoted first above. Eusebius also, who had himself visited Paneas, speaks in one place of Dan as near to Paneas (Δάν, τὴν πλησίον Πανεάδος); and in another describes it as four Roman miles from Paneas, on the way towards Tyre: Δάν... Πανεάδος ἀπὸ σημείων δ ̓ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ἐπὶ Τύραν. Here too, he says, the Jordan breaks forth.2 Jerome, translating and paraphrasing this account of Eusebius, writes thus: DAN viculus est quarto a Paneade miliario euntibus Tyram, qui usque hodie sic vocatur.-De quo et Jordanis flumen erumpens a loco sortitus est nomen.3 In like manner the Targum of Jerusalem, in Gen. 14: 14, for Dan, writes correctly 1p, Dan of Cesarea, that is, near Cesarea Philippi or Paneas.--All this testimony confirms that of Josephus, and points very definitely to Tell el-Kady as the site of Dan; and these specifications of distance, and those respecting fountains of the Jordan, accord fully with the statements given in the preceding Article. It is objected to this spot as the site of Dan, that there are in the vicinity no visible traces of any ancient city or temple; that the spot is so near the marsh as to be entirely exposed to its poisonous miasmata, so that even the Arabs do not pitch their tents there; and that it does not correspond to the description given by the spies of that famous Laish which the Danites conquered. To the first of these objections it may be replied, that according to Burckhardt the hill over the fountains seems to have been built upon, though nothing now is visible; and that "at a quarter of an hour [say half a mile] north of the springs, are ruins of ancient habitations, built of the black tufwacke, the principal rock found in the plain."5 These remains seem not to have been examined by any more recent traveller. In respect to the second objection, it may be remarked, that the exposure to miasmata has not prevented the erection of permanent mills; and if the Arabs do not pitch their tents in this vicinity, it is probably not from dread of such an exposure, for we find them 1 Onomast. art. Bersabee (Bndoapaιé). Burckh. Syria, 4to, p. 42. Ibid. art. Dan. See above, p. 197. Comp. Judg. 18: 8 sq. elsewhere encamped among the very reeds of the marsh. As to the third objection, it is obvious, that the report of the spies related not merely to the immediate site of Laish; but to the region of country of which that was the chief place.-The statement that Tell el-Kâdy is so near the marsh and so entirely exposed to its miasmata, serves to illustrate the remark of Josephus respecting the lake Semechonitis, viz. that "its marshes extend up to Dan (Daphne), where are the fountains of the lesser Jordan.”2 After all, it is nevertheless true, that the two places Dan and Paneas were sometimes confounded, even at an early age; though not until after the comparative importance and renown of the former had disappeared before the latter. Jerome, whose very explicit testimony in the Onomasticon we have already seen above, but who seems never to have visited this region in person,3 writes thus in a certain work: Dan, quae hodie appellatur Paneas,4—in direct inconsistency with himself, and also with Eusebius, who had personally been at Paneas. So too some later translations of the Bible, not noted for accuracy, and who in geographical names usually give a quid pro quo; as the Samaritan version and the Arabic of Saadias, in Gen. 14: 14.5 Such evidence, however, can weigh nothing against the explicit testimony above brought forward; corresponding as the latter also does to the physical features of the region. Hûnîn. Hazor. The argument brought forward in the preceding pages for the identity of Hûnin with the ancient Hazor, is certainly very plausible; although a clear investigation may perhaps diminish in some degree the probability there made out. Josephus does not directly say, that "Hazor was on a high mountain above the Hûleh;" his language is simply that “ Hazor lies over the lake Semechonitis:” αὐτη δὲ ὑπερκεῖται τῆς Σεμεχωνίτιδος λίμνης.7 Here nothing is said of a high mountain ; though it certainly may be implied. But the expression vлequiσdai rñs líurns, to be over the lake, seems also to imply, that Hazor was situated over against the lake itself, and not ten miles north of any part of it; as is the case with both Hûnîn and the castle of Bâniâs. Such a position would bring Hazor to the south of Kedesh; the latter being itself north of the lake. Further, Tiglath Pileser is said to have taken "Ijon, and Abel-Beth-Maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, etc."8 Here the first three names, as also Kedesh and Gilead, are men 1 See above, p. 200. 