Desert of the Sea, Idumea by Dumah; in Ezekiel, Jerusalem by Oholibah; in Jeremiah, Babylon by Sesach. Even had there been no external occasion why Zechariah should have chosen this figurative epithet, still this would have been no decisive objection; for such was the fact with respect to most of the appellations we have cited. If now we have shown that this name is symbolical, it becomes necessary to point out its meaning. Here, however, we cannot long remain in doubt. The correct interpretation has not now to be sought. In respect to the meaning, not the application of the word, it is the oldest interpretation extant, and is perhaps confirmed by the authority of tradition, although on account of its intrinsic advantages, it stands in no need of any such support. Jarchi and Kimchi say: "Allegorice interpretabatur R. Juda filius Elai, (a pupil of Akibah in the time of Adrian, comp. Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. 1, p. 411), de Messia, qui sit acutus (1) gentibus, et mollis (77) Israeli." Jerome: "Assumtio verbi domini, acuti in peccatores, mollis in justos: Adrach quippe hoc resonat, ex duobus integris nomen compositum : Ad acutum, Rach molle tenerumque significans." We readily relinquish to both their Messianic interpretation, and receive from them only their explanation of the words. In accordance with this, the land Hadrach, is the land strong-weak, a land, which, now strong and powerful, when the threatened divine judgment takes place, shall be weakened and brought down.

It is easy to show that this interpretation is entirely sustained by philology, and, in general, that it is the only one which is admissible. That the practice of composition was in use not only in actual proper names, but also in symbolic appellations, is evident from such examples as Ariel, Jehoshaphat, Abiad, &c. The word,, properly signifies indeed sharp, spoken of the sword, Ps. 57: 5, Is. 49: 2. Then, however, in a metaphorical sense, acris, "active, powerful." In the Arabic the verb has the sense, vehemens fuit, durus in ira, pugna, and with similar import occurs also the Hebr. 77, in Hab. 1:8, where it is said of the horses of the Chaldeans, on which Bochart, Opp. II. c. 826, very justly remarks: "Malim tamen (17) referre ad animum; et tam lupos, quam equos hic ossis et acres dici, quia quidquid agendum sibi proponunt, acriter exequuntur et summa contentione." In reference to the word no farther explanation is necessary, since all agree,

(comp. e. g. Winer s. v.), that it signifies mollis, tener, and secondarily, debilis, infirmus.

According to this interpretation, therefore, the symbolical appellation of the land comprehends at the same time the prediction of its impending fate, the substance of what the prophet had before foretold concerning it. This must recommend the interpretation the more in the case of a prophet, who relied so much on his predecessors, since we can produce from them several entirely analogous examples. The first is that of Isaiah 21: 1, where, in a prophecy predicting the destruction of Babylon, it is called, the desert of the sea. Did we follow the interpretation of Gesenius, this passage would not indeed be to the purpose; it would contain merely a geographical designation of Babylon. He translates, "the plain on the sea," i. e. on the Euphrates, but this is inadmissible, even on philological grounds. It is impossible that 77, according to etymology and usage, can signify a highly cultivated plain, which the country round Babylon at that time was. It everywhere means a region which is suited only for pasturage, and secondarily a wilderness. There can be no doubt, that Babylon on account of its impending total destruction is called a desert, and a desert of the sea, because the waters of the Euphrates, no longer restrained by the broken dykes, overflow the level country, and convert it into a marsh, which it formerly was, according to ancient accounts. The correctness of the latter supposition is evident from the parallel passage, chap. 14: 23, where it is said of Babylon : "I will make her pools of water," D. A complete commentary on both words is furnished by Jer. chap. 51: 42, 43.- Another analogy is supplied by the superscription: "Burden upon Dumah," in the prophecy of Isaiah against Edom, chap. 21: 11, 77, silence. Death-stillness shall reign in the desolate land. This figurative designation is the more suitable, since in the prophecy itself the calamity is represented under the image of a dreary and solitary night. Most analogous, however, is the designation of Babylon by Sesach in Jeremiah, the formation and import of which must here be more thoroughly investigated. According to the unanimous assertion of the Jewish interpreters, is the same as Babel, according to the Alphabet Atbasch. Many Christian interpreters have rejected this assertion as a Jewish fancy, others have regarded it as at least extremely doubtful, while others still, particularly Jerome, have adopted it with great confidence. There can, however, be no doubt of

its correctness.

The opposition to it must have arisen partly from the circumstance, that, while the import of the word Sesach did not readily occur, such a transposition was regarded as a useless expedient, foreign from the age of Jeremiah, and unworthy of a prophet, and partly from the idea that the Alphabet Atbasch was something extremely complicated and artificial. The former ground of hesitation we shall hereafter remove; as to the latter, nothing is more simple, than the operation whereby for the first letter of the Alphabet at the beginning, the first at the end, for the second, the second from the end v, &c., is placed, (comp. Buxtorf lex. Chald. s. van and De Abbreviaturis Hebraic. p. 41.) The proofs that Jeremiah actually used this Alphabet are the following. 1. It cannot possibly be accidental, that the name, according to the Alpha. was precisely corresponds to that which is placed in its stead. Certainly such a coincidence would be entirely without example. 2. There is still another undoubted instance where Jeremiah has availed himself of this Alphabet, although less regarded by recent interpreters than the foregoing, while Castalio and Grotius do not hesitate to adopt the Jewish interpretation. It is found in the passage, Jer. 51: 1. The prophet there says: "Thus saith the Lord: Behold I raise up a destroying wind, paa baab, against Babel and the inhabitants of the heart of my adversary." The great singularity of the expression here deserves attention; "the heart of my adversary." This cannot be removed by any explanation, but disappears when we consider the remark of Jarchi and Abenezra, that both words together, when read according to the Alphabet Atbash, make D. The correctness of the interpretation is here the less doubtful, since the number of the letters is so great, and an accidental coincidence is still more inconceivable than in the case of Babel. In addition to this, Jeremiah elsewhere also not only places in general, as chap. 50: 10, D2, Chaldeans, for the land of the Chaldeans, but, precisely as in the present instance, combines Babel and Joschbe Kasdim. Thus, chap. 51: 35, pp

