tion of this celebrated scholar. Nordheimer (Gr. § 817) while he treats this idiomatic use of nouns at some length, fails to distinguish between their respective meanings. Nor does Hoffmann in his Grammatica Syriaca, or Winer in his Chaldee Grammar, in which languages the same idiom occurs, treat the subject more satisfactorily. The lexicons afford but little more information. It cannot then be considered useless or improper to investigate this subject, which has an intimate. bearing not merely upon the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, but on that of the Septuagint and the New Testament.

The nouns to which particular reference is made are the

(D); and 4, 12 (ne).

These differ materially from one another in the meaning which they convey in their idiomatic use, and are not by any means to be regarded as synonymous. They will be considered in their order.

I. (). This is an indefinite, and ofttimes indeed abstract, expression for a person-a man generally—about whom something is to be stated indicative of quality, attribute, &c., without reference to its origin, or to its peculiar manner or degree of development. Thus means an eloquent man, without referring to the origin or degree of the eloquence, but merely stating a general fact. So also

אִישׁ דְּבָרִים

a אִישׁ תֹּאַר ,a warrior אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה,a wicked man אִישׁ בְּלִיַּעַל

handsome man, and many other such expressions. The plural form also frequently occurs, as intelligent men,

warriors. This usage is also found in the Chaldee. Thus in the Targum of Onkelos we meet with bab. The usage of vng in the Septuagint is in some places (as ávie dvráμeos) nearly allied to that under consideration. Indeed so general is the use of in the connection and meaning above referred to, and so readily is it supplied, that it is sometimes omitted, as with a Ps. 109: 4, . Judg. 5: 30, rx Prov. 14: 1.

The feminine is similarly used, as b n a capable

woman.

The plural noun is construed in the same manner, e. g. This seems to have been more common in very ancient times, as we may perhaps infer from its use in the singular in proper names, e. g. bayang, niyan, also in

. מתו מתן, מתו עשתרת Punic

II. by (ne). In this word the sense of possession appears to be the primary one. The meaning of the verb by in the Ethiopic (see Ludolf's Lex.) and the Arabic (the Camus, Golius, &c.,) indicates this. Correct, therefore, is Vitringa in his remark,-" proprie ó exor, habens quamcunque rem in sua potestate, quare ad maritum refertur per ellipsin, qui integre dicitur ex habens mulierem. Exod. 21: 3."

in its

This word is therefore to be distinguished from idiomatic use, since it expresses that relation which exists, when a thing subordinated to a person is in his possession (Steiger). Even in some passages in which at first view the difference between this word and the former does not appear, it, on closer examination, is found, as where the men of Jabesh are styled 2 Sam. 2: 4, 5, 2 Sam. 21: 12, and 1 Sam. 31: 11. The word "citizens" or " inhabitants,' may indeed be used to translate either passage, but the idea of dwelling must not be excluded in the last instance, nor that of possession in the one immediately preceding it. The word in the usage to which we now refer, is in fact more expressive than on this very ground, that while the latter has no respect to degrees of superiority or inferiority, the former carefully denotes these. It is thus used with in more than one passage to increase the signification, a circumstance which in itself proves the diversity of meaning in these

The אִישׁ שֵׁעָר is stronger than אִישׁ בַּעַל שֵׂעָר two words. Thus

one means "hairy man," in a general sense, the other, in a peculiar and pre-eminent degree, as wearing the hair dress, peculiar to the prophets.

Thus, then, from the primary meaning of the word, and from its use with , the peculiar force of over may perhaps be considered as established. Nor does it appear to

us that any one passage requires us to regard the two words as identical in meaning.

We proceed now to cite some examples of the use of by. ibn by means, as indeed the context seems to require, a "celebrated dreamer," "professed dreamer;" one who, ast it were, makes a business of it, has dreams at his beck. would merely mean "a dreamer." The expression a ¬bya differs from Obad. 7, since the former were "allies " of long standing, the latter simply "allies." Indeed by in its idiomatic use frequently conveys the sense of habitual possession and therefore development.

In

.Prov בעל אף Thus

22: 24, and n by Prov. 29: 22 indicate habitual anger, and are therefore stronger than Prov. 29: 22, and nian Prov. 22: 24. Indeed, in these passages the gradation of meaning which is visible further supports our view as expressed above. Prov. 29: 22 in the latter clause is stronger than Now with the former word we have ba, with the latter. In Prov. 22: 24 the comparative weakness of is compensated by the plural form of the same strong expression in. The difference between by

.

and is too plain to need remark, although Gesenius (Lex. voc. ) makes them the same in meaning. Fürst, however, in his Schul-wörterbuch, Steiger in his Com. on Peter, Ewald in his Gram. § 498, and others, agree in giving to the former the sense of "one having or instituting lawsuits," and to the latter that of "eloquent " merely. Indeed, so obvious is this difference of meaning that Gesenius himself (Lex. voc. ) in another part of his Lexicon plainly confesses it; not the only instance by the way in which this eminent scholar contradicts himself.