2 B. J. IV. 1. 1. 3 In the Onomast. art. Ærmom, we find Jerome quoting his Hebrew teacher for the fact, that "Mount Hermon overhangs Paneas. 4 Comm. in Ezech. 48. 5 Gesenius Anm. zu Burckh. Reisen in Syr. 1. p. 494. * 2 Kings 15: 29. 1846.] Hûnîn and Hazor. 213 tioned in the order in which they are known to lie, from north to south; and the implication is certainly strong, that Hazor in like manner lay south of Kedesh. And this is rendered the more probable by the list of fenced cities assigned to Naphthali, which too are enumerated apparently in their order from south to north; and where likewise we find Hammath, Rakkah, Cinneroth, along the lake of Tiberias; and then Ramah, Hazor, Kedesh, Edrei, etc. Still implying that Hazor was south of Kedesh. Again, Hazor was an important city," the head of all the kingdoms" round about. But, such a city we should not expect to find in a position totally destitute of living water, as is Hûnîn.3 Kedesh, at least has an abundant supply of fine water. Such are some of the considerations which prima facie seem to throw doubt upon the identity of Hûnin and Hazor, and to place the latter on the south of Kedesh, somewhere on the way between Kedesh and Safed. It is a matter well worth the attention of future travellers, to ascertain whether there exist in that district any remains, or any name, which may correspond to the name and the features of the ancient Hazor. If not, the way will then be open to rest with more certainty in the conclusions of the foregoing Article. But, at any rate, the fortress of Hûnîn is obviously a remarkable remnant of high antiquity; and the public are greatly indebted to Mr. Thomson for his full and graphic account of it. Nor are they less indebted to him for a knowledge of the important fact, now first brought out, of the existence of bevelled stones in the architecture of the three great fortresses at Bàniâs, Hûnîn, and esh-Shŭkif, as well as in the island Ruad, the ancient Arados. If this feature in all three instances, and especially in Ruad, be the same as in the remains of ancient architecture at Jerusalem and Hebron, then the interesting and important result follows, that this was a peculiarity of Phenician architecture; for even the temple of Solomon was built by Phenician workmen. So far as relates to Jerusalem and Hebron, there is no similar feature in Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, or Saracenic architecture. The only approach to it is the rustic style under the later Roman emperors which is itself an exaggeration of the bevelled style, and may very possibly have been borrowed from the east. It is to be hoped, that this subject may be taken up ere long by some traveller, who shall be competent, by his professional skill and historical knowledge, to decide upon the many questions which will arise in this new and interesting field of inquiry. Abel. Abil.-This ancient place is usually in Scripture called Abel 1 Josh. 19: 35-37. 2 Josh. 11: 10. * See above, p. 201. * See Hirt's Baukunst der Alten, Berlin 1809. fol. p. 152. Pl. XXXI.—Bibl. Res. in Palest. 1. pp. 423, 424. VOL. III. No. 9. 19 Beth-Maachah; probably as lying near Beth-Maachah, from which it is distinguished, 2 Sam. 20: 14; being then called simply Abel, as also in v. 18. In 2 Chr. 16: 4 it is called Abel-Maim; comp. 1 K. 15: 20. It is mentioned in 1 K. 15: 20 with other places in the order from north to south: Ijon (Heb. 'yon, Arab. Ayun), Dan, Abel, and all Cinneroth; and again 2 K. 15, 29 in the like order; Ijon, Abel, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, etc. From these passages, Reland long ago drew the correct inference, that Abel was to be sought in the west or south-west of Paneas. Gesenius wrongly places it on the east of the Jordan, near the spur of Antilibanus; being probably misled by the remarks of Eusebius, that there was an Abela between Damascus and Paneas.2 There is no reason for doubt, but that the ancient Abel-Beth-Maachah is represented by the modern Abil el-Kamh, as held in the preceding article.3" It is situated on the west side of the valley and stream that descends from Merj 'Ayûn towards the Hûleb, and below the opening into the Merj. It lies on a very distinctly marked tell, consisting of a summit, with a large offset from it on the south."4-That this Âbil, and not the place called Ibel el-Hawa, corresponds to the ancient