cord was of a moderate length, and this burner being tied in the middle of it, it had somewhat of the effect which we have seen among ourselves, when wanton malice has tied to the tail of a dog crackers, squibs, &c. which, being fired, have worried the poor animal to his den; where, supposing them still to burn, they might set all around them on fire. We know it is the nature of the jackal to roam about dwellings and outhouses; this would lead these animals to where the corn, &c. of the Philistines was stowed; which, being inflamed, would communicate the conflagration in every direction. We must therefore suppose, 1. That these burners were at some distance from the animals, so as not to burn them. 2. That they were either dim in the manner of their burning, and their light; or, perhaps, were even not to be alarmingly distinguished by their illumination. They might burn dead, as we say; so that their effect might take place too late to prevent the mischief that attended them. "This assimilates the circumstance of these lamps or burners pretty much to the history of Gideon, who, we find, used three hundred of them in his expedition, as Samson used one hundred and fifty; so that they could not be rare and valuable, but common and ordinary articles. "We ought also to know the actual state of the corn, said to be in sheaves, but, perhaps, properly, brought into the garner, the threshing floor, and there gathered into heaps ready for threshing: where it had acquired a great degree of dryness; and here, when it was once on fire, it could scarcely fail of being totally consumed. We are then, I presume, to understand the effects produced by these various companies of jackals, as if one rambling party set fire to the standing corn, others to the gathered corn, others to the vines, and others to the olives; so that by reason of the great number employed, a general devastation ensued of whatever was abroad, out of the towns or secured habitations." On the other hand, Dr. Kennicott remarks 85: "The three hundred foxes, caught by Samson, have been so frequently the subject of banter and ridicule, that we should consider whether the words may not admit a more rational interpretation. For besides the improbability arising here from the number of these foxes, the use made of them is also very strange. If these animals were tied tail to tail, they would probably pull contrary ways, and consequently stand still; whereas, a firebrand, tied to the tail of each fox singly, would have been far more likely to answer the purpose here intended. To obviate these difficulties it has been well remarked, that the word yw here translated foxes,' signifies also handfuls (Ezek. xiii. 19, handfuls of barley') if we leave out that one letter, which has been inserted or omitted elsewhere almost at pleasure. No less than seven He 6 85 Remarks on select Passages in the Old Testament. Oxf. 1737. p. 100. brew MSS. want that letter here, and read Dyw. Admitting this version, we see that Samson took three hundred handfuls (or sheaves) of corn, and one hundred and fifty firebrands; that he turned the sheaves end to end, and put a firebrand between the two ends, in the midst; and then, setting the brands on fire, sent the fire into the standing corn of the Philistines. The same word is now used twice in one chapter, Ezek. xiii. 4, and 19; in the former verse, it signifies foxes, in the latter, handfuls; and in 1 Kings, xx. 10, where we render it handfuls," it is aλwлe in the Greek version." Dr. Kennicott refers to the "Memoirs of Literature," for the year 1712, p. 15. I presume that it is the same illustration which is given in the "Republ. des Lettres," Oct. 1707, a translation of which I here insert. "When Samson, exasperated against the Philistines, had determined to destroy their corn, he observed that they had put together all their sheaves, and made three hundred shocks. He therefore formed a plan to burn them, and the enterprise did not depend so much upon his great strength as upon his courage, prudence, and expedition. These three hundred shocks could not be set on fire one after another without loss of time, and danger of discovery. On this account he judged it necessary to lay two sheaves at length upon the ground to make a communication between every two shocks. He then put some combustible matter between the two sheaves, such as flax, hemp, &c. which he could easily carry with him into the fields; and having effected this, he finally set fire to the combustible matter. The fire, aided probably by a dry season, and fanned by the wind, spread from sheaf to sheaf, and shock to shock, and running over the neighbouring fields, consumed the standing corn, the vineyards, and the olives. "Hence it appears very evident, that Samson, who was a warrior and not a huntsman, did not undergo the fatigue of hunting foxes, but directly attacked the harvest of his enemies. He did not unkennel three hundred beasts, but only found so many shocks of corn. He did not tie three hundred tails, but only joined so many sheaves together. Interpreters have been misled by the custom of the ancient Jews, who always affected the hieroglyphical or mystical sense in words of an equivocal signification. In this story they insinuated to the reader that Samson had deceived his enemies, who, by tampering with his wife, had before been too cunning for him. This gave occasion to saying, 'Samson pursued the foxes;' that is to say, he revenged himself with great damage on the Philistines. They concealed this thought under the ambiguity of the word by instead of phy which properly signifies sheaves: for words must be explained according to the subject, scope, and series of the discourse. It is observable, too, that the word which we translate "tail," signifies, through the whole tenor of the Jewish law, the ex treme part of any thing whatever. For example, if a garden had five trees, in the Jewish language the fifth and last was always called In like manner the last sheaf of a whole "It is no wonder, therefore, that interpreters have not hit upon the real matter of fact, when they did not apprehend the design of the ancient Jews. They fatigue themselves in chasing the poor foxes, and bringing them by droves to Samson; but all the while they are at a loss to know how he surprised them, and where he kept and maintained them till opportunity served; in a word, how he could enchant so many beasts, and make them follow him to the place appointed; with other difficulties in the history too obvious to need enumeration. In reality they have undergone more drudgery and fatigue to provide Samson with foxes than he himself could have suffered had he attempted to surprise them in a hundred places. "To conclude, there was no need to maintain such a troop of wild beasts, since the prudent captain, without such an impracticable method, was able, as we have seen above, to reduce to ashes the harvest of the Philistines, with no other assistance than his own hands and a small quantity of combustible matter." The following strictures upon this criticism were furnished by my venerated friend, the late Stephen Sewall, Hollis Professor of Hebrew and the Oriental languages in Harvard college at Cambridge; and though some of his remarks are in part a recapitulation of preceding ones under this article, I shall give them entire. "However plausible this turn may seem, I think that it is as far from the sense of the sacred historian as it is from our translation, which I imagine truly expresses his meaning. For the word, which our translators have rendered caught,' never signifies simply to get, take, or fetch, but always to catch, seize, or take by assault, stratagem, or surprise, &c. unless the following place, 1 Sam. xiv. 47, 'So Saul took the kingdom over Israel,' be an exception. Again, admitting the proposed alteration in the word byw, it will be difficult to prove that even then it means a sheaf. The word is used but three times in the whole Bible. Its meaning must be gathered from the connexion in which it stands here. The first place, 1 Kings, xx. 10, where it is rendered 'handfuls,' not of grain, but of dust. The gods do so unto me, and more also,' says Benhadad, king of Syria, if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls for all the people that follow me.' In Isaiah, xl. 12, the same word is translated the hollow of the hand.' Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out the heavens with a span.' The last place in which the word occurs is Ezekiel, xiii. 9, ‘And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley, and for pieces of bread?' The connexion here with pieces of bread seems evidently to point out to us handfuls of barley in the grain, not handfuls or sheaves in the ear and straw. In fine, from the places quoted, taken in their several conexions, the word plainly appears to mean a measure of capacity, as much as the hollow of the hand can hold; as a hand-breadth is used in Scripture for a measure of extension. Add to this, that in all other places of Scripture where we meet with the word handful, that is, as much grain in the stock as the reaper can grasp in his hand, or sheaf, a collection of such handfuls bound together, different terms from that in dispute, are always made use of in the original; as Ruth, ii. 15, 16, and elsewhere. "The supposed incredibleness of the story, as it stands in our Bibles, is, I imagine, the only reason for forcing it into another meaning. The language of the critics I oppose is this: The action of Samson, as represented in our translation, is so extraordinary that it must be miraculous. The occasion was unworthy of the divine interposition. Therefore the translators of the Bible must in this particular have mistaken the meaning of the sacred historian.' But we have shown above, from an examination of the principal terms, that the translation is just. It remains then to be shown, either that the occasion was not unworthy of the divine interposition, or that the action was not above human capacity. The latter, I am fully persuaded, is the truth of the case, though I am far from thinking the former indefensible. The children of Israel were, in a peculiar manner, separated from the rest of mankind, for this purpose more especially, to preserve in the world, till the times of general reformation should come, the knowledge and worship of the one true God. At sundry times, and in divers manners, did the Deity for this end interpose. Many instances of this kind are recorded in the book of Judges. When this people perverted the end of their distinguished privileges, God suffered them to be enslaved by those idolatrous nations whose false deities they had worshiped. By this means they were brought to a sense of their error; and when they were sufficiently humbled, the Lord raised up Judges which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.' Jud. ii. 16. In such a state of servitude to the Philistines were they at this time. Samson was raised up in an extraordinary manner to be their deliverer; and his intermarriage with the Philistines was a means which Providence saw fit to make use of to effect their deliverance. Thus the affair is represented. Samson proposes his intentions to his parents. They expostulate with him. Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all thy people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines?' But they,' adds the sacred historian,' were ignorant that it was of the Lord, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines; for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.' Though Samson, then, might propose to himself nothing more in forming a connexion with a foreign lady than the gratification of his own inclinations, yet we are warranted to say, an overruling Providence had a farther design. The same may be affirmed of other actions of Samson, which appear to have proceeded from passions of a more rugged complexion. His intention in them might be unworthy of a divine interposition, but the end which God had in view, the deliverance of a people chosen to preserve his worship in the world, would make it highly fit and necessary. Nor ought it to be reckoned strange, that such means should be used; for we are authentically assured that the wrath of man, and by parity of reason, other passions too, are sometimes made to praise the Lord. Thus much I thought necessary to say for the sake of those to whom a solution on natural principles shall seem unsatisfactory. Such a solution I now proceed to give. "In the first place, it is evident from the Holy Scriptures, that Palestine abounded with foxes, or that animal, be it what it will, which is signified by the Hebrew word byw. This appears from many passages. Psal. lxiii. 10; Cantic. ii. 15; Lam. v. 18; 1 Sam. xiii. 17; Josh. xv. 28; xix. 3. From their numbers, then, the capture would be easy. "Farther: under the Hebrew word by was propably comprehended another animal, very similar to the fox, and very plenty in Palestine; gregarious, and whose Persic name is radically the same with the Hebrew. Allowing this to be the animal, the story is easily admissible to belief, without the supposition of a miracle. For it is not said, that Samson caught so many foxes in one hour, or one day; or, that he caught them all with his own hands. Being then Judge of Israel, he might employ many hands, and yet be said, according to the common use of language, to do it himself. "Add to this, that the season, the days of wheat harvest, was extremely favourable for hunting these animals; and, as they were gregarious, many might be surrounded or entrapped at once. "I shall conclude with an argument more in favour of the justness of our translation, in rendering the word byw 'a fox,' not a sheaf. It has been esteemed by some persons of extensive literature to be a demonstrative argument. I shall mention it, and leave it to stand on its own bottom. At the feast of Ceres, the goddess of corn, celebrated annually at Rome about the middle of April, there was the observance of this custom,—to fix burning torches to the tails of a number of foxes, and to let them run through the circus till they were burnt to death. This was done in revenge upon that species of animals, for having once burnt up the fields of corn. The reason, indeed, assigned by Ovid is too frivolous an origin for so solemn a rite; and the time of its celebration, the 17th of April, it seems was not harvest time, when the fields were covered with corn,-' vestitos messibus agros;' for the middle of April was seed-time in Italy, |