The word be, in consequence of its peculiar meaning, is sometimes applied to animals and inanimate things, with which is not found. The words indicating relation among men are frequently used with reference to the lower orders of creation, to express certain shades of meaning, but never those which indicate man as such, in distinction from all other created objects. This is the reason why, while the

latter are not used with reference to animals and inanimate objects, the former are frequently so found. Thus a bird is termed, a ram by and a threshing-drag b; is so used in Arabic, and (2) both in Hebrew and Arabic.

This word is used in the sense above mentioned in the Targums, as Gen. 29: 1, and in the Rabbinic writings (Buxt. Chald. and Rab. Lex. col. 333); in the Arabic, in which language a usage similar to this prevails very extensively; and also in the Syriac, of which Hoffmann, in his excellent Grammar, gives several examples. See $108, 4, d.

III. (). Although these words indicating source, control, &c., are idiomatically used in Arabic (for examples see Golius in his Lex. Arab. col. 10-11, and 147-150; though these, it must be confessed, belong rather to the artificial, sportive, and later language, as Ewald correctly asserts), the Ethiopic (Ludolf's Lex.) and the Syriac (Hoffmann Gr. Syr. p. 286); yet they are not found in this connection in Hebrew, unless we may regard the former as so employed in proper names. The word in the old construct state (Roediger's Gesenius' Heb. Gr. by Davies, pp. 131, 132) often occurs in such names, sometimes written in full, as

occasionally shortened by the omission of the ; אֲבִיגַיִל, אֲבִידַע

of construction, see 1 Sam. 14: 51, in v. 50; now and then still further softened when a Yod follows,

compared אִיעֶזֶר and twice more abreviated still in ; אֶבְיָתָר .2 :17 .Josh אֲבִיעֶזֶר with

The opinion that the usage above referred to, existing in very ancient times, gave rise to these as epithets, which afterwards became proper names, is defended by Gesenius in in his Thesaurus, and still more recently in the last edition of his Lexicon. Ewald, however, entirely dissents from it. He thinks that the first member of each compound did in very early ages indicate the father of the son named in the second member, and that subsequently the word "father," as a term of dignity, distinguished the elder or favourite son.

There is much to favour this opinion; for, 1. The second member of the compound term is often found alone, as, Dan, Abidan; Ezer, Abiezer; Noam, Abinoam. This even occurred in the same family, as Abner, the son of Ner. 2. This serves to explain other adjuncts, e. g. achi, "brother," in Ram, 1 Chron. 2: 9, Abiram, Nu. 16: 1, Achiram, Nu. 26: 38; Noam, Abinoam, Achinoam. To chamu, "brother-in-law," these remarks also refer. Thus we find Abital, 2 Sam. 3: 4, Chamutal, 2 Kings 24: 18. 3. This opinion seems to be further sustained by the word Gen. 10: 28. 1 Chron. 1: 22. This person seems to have been the founder of the Arabic tribe by, the Mule of Theophrastus, the Mario of Strabo. Yet it must be confessed that this adjunct is frequently found in the names of females, viz.

-c. Now although in remote antiqui& ,אֲבִישג, אֲבִיעַל, אֲבִיגַיִל

ty this prefix might in such connexion have designated the father of the daughter mentioned in the last member, such was evidently not the case subsequently. Probably in the absence of male offspring, or from some other genealogical reason, the name of dignity peculiarly appropriate to the representative of a family, was conferred on certain females.

Traces of this idiomatic usage we have noticed as being found in Arabic, &c., are occasionally to be met with in Greek and Latin writers; see Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, voc. natio, and notice the use of "pater cænæ" in Horace.

IV. (2). The idiomatic use of these words is frequent. "1" says Steiger, designates the begotten, in reference to that which begets: offspring, product, therefore son, grandchild, posterity, (trop. scholars), youth, shoot,— without distinction. But in the oriental way of contemplating things, purified and sanctioned in the Bible, the general is not only recognized as a reality, but as something more real and earlier than the individual that holds of it, and hence considers this as its offspring. Hence so many expressions that appear to us strange and incongruous, but which we