( 245 ) 



On the Word Bedolah, or Bedolach, Hyis. By Dr. J. J. 

 Schmidt, of St. Petersburyh. 



Every attentive reader of the Mosaic history of the creation 

 must have felt some doubts respecting the true meaning of the 

 word Bdellium, as it occurs in the second chapter of Genesis. 

 Of the land of Havilah, which the river Pison M compasseth," it 

 is said that " the gold of that land is good ; there is bdellium 

 and the onyx-stone." It is scarcely possible t6 believe that 

 the bdellium here mentioned signifies nothing more precious 

 than the gum now known by that name. In the eleventh 

 chapter of Numbers it is said that " the manna was as cori- 

 ander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdellium. " 

 Here the gum might naturally be regarded as the object of 

 comparison ; yet many commentators, both ancient and mo- 

 dern, have supposed it to be the pearl, because manna is 

 white, and Havilah is understood to have been situated on the 

 Persian Gulf, which abounds in pearls. We certainly may, 

 in this way, give an apparently suitable explanation not only of 

 the valuable productions described as existing in the country 

 through which one of the rivers of Paradise flowed; but more 

 particularly of those objects with which manna, in regard to 

 its colour, is compared. There yet remains, however, this very 

 important objection to be got rid of. Why should pearls, if 

 they be meant in the two passages cited, be there called 

 Bedolach, and not "Yi, Dare, as in every other part of the Old 

 Testament ? It is evident that the interpretation " pearl" has 

 only gained acceptance because that term, in the passages 

 where Bedolach occurs, would produce an agreement in the 

 sense ; and all further philological confirmation is, therefore, 

 supposed unnecessary. 



In my opinion, the Bedola, or Bedolach, of the book of Ge- 

 nesis, is neither pearl, nor the gum called bdellium, and that it 

 must denote some other precious thing, — perhaps, lapis lazuli. 

 I am aware it may be asked, whether it can be admitted that 

 Bedolach belongs to the mineral kingdom, since it is not ex- 

 pressly called a stone, as is the case, for example, with the 

 stone shoham ? But this objection is of little importance j for, 



