. [ 397 ] 
cvs do min vs, which he exhibits to our view, afford 
a proper degree of fatisfa&ion to any rational perfon 
ingaged in fuch philological inquiries. Farther, it is ob- 
vious to every fmatterer in the Greek language, that 
in the words eipumos, abaaitaptos, aseptmos:, 
BAAEAZAP02, BAAEZfIPOS, &C. HIROMVS, ABDAS- 
TARTVS, ASERYMVS, B ALE AZ AR VS, BADEZORVS, 
See. handed down to us by Jofephus ( 1 2), from Menan- 
der Ephefius, 0£ is no part of the Phoenician names, 
but only a Greek termination fuperadded to them. 
The word aserimar therefore, or aserimor, 
would have become, when adopted by a Greek, 
ASEPIMAPOS, or ASEPTMIIPOS, not ASEPTMOS, as 
M. l’Abbe has been pleafed to affert. So the Tyrian, 
or Phoenician, proper name OTH, hiram, or hirom, 
as it occurs in Scripture, (1 King. ix. 12.) is rendered 
by the Septuagint and Jofephus, after Menander Ephe- 
fius, ElPiiMOS, HiROMvs. But the moil driking in- 
dances, or rather thofe diredtly in point, are 
BAAEAZAPOS, BAAEZHPOI, or BALEAZAR, BaDE- 
zor, when dripped of their Greek termination; 
with which aserimar, or aserimor, does mod 
perfectly agree. This amounts to the dronged pre- 
fumption, that M. TAbbe s notion of the compobtion 
of that name is deditute of every fupport. Hence we 
may fairly conclude, that the account by me formerly 
given of the condiment parts of this word was dridtly 
agreeable to truth ; and confequently that the fourth 
element was Mem, and not He, as I then incon- 
tedably proved. 
(12) Menand. 
p. 1043. 
Ephef. apud Jofeph, Cant. /plan. Lib. I. 
With 