The fitness of the play upon .וּשְׁאֵרִי עַל־בָבֶל – וְדָמִי אֶל – יֹשְׁבֵי בַשְׁדִים

words, the Chaldeans, as the most dreaded enemies of the people of God in the time of the prophet, called "the heart of his adversary," is obvious. It appears that the key to the interpretation of this passage was not discovered again by the later Jews, but has been handed down by tradition. The translation of the Seventy xaì ènì τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Χαλδαίους, shows, that they were already or

rather still in possession of it; that this was the case with the Chaldee interpreters is evident from their translation 's. Had Symmachus sought for nothing in the expression beyond what lies. on the face of it, he would not have retained the Hebrew expression (Aßxauua) in his version.

We proceed now to make out the import of the name Sesach. For, if this cannot be done, the charge of trifling would be in a measure just. That it has a meaning, however, is evident even from the analogy of pp. What this is cannot long remain in doubt. If we follow the formation of itself, which in Genesis is derived from 3, to confound, and explained by confusion, a derivation and explanation, which Jeremiah certainly had in view, and which accounts for the otherwise irregular formation, then must

be derived from the verb 12. This derivation is also confirmed by the occurrence of the infin. of this verb in Jeremiah 5: 26, in the elsewhere unusual form, (comp. Gesen. Lehrg. p. 365.) To this must be added the great appropriateness of the meaning. The verb 2 occurs, Genesis 8: 1, in the sense desedit, of the subsiding waters of the flood; Jer. 1. c., of the crouching of the birdcatchers. Sesach, accordingly, would mean sinking down, and we have a commentary on this appellation in Jer. 61: 64: "Therefore shall Babel be sunk down and not raise itself up for the evil which I bring upon it." That Sesach gives a complete analogy for Hadrach must now be obvious.

It still remains for us to inquire, what kingdom Zechariah intended by this symbolic appellation. Every thing here is in favor of Persia. 1. The appellation itself shows that the kingdom must be one, which was at that time at the summit of its elevation and power. But of those connected with the covenant people, this was the case only with the Persian. To this all the rest were subject; with none of them did the predicate agree. 2. This explanation is the most in accordance with the whole contents of v. 1-8. If in them the expedition of Alexander is described, nothing is more suitable than that the prophet should not proceed to describe the fates of the particular regions dependent on this kingdom, until he had mentioned, in the first place, the kingdom itself, the chief object of the expedition. 3. It is easily explained on this supposition, why Zechariah employs a symbolical name in this instance only. He lived under the dominion of the Persians; and to name them would have been the more dangerous, since the enemies of the Jews did

all in their power to calumniate them as seditious; comp. Ezra 4 : 12, 13. The naming of the other regions, which were subject to the Persians, could not so easily furnish a ground of complaint, since it would be perceived, that, in case of a rebellion, the Persians themselves would be the conquerors.

V. 1. "The word of the Lord burdens the land of Hadrach; Damascus is its resting-place; for the eye of the Lord looks upon men and upon all the tribes of Israel." The noun 2, in the superscriptions of the prophecies, has been from ancient times interpreted in two different ways. According to the one interpretation it means burden. Thus Jonathan, Aquila, the Syriac, and especially Jerome, who on Nah. 1: 1, says, "Massa autem nunquam præfertur in titulo, nisi cum grave et ponderis laborisque plenum est, quod videtur;" comp. Hab. 1: 1, Is. 13 : 1. This interpretation was for a long period, if not the sole, yet the received one. According to other interpreters it means declaration, prophecy. Thus the Seventy, who sometimes render the word by ὅραμα, ὅρασις, ῥῆμα, very frequently by nuua, acceptio. This interpretation, from being adopted by Cocceius (Lex. s. v.,) Vitringa (on Is. 13:1), Aurivillius (Dissert. p. 560), and Michaelis (Supplem. p. 1685), who, out of forbearance will not mention the names of those who adhere to the former, became predominant. It has since become generally prevalent; Gesenius (Lex. and on Isaiah 13: 1), Rosenmüller, Jahn (Vatic. Mess. 1, p. 174), Köster, Winer, consider it as hardly needing any further proof. As we nevertheless consider it entirely erroneous, a thorough refutation is the more necessary, as not merely the correct interpretation of this passage, but also that of chap. 12: 1, depends on the right explanation of the word. 1. It would be an extremely singular occurrence, if , although equally suited for a superscription of a consoling, as of a threatening prophecy, should still be confined exclusively to those of the latter class. Such, however, is the fact, and it occurs so frequently as to exclude every thought of its being accidental. That in Isaiah is prefixed only to prophecies which threaten adversity, is confessed by all, (comp. 13: 1, 14:25, 15:1, 17:1, 19:1, 21:1, 11, 13, 22:1, 23: 1.) If this appearance were found only in Isaiah, the conjecture