The Preface to the Translation of the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriack, and Greek Names in the Bible

THAT Veneration for the Holy Scriptures, which the Christian Religion excites in the Minds of all true Believers, and the Persuasion they have always entertained, that every thing in them was replete with Mystery and Instruction, have induced them to examine, with great care, even the literal and grammatical Signification of the proper Names, which the Translators of the Bible have retain’d in their several Versions, without any Translation. They knew that our Saviour had given his word, that not a Jot or a Tittle of the Law should pass away¹, without first having its Completion. They were inform’d, that several of these Names had been dictated by the Holy Ghost, declared by the Prophets, imposed by God himself: That in the holy Language every thing is significative, even down to the Names of Plants, and Animals. That their Names are a perfect Indication of the Natures of the Things so denominated. It was with this Notion that the Fathers were so very diligent, so as to seek for edifying Morals even from the Terms themselves; either to encourage the Piety of the Faithful, or sometimes even as Proofs, to confirm their Faith.

Tho the Taste of the World at present, in these Matters, be very different from that of the Ancients; yet it must be admitted, that if we keep within just Limits, without moralizing at every turn upon the Terms, and expecting every where to meet with Mystery and Allegory, we may usefully, and with edification, receive such Lights as will be supply’d by the proper Names of the Text of Scripture, when literally translated.

Some have imagin’d², that so early as before the Deluge, Enoch had compos’d a Book, which was full of Mysteries, concerning the Signification of the Hebrew Names. But this was believed from a Passage of Origen³, that was ill understood. This Author, having quoted that Passage of the Psalmist, He telleth the number of the Stars, he calleth them all by their Names⁴; says, that in the little Books ascribed to Enoch, there are to be found several Mysteries relating to the Names of the Stars. But, as he adds, these Books do not seem to be of any Authority among the Jews. Now this Passage does not affirm, that Enoch had wrote a Book of the Hebrew Names; but only that an apocryphal Book was to be seen under his Name, which in a mystical manner explain’d certain Names of the Stars. And these two Things are very different from each other.

Philo (), the most eloquent of the Jews, had anciently composed a kind of Dictionary, of the Hebrew Names of the Old Testament, with the Greek just by them ; which shew’d the Signification and Etymology of them. To make this Work of Philo’s more complete, and more useful to the Christian Church, and to put the last hand to a Building which this learned Jew, had happily begun, Origen translated such of the Hebrew Names into Greek as were to be found in the Old Testament.

These two Works were still in the hands of learned Men, and deposited in all the Libraries of the known World, when St. Jerome undertook to translate them into Latin, at the Request of two pious Brothers, Lupulian and Valerian. But he found such enormous Dislocations in the Catalogue of these Names, and so little Conformity among the Copies of these Dictionaries, that he was forced in a manner to make a new Work of it, by going thro’ all the Books of Scripture, and collecting from thence, and disposing in a new Order, all the Proper Names, which he afterwards turn’d into Latin.

Singula per ordinem Scripturarum volumina percurri, et vetus ædificium novâ curâ instaurans, fecisse me reor quod à Græcis quoque appetendum sit.

His Method is, to reduce into an Alphabetical Order, all the Greek and Hebrew Proper Names, which are to be found in each Book of holy Scripture, and to interpret them into Latin; so that every Book had its own Dictionary apart, and distinct from the rest. In the Disposition of them, he contents himself to place under A, all the Names that begin by A, according to our manner of pronouncing them, tho often in the Hebrew they begin by different Letters, for example, by Aleph, Hain, He; without confining himself to follow very nicely the Method of Dictionaries, and the Places of the Letters of our Alphabet. Thus, for example, we find Azia (or Uzziah) before Achan, Aram, before Adad, (or Hadad) and so of others.

Besides, he generally follows the Pronunciation of the Septuagint, which was then the only one in vogue, but which is frequently very different from that of the present Vulgate. Lastly, in many Places he gives the Interpretations of Philo and Origen rather than his own, performing in that the Duty of a Translator rather than of an Author. And as these Interpretations are not always either correct or natural, and are all taken from the Hebrew, even when the Question is about Greek Words; some learned Men have too hastily concluded from hence, that neither Philo nor Origen were very skilful in the Hebrew Tongue, since they had so indifferently succeeded in these Explications. The Reverend Father D. John Martianay has, with a good deal of Zeal, undertook the Defense of St. Jerome against M. le Clerc, and has sufficiently vindicated him, in his Commentary upon the Book of Hebrew Names we are now speaking of; but he has given up Philo and Origen⁵, after the Example of M. Huet, and some other Criticks, who acknowledge that Philo, Josephus, and Origen, had but a very slender Tincture of the Hebrew Tongue.

