Lesley.] 4^4 [May, 



asserted national deity, tliey record none compounded of the names of 

 the deities said to have been habitually worshiped ; except the three or 

 four mentioned in previous portions of this paper. 



It seems to me that this fact has been overlooked, and ought to be taken 

 into account in judging 1. of the trustworthiness of the hebrew chronicles, 

 and 2. of the correctness of the exegetical etymologies in our hebrew 

 lexicons. 



If it be sound historical argument that the Pharaohs of the III and IV 

 Dynasties were pious worshipers of Amun-Ra, the national deity, because 

 they were named Ra-neferTca, Ba-fu, * Ra-tatef, Ba-Shaf, Ba-menhau, — 

 and if it be a fair inference that Asdru-bal, Hanni-bal, Ha-milcar and other 

 Phoenicians were honest and consistent worshipers of Baal-melcarth, the 

 Phoenician deity, — it seems an equally reasonable conclusion that if the 

 Judsean and Ephraimitish princes had names in which the word Jah or 

 Jehovah can be recognized, they must have been worshipers of Jah, although 

 the chronicles vehemently affirm that they were not. 



In other words, historical analogy would teach that the Kings Abi-jaJi, 

 Jo-saphat, Jo-ram, Jeli-u (? Jah-u), Hezek-jah, &c., were all alike worshipers 

 of Jah, with Jah's prophets Sephon-jah, Eli-jali, Jo-el, Isa-jah, &c., and 

 in spite of the historical denunciation of their alleged idolatries made by 

 the compilers of the Kings and Chronicles of after centuries. If not — 

 then we are compelled to assume that the deity name, Jah, is wrongly 

 identified in their proper names. 



It is certainly a remarkable thing that the kings who are traditionally 

 reported as founders of the Jehovah worship, Samuel, Saul, David and 

 Solomon, do not carry the name of the deity in their names. 



And the same argument may be reasonably employed in investigating 

 the antiquity of the Jehovah worship, in view of the startling fact that 

 none of the patriarchal names exhibit this element : neither Heber, nor 

 Terah, nor Abram, nor Sarah, nor Ishmael, nor Isaak, nor Rebekah, nor 

 Esau, nor Jacob (Israel), nor a single one of their numerous reputed 

 offspring, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zabulou, Issachar, Dan, Gad, 

 Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin, Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush,\ Jaalam,\\ 

 and Korah. It is needless to say that none of the "dukes of Edom " 

 (Esau's children), Teman, Omar, Zepho, &c. (Gen. xxvi : 15), contain 

 Jah. But it is worthy of deep consideration that Jacob's descendants do 

 not seem to have been called after the "Lord God of their fathers." 

 Judah' s sons were called Er, Onan, Shelah. 



In the next generations come : Pharez, Zerali, Hezron, Hamul, Zimri, 

 Ethan, Heman, Calcol, Dara, Achar, Azariah (son of Ethan, 1 Chron. ii : 

 8), Jerameel, Ram, Chelubai, Amminadab, Nashon ("prince of theBeni- 

 Judah" 1 Chron. ii : 11), Salma, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and his seven sons, 



* Supposing that the barred disc of the tablets, Shit, is a mistake for the plain 

 disc, ra. 



tty^l^JOIS. ttCD/i'"' JOLM. But these names commence exactly alike, but 

 have received from the Masorites different punctuation, for no apparent rea- 

 son. Neither of them show any trace of Jah. 