Abel, is apparent from the order of the ancient names, as above cited; and also from its tell, which marks it as a place of strength. ARTICLE IX. SELECT NOTICES AND INTELLIGENCE. WE have just received the fourteenth edition of Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar, revised by Prof. Rödiger of Halle and published during the last year. The work has undergone numerous changes of great interest to the Hebrew student. Rödiger was a pupil of Gesenius and associated with him in the prosecution of various literary labors. While he remains true in the main to the principles of his teacher, he shows himself faithful also to the nature of philological science, which must be indebted for its perfection to successive laborers, and to which every one is bound to furnish his contribution. The general reputation of Prof. Rödiger as an orientalist, is well known. He is especially eminent as an exact, scientific grammarian. To the subject of Hebrew Grammar in 1 Palaest. p. 519. 2 Gesen. Lex. Art. 8. Onomast. Art. Abela Vincarum. 3 See also Bibl. Res. III. App. p. 137. 4 Manuscript Journal of Rev. E. Smith. 1846.] New Works on Hebrew and Greek Literature. 215 particular he has paid great attention; and is accustomed to lecture upon it, as a part of his University course of instruction. The frame-work of the present grammar remains unaltered; the divisions and paragraphs are the same; but hardly a single section presents itself, which does not discover either enlargement or correction. The doctrine of the aspirates, as well as the theory of the vowels and sheva, will be found to be very considerably modified, as compared with the statements of Gesenius. The sections on the article, the verbal suffixes and several classes of the irregular verbs, have also been subjected to important modifications. The eightyeighth section is entirely new, containing some ingenious speculations in respect to the remains of ancient case-endings in the Hebrew. The mode of designating the principal divisions of the verb has been altered. After the example of Ewald, the terms Praeter and Future are discarded, and those of Perfect and Imperfect substituted for them. The Syntax also shows traces of revision in every part. There was room here for still greater improvement; but the editor did not feel himself at liberty to depart from the original character of the work, to such an extent as would have been necessary in order to bring it into accordance with his own ideas of what is required in this department of Hebrew Grammar. Since the death of Gesenius, a new edition of his Hebrew Reading Book has also been published, under the care of Dr. de Wette, of Basel. This is now the seventh time that this popular work has been re-printed. A work under the title of Elementary Book of the Hebrew Language has just appeared, 1845, from Dr. G. H. Seffer, teacher in one of the gymnasia at Leipsic. It is, so far as we know, the first attempt which has been made to transfer to the Hebrew a method of study, which has long been pursued with success in Latin and Greek grammars. Each paragraph is followed by a series of exercises, illustrating and applying the principles of the language, so as to combine theory and practice at every step from the beginning. An appendix is added, containing continuous exercises in reading, with a vocabulary. It is thus intended to answer the purpose of Grammar, Chrestomathy and Lexicon, and to supersede the necessity of any other book, till the student is prepared to enter upon the higher and more general study of the Hebrew. The use of such a work, supposes a much longer course of preparatory instruction than is generally pursued in this country. The German students are required to have attended to the Hebrew, more or less, during four years at least in the gymnasium, before they are adjudged qualified to hear lectures upon the Old Testament at the university. Lobeck's recent work, "Pathologiae Sermonis Graeci Prologomena," published in 1843, is important for the New Testament as well as the study of Greek in general. It is the production of a veteran scholar, and extends our knowledge of the laws which regulate the formation of words in the Greek language to the utmost limits to which it has yet been carried. It is not so much, however, a complete treatise in itself, as supplementary to the labors of others in the same field of inquiry. Principles already established are assumed as known; and the endeavor of the author is mainly directed either to the correction of what are re |