However this be, we must frankly own, that the Labour of these great Men does not appear to us at this day to be of such Importance as one would expect: for sure it is, that in what Philo and Origen have wrote, and which is not come down to us complete and intire, the Translation of the Hebrew Words was not always just or faithful; and in the Work of Origen the Greek Words were interpreted as if derived from the Hebrew, which made their Interpretations to be frivolous and puerile. Besides, he every where follow’d the Pronunciation of the Septuagint, which is different from that of our Vulgate. And as the alphabetical Order was but ill observed, it would be difficult to make use of him now, since we have only in our hands the Latin Version of St. Jerome, and the Latin Concordances which are taken from thence.

As for what relates to the Work of St. Jerome, whatever pains Father Martianay may have taken to restore it to its original Perfection, even so far as to have dwelt, as he says, fifteen Days upon one Word⁶, and to have read thrice over the Books of Leviticus and Numbers, to meet in the Septuagint only with one Proper Name that he sought for; yet, as the holy Doctor for the generality only translates Philo and Origen, we find still in his Work the same Inconveniences that we complain’d of in those ancient Writers: We see the same Perplexity as to Order, in his Disposition, his Method, and the Pronunciation of the Words; and especially that very material Imperfection, of deriving the Greek Names in the New Testament from the Hebrew.

The old Editions of the Latin Bible have almost all a Supplement, containing an Interpretation of the Hebrew Names, disposed according to the Order of the Alphabet. But these Interpretations are different from those of St. Jerome, not only as to Order and Disposition, but as to Sense also. I have a Bible of 1478, printed at Venice, wherein these Explications are to be found at the latter end. We find them also in the Bible printed in 1512, by Simon Vostre; and in the Latin Bible of Sebastian Munster.

Robert Stephens, in his folio Bible printed at Paris in 1528, adds to it the Hebrew Names in their original Character, with their Explanations, and the Citation of the Books and Chapters where these Names are to be found. He seems to have copied from the Edition of Complutum, tho he speaks of his Dictionary as of a Work that was intirely new. Plantin, in 1565, printed separately, in a small Volume in duodecimo, the same Interpretations of the proper Names, whether Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, or Latin, which he had before given in his Polyglot; but he gives notice, that he had only follow’d the Complutensian Edition, which was publish’d in 1520.

Marius de Calasio in his Hebrew Concordances, printed in four Volumes in folio at Rome, in 1621, made considerable Additions to the old Interpretation of the Hebrew Names; verifying the Explication he affixed to every Term, by the Roots of the original Text; a thing that was wanting in those that went before him. From this time forwards, all those that attempted to write upon this Topick, have only copy’d from those we have now mention’d. And indeed, to speak the Truth, there is more need to retrench than to add any thing more to such sort of Works. For in this great number of Interpretations, there are many that are plainly forced, frivolous, and useless; and I imagine this to have been the reason, why afterwards they were much abridged; and that in the greatest part of the Bibles printed within this last hundred Years, they have satisfy’d themselves with explaining about 600 Hebrew Names, instead of above 3000, which are to be met with in the Bible, and in the old Editions.

It were only here to be wish’d, that they had made a better Choice, and that they had given us more exact and certain Explications. For, by way of Instance, in what Language does Egypt signify Afflictions, or Tribulations? Artaxerxes, Light, or Cursing? Abasuerus, Prince, or Chief? Carmel, Knowledge of Circumcision, or circumcised Lamb? Colossians, punish’d, driven away? Cleophas, pure Glory? Damascus, resemblance of Burning? and so of others. But they thought they did well in multiplying the Significations of the same Form, that they might furnish out a larger Field to those that loved to hunt after Allegories. For often the Etymology that had least truth in it was embraced with the greatest Earnestness, because it seem’d to afford a finer Opportunity for Morals and mystical Explanations.

To come now to what we shall undertake to perform here: We shall, first, ingeniously declare, that as to a great number of the Interpretations here given of the Hebrew Words, we hold them for very doubtful, very precarious, and very equivocal; and that the Use to be derived from them, is but very slender. We are convinced that it is impossible nicely to ascertain, what is signify’d by a great number of the Proper Names that occur in the Bible. They are put down only at random; and the thing cannot be otherwise: For instance, the Egyptian, Persian, and Assyrian Words; the greatest part of the Names of Animals, Plants, and precious Stones, of Cities and Villages.

As to the Greek and Persian Names, ‘tis as impertinent to pretend to derive their Etymologies from the Hebrew; as it would be to seek for those of Hebrew Words in the Greek or Persian. Yet this is what they have attempted to do, tho indeed very unsuccessfully. It may be urged, that the Publick desire to have an Interpretation of all the foreign Words that are met with in the Bible. But this cannot be done for them all, without falling into the Inconveniencies now mention’d, and without running great hazards.

