από της αορ

of the river of Egypt. For, 1 Chron. xiii. 5. where the original has it, from Shihor of Egypt, the LXX render it, ang AyuTs, from the borders of Egypt. In Jer. ii. 18. for the waters of Sihor; they have the water of Inv; a river which encompassed the whole land of Chus, a province of Arabia, Gen. ii. 13. In Josh. xiii. 3. instead of Sihor, which is before Egypt, they have, κατά της κατα προσωπον Αιγυπτε, from the uninhabited land that lies before Egypt. And in Isa. xxiii. 3. for the seed of Sihor, they have, oquia usτaborav, the seed of the merchants; mistaking a for a Shin, or for . In geographical criticism, therefore, little stress can be laid upon the authority of the LXX version, where the phrase so frequently varies from the original, and where so many different interpretations are put upon one and the same word.

Samech

Neither will this opinion be much better supported by any authorities drawn from the writings of St Jerome; because what is there laid down, in favour of the LXX version in one place, is destroyed, or invalidated at least, in another. Pro torrente Ægypti,' as it is observed in his comment upon Isa. xxvii. 13. LXX Rhinocoruram 'transtulerunt, quod est oppidum in Ægypti Palæstinæque confinio: non tam verba S. Scrip' turæ, quam sensum verborum exprimentes. And again, Tom. iii. ep. 129. Torrens Ægypti, qui juxta Rhinocoruram mari magno influit.' And again, in his comment upon Amos vi. 14. • Ab Hamath usque ad torrentem deserti sive occidentis,

'

VOL. II.

G

cidentis, (wy dura) ut LLX transtulerunt, i. e. ab Hamath ad Rhinocoruram, inter quam et Pelu'sium rivus Nili, sive torrens, de eremo veniens mare ingreditur.' But here Cellarius (Geogr. Antiq. 1. iii. c. 13.) rightly observes, that rivus Nili, sive torrens de eremo, Epanorthosis est, et posteriore adserto, rejicitur prius.' For, if this torrent be a branch of the Nile, then it is the very thing that we are disputing; but if it be a different river, yet still, if it falls not in exactly at Rhinocorura, but somewhere or other only (and there are fifty or sixty miles) betwixt that city and Pelusium, nothing certain and determinate can be gathered from this quotation.

And indeed, how indefinite soever St Jerome's meaning may be in this place, yet, in others, by taking Sihor and the Nile for synonymous terms, he entirely invalidates the authority of all that he had said before, in support of the river at Rhinocorura being the river of Egypt. 'Per Si

hor,' says he, in his comment upon Jeremiah, ii. 18. ' nos aquam turbidam interpretati 'sumus, quod verbum Hebraicum significat, nullique dubium quin Nilus aquas turbidas 'habeat; et quod fluvius Assyriorum Euphra'tem significet; dicente Scriptura (Gen. xv. 18.) quod repromissionis terra sit a torrente Ægypti (i. e. Nilo *) usque ad fluvium magnum • Euphratem.'

6

Percussit adversarios vestros ab alveo fluminis usque ad torrentem Ægypti; id est, ab Euphrate usque ad Nilum. D. Hieron. Comment. in Is. c. xxvii. lib. 7,

'Euphratem.' And again, upon Isa. xxiii. 3. 'Ubi nos legimus Semen negotiatorum, in Hebræo scriptum est Semen Sihor, quod subauditur Nili, eo quod aquas turbidas habeat, quibus Ægypti segetes irrigantur.' Where we may observe, that besides the proofs he has here given us that Sihor and the Nile are the same, he contradicts the distinction that is made by him afterwards, betwixt the torrent of Egypt and the river Euphrates; an observation that should by no means be disregarded. Et hoc notandum,' says he, quod in Judææ terminis (ad orientem sc.) 'fluvius appellatur; Ægypti finibus, ad occiden

tem, torrens; qui turbidas aquas habet, at non perpetuas.' For this definition of a torrent will by no means agree with the Nile, which hath its water turbid indeed, yet perpetually running. And besides, how different soever xeuappos and πtapos may be in their proper meanings and significations, yet they both of them here denote the same thing; being, as has been already observed, indiscriminately, though improperly used by the LXX, instead of Nahal. Whereas Nahal should always be interpreted the river; and when it is joined with Mitzraim, it should be rendered the river of Egypt, and not the torrent of Egypt; which carries along with it a low and diminutive signification, highly derogatory to the dignity of the Nile, how expressive soever it may be, of the imaginary rivulet at Rhinocorura.

But upon the very supposition that there was actually a torrent or rivulet at Rhinocorura, yet

with what propriety could this be called the river of Egypt? a country with which it has no communication, no part of which it waters; and this in direct opposition to, or exclusive rather of the Nile, the proper and the only river of Egypt. For Nahal Mitzraim, i.e. the river of Egypt, is as

,ארץ מצרים local and determinate an expression as

Aretz Mitzraim, i. e. the land of Egypt, the one as well as the other having the same relation to Mitzraim; whether Mitzraim be rendered Egypt or the Egyptians. There would therefore be the same reason and propriety (as certainly there can be none) to look for the land, as for the river of Egypt, at Rhinocorura. Moreover, when a river takes its name from a country, it surely must be supposed to belong to, and to make a part of that country. When Abana and Pharfar are said to be rivers of Damascus, we immediately conclude that Damascus must be watered by the Abana and the Pharfar. To conclude otherwise, would be to confound the ideas and properties of names, as well as things. It would be the same in the present case, as if we were to make the land of the Philistines, of which Rhinocorura was originally a portion, a part of the land of Egypt, and the land of Egypt to be a part of the land of the Philistines.

For we do not find, that the settled boundaries of Egypt, either before, or at the time of Joshua, reached beyond the Nile. Agreeable to which, is the description that is given us of it by Herodo

tus:

tus: 'That is Egypt,' says he*, which is inha'bited by the Egyptians;' and again, Those 'are Egyptians who drink of the Nile.' And as the Egyptians lived then, as they may be supposed always to have done, within the reach and influence of that river, in as much as what lay beyond it on each side belonged either to Libya or Arabia †, the borders of Egypt, i. e. the land of Zoan, or the Delta in particular, 1 Kings iv. 21. 2 Chron. ix. 26. and the banks of the Nile, will be one and the same thing. Sihor consequently, which is the same with the Nile, may be said, with propriety enough, Josh. xiii. 3. to be [y, alpeni] before Egypt, to lie upon the face of it, or before thou enterest into it, as 'y may be differently understood and rendered.

That Egypt, properly so called, was thus confined within the reach and influence of the Nile, will further appear from the nature and quality of those districts, which bordered upon it on each side. For, to omit the Libyan, and to speak only of the Asiatic territories, these were, for the most part, wild and uncultivated, fit only for such people to inhabit, who were hardy and laborious, and whose occupation lay chiefly in cattle; and, as such, they would have been an improper posses

*

sion

Θεος Φας Αίγυπτον είναι ταυτην την ὁ Νειλος επιων αρδει. Herod. p. 108. Και Αιγυπτιες είναι τέτες οἱ ενερθε Ελεφαντινης πολιος οικέοντες, απο το ποταμε τοτε πινεσι. p. id.

1. v. c. 9.

+ Arabia conterminum claritatis magnæ, solis oppidum. Plin. Ultra Pelusiacum ostium Arabia est. Id. Ibid. c. v. Alexandria, a magno Alexandro condita, in Africæ parte, ab ostio Canopico XII. M. P. Ibid. c. x.