Page images
PDF
EPUB

judging will allow, that oriental proper names are generally, if not always, significant. Now when we look at the learned labors of La Croze, and Jablonsky, who have endeavoured to accommodate the ancient Egyptian names to the Coptic, we shall probably see as much as erudition and ingenuity can ever do to reconcile them with each other. But to me, at least, those learned men appear to have totally failed in their undertaking; and Akerblad, who is a better judge, observes, that not a single one of the etymologies which they have proposed relatively to the names of the Deities, of which mention is made on the Rosetta stone, has been found to be confirmed by that monu

ment.

It was the opinion of La Croze, that the Egyptians laid aside the use of their epistolary characters, and adopted those which are now called Coptic, and of which much the greater number is really Greek, so early as in the time of Psammeticus. The Rosetta stone, however, proves that the epistolary characters were still employed by the Egyptians under the Ptolemies; and the inscription on the tomb of Gordian seems to indicate, that they were still in use even so late as in the third century. It was in the third century, according to Zoega, that the Coptic characters were first employed in Egypt; but I am rather inclined to think with other authors, that these characters were introduced into Egypt at an earlier period, though they may not have entirely superseded the use of the ancient characters until about three hundred years after our æra. But why did the Egyptians adopt new characters? I should answer, because the language had become so changed, that the ancient Egyptian characters no longer sufficed to denote the words.

The Priests of Egypt appear to have spoken and written in a dialect distinct from that which was employed by the people. This was called the sacred dialect, and in it the first Hermes is said to have written on stone columns. Manetho obtained his information, ἐκ τῶν ἐν τῇ Σηριαδικῇ γῇ κειμένων στηλῶν, ἱερᾶ διαλέκτω, καὶ ἱερογραφικοῖς γράμμασιν κεχαραγμένων, ὑπὸ Θωθ, τοῦ πρώτου Eguou We learn from the same Manetho, that the Royal Shepherds were called Hyksos, from two words, one of which signified king in the sacred dialect, and the other shepherds in

the common dialect. τὸ γὰρ ὑκ καθ ̓ ἱερὰν γλῶσσαν, βασιλέα σημαίνει, τὸ δὲ σως ποιμήν ἐστι καὶ ποιμένης, κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν διάλεκτον, καὶ οὕτω συντιθέμενον γίνεται ὕκσος, κ. τ. λ. Now I suppose, that if the Coptic preserve any similitude to the ancient Egyptian, it must be rather to the vulgar than to the sacred dialect.

I do not recollect, that the commentators upon Homer have remarked, that he makes an allusion to the distinction between a sacred and a vulgar dialect; and yet this allusion is very clearly conveyed in the well known verse—

science.

Ὃν Ξανθὸν καλέουσι θεοὶ, ἄνδρες δὲ Σκάμανδρον.

I

Your correspondent, sir, asserts, that the Egyptian, (i.e. the Coptic) is an original language, &c. But I feel myself much embarrassed how to admit this. The titles of some Coptic books are now before me. IIYWUuе нненUCIC ÚпжзотTOH-i.e.-the tome, or book, of invisible ПYшшие 'Uпноб нOVOC RDTA UYCTHPION-i.e.-the tome, or book of the intelligent or spiritual word according to mystery. IIYшшue HIшR HAIR MIOC.-i. e.—the tome, or book of the just Job. ТЄПІСТОЛН ПІЄРНЏІХС ЕТВЕ HеIшOH CYUR еRDA 2 UHHНУШШИЕ НнешетІ НІЄРНИІМ пеПРо нтнC.-i. e.-the epistle of Jeremiah concerning idols is completed—amen—the tome, or book of the words of Jeremiah the prophet. If my readers will observe, that the letters II, T, U, H, prefixed to some of these words, are only articles and signs of cases, and that, according to Jablonsky, the letter Y sounds like the English th, they will have no great difficulty in tracing the majority of these words to the Greek, in which language the titles of the books might have run as follows. Η τομη της γνωσεως αορατου.-Η τομή του εννου λογου κατα μυστηριον.-Ητομη Ιωβ του δικαιου.Η επιστολη Ιερεμίου επι των ειδώλων πληρούται-η τομη των επεων Ιερεμίου του προφήτου.

I have not a Coptic lexicon at hand, and am not certain of the meaning of this word.

Now the resemblance of some of these Greek words to some of those quoted from the Coptic is sufficiently evident; and it is, therefore, rather puzzling to be told that the Egyptian (that is, the Coptic) is an original language different from every

other.

July 22nd. 1811.

I am, Sir, your humble servant,
W. DRUMMOND.

WHAT WERE THE CHERUBIM?

ALMOST endless have been the conjectures on this subject, and the hypotheses, which have been started, and the opinions, which have been combated. And perhaps, notwithstanding the multitude, nay almost infinity, of these conjectures, and controverted opinions, on no subject has so little been ascertained and considered as certain. Some indulge the luxuriance of their fancy in strained derivations of the word, and emblematical suppositions: some Hutchinsonians clearly see in them the three persons of the Trinity and the human nature of Christ: others make them to correspond with the four beasts mentioned by St. John. But whatever they were, it is on all hands agreed, that they were allegorical representations of something: and what that something was, it remains to consider.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

As to the origin of the word, some derive it from as, and a boy, and assign as the reason, that they resembled winged youths; but this deduction cannot but appear strained and of no import : others suppose it to be a compound of as, and the mighty ones, or like, and majesty: whilst the Talmudists say that is a metathesis for: and the vision contained in Ezechiel, the Hebrews call the chariot, which name they give to the abstruse theology of God and his angels, but

r?

to the physical, they give that of

support the idea by stating that

[ocr errors]

: and the Talmudists in the Syriac, as well as

[ocr errors]

and

in the Chaldee,

signifies to plough: which bears affinity to

the head of the ox. But of all these various derivations, which have been given, the only which appear to be true are like, powerful, or ? like, and majesty: and that these are the true, reasons will afterwards be assigned. Although in the Hebrew Bible be but seldom used as a name of the

רָב

רָב

Most High; yet if it be but once found as such, it will afford sufficient authority and Prov. 26. 10. we find it thus used:

[ocr errors]

but in the Arabic version of the Old Testament we continu

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

w w

قال الرب الربي اجلس عن عيني حتي اضع مو طب قد میک *

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

ית-כּרוּבִיא

as is

In

The first account, which we have of the Cherubim, is at the expulsion of man from the garden of Eden, where we find them armed with a flaming sword to guard the way to the garden: and in the Targum of Onkelos they are called Exodus, 25. 18. we have a description given of them, that they are figures of winged creatures, two in number, made of gold, and of the same mass with the mercy seat, at both ends of which, they stand overshadowing it with their wings, and looking at each other; and such was their position, that they formed a seat for the divine Majesty. Mr. Scott in his annotations on this passage says, that the two Cherubim were emblematical representations of the angels desiring to look into the mysteries of redeeming love, and that therefore they are formed with their faces towards the mercy seat, as contemplating it, and the mysteries, which it contained.

When Solomon's temple was built, the same figures were set in the holy place, where were two others of larger size: but

these others were not like the former made of gold, but of olive wood, which was gilded, whose wings extended, and touching each other reached from one side of the holy of holies to the other.

In the 1st. 4. Ezech. a more ample description of the Cherubim is given, on which Hieronymus says: "that the synagogues explain nothing on this passage." Almost infinite are the comments which have been made on these; amongst the rest may be enumerated Moses Maimonides, who in his Dux Dubitantium partly refers the description, which Ezechiel has in this place given, to the angels, who set the spheres in motion, partly to those very spheres: and explains himself by saying, "i. e. "primum mobile, planetarum quinque, Solis ac Lunæ, deinde "sublunarium. At si quis diligenter has contulerit cum iis quæ "habemus Exod. 25. 18. et Esc. 6. videbit agi de Dei propri"etatibus, et actionibus circa populum suum.'

But Apollinaris and Polychronius enter into a long dissertation on this subject, and imagine that the whole is figurative of the universal providence of God, by which he not only governs the Jews, but all the nations, whom he has created. By the Cloud, they understand a figure of divine nature, or that is a vehicle of the Almighty: the Spirit or the Wind, they make to represent the office of sentries or guards: the brightness, the glorious habitation of God: and the fire is added to terrify sinners. By the four animals, they point out the invisible armies, as principalities, powers, &c. by their four forms they designate the whole of nature over which God presides, and things both visible and invisible. But here it may be proper to remark, that many, who read this passage, excite a controversy concerning the river Chebar, where Ezechiel saw the vision: and suppose it to be necessary to determine the situation of the river, near which the vision happened, to ascertain to what that vision alluded. Poole, in his Synopsis Criticorum, thus discusses the point: "dicitur vel ab aquarum copiâ ac vehementiâ, vel ab herbidis ripis, ut Ammianus loquitur vel à præfecto Chobare, qui teste Plinio, 6. 26. Euphratem fidit, deducto ex eo rivo Chobar, ne præcipiti cursu Babylonem infestaret. Sed quisnam hic fluvius? Est Euphrates (hic enim alluit Baby

« PreviousContinue »