Among the Hebrews, as well as among other Nations, their proper Names were taken from various Circumstances. Chance, Fancy, Superstition, Fondness, have been the occasion of imposing them, as well as Piety, Religion, and the Spirit of Prophecy. There are Nicknames, and Names of Railery, taken from Defects of Body or Mind. One is called Nabal, or Fool; another Edom, or ruddy; another Laban, white; another Zeruah, the Leper; another Hamor, the Ass; another Caleb, the Dog; Nahash, the Serpent; Korah, the Raven; Shaphan, the Rabbit; Aiah, the Vulture; Hagab, the Grass-hopper; Zeeb, the Wolf; Kohath, the Pelican; Paroth, the Fly; Elon, the Stag; Hezir, the Hog; Susi, the Horse, or Swallow; &c.

Many Women have had the Names of Animals, as Shiprah, the Hen; Deborah, the Bee; Rachel, the Sheep; Nohesta, the Snake; Huldah, the Weasel; Tabithah, the wild Goat; Eglah, the Heifer; Zibiah, the Antilope. Others have taken their Names from their Stature, or other 626Q ualities. For example, Tamar, the Palm-tree; Aholibamah, my Tabernacle is exalted; Acshah, adorned; Hadassah, the Myrtle; Sarah, the Princess; Jocabed, glorious; Hannah, gracious; &c.

The Name of God is annexed to a great number of Proper Names: sometimes out of a motive of Piety, and Acknowledgment: for example, Given-of-God, Asked-of-God, Friend-of-God, God-is-my-Help, God-is-my -Strength, God-is-my-Counsel, God-is-my- Salvation, God-is-my-Rock, God-is-my- Exaltation, my-Father, my-Glory, the-Object-of-my-Praise. Sometimes this Name is only used by way of Amplification, thus, Zeal-of-the-Lord, Dowry-of-the-Lord, Strength-of-the-Lord, Habitation-of-the- Lord, Elevation-of-God, Counsel-of-the- Lord: all which chiefly denote the Excellence of the thing, to which the Name of God is affix’d by way of Epithet.

In the latter Times of the Republick of the Hebrews, and after the Government of the Greeks in Syria, and in Egypt, most of the Jews had two Names; one Hebrew or Syriack, and the other Greek. For example; Queen Alexandra was also called Salome, which last is an Hebrew Name, and the other a Greek Name. Onias was otherwise called Menelaus. Levi was also call’d Matthew. Simon had also the Name of Peter; Saul was call’d Paul; Silas, Sylvanus; and perhaps Tertius. Luke was Lucius or Lucanus. Sometimes they contented themselves with Hellenizing their Hebrew Names, and with giving them a Termination that was significant in Greek, and approached pretty near to the Hebrew Signification. For example, of Jesus or Joshua they made Jason; the two first of which signify a Saviour, and the other a Physician. Thus from Joakim or Jacim, they made Alcimus, strong; of Cleophas, Alpheus; and so of others.

The Hebrew Tongue frequently makes use of abstracted Nouns instead of Concretes; this is what makes the Etymologies often obscure, and odd in our Tongue. For example, the Arrow of Elevation, instead of the elevated Arrow, or that which is shot very high. The Man of Favour, of Mercy, of Desire, for a Man that is gracious, merciful, desireable. The Woman of Beauty, the Rock of Strength, the Sword of Slaughter, the Vessels of Songs, the Man of Perdition, of Confusion, of Sin, the City of Iniquity, the Child of Light, of Iniquity; and so of others. At other times they make use of the Future Tense instead of the Participle. He shall hate, he shall save, he shall make, he shall fight, he shall reign, instead of saying, Hatred, the Saviour, the Creator, the Champion, the King, &c.

Perhaps it will be inquired, why we give these Interpretations by themselves, and why we did not insert them in the Body of the Dictionary? For this we have chiefly two Reasons. The first is, that at first we had no design of engaging ourselves in this Task at all, which we look’d upon as not very essential. The second Reason is, because we had no mind to disgust the English Reader by too great a mixture of strange Languages in this Work. We did not resolve upon applying ourselves to this Dictionary of Hebrew Names till after second Thoughts, and till we were determin’d by the Judgment of certain Persons, for whom we ought to have the greatest Consideration and Deference.

We have contented ourselves here to put down barely the Signification of the Hebrew Names, without entring upon any Explication of the Things, or medling with the History of the Persons, or the Situation of Places, because this was already done in the Body of the Dictionary. Nor have we even explain’d, in grammatical Terms, the Names of the Letters, nor the Tenses and Numbers of the Nouns and Verbs, nor many other Particulars, which would only have tired the Reader, without any considerable Profit.

Nor have we assign’d all the Significations that might have been given to the same Word, but have contented ourselves with such as were most probable; and even in this, perhaps, we have admitted but too great a number. For example, Shaal signifies to ask; yet under this Word we set down asking, as if it were Shoel; asked, as if it were Shaul; Hell, as if it were Sheol. Again: Under Shamer we put down Guardian, as if it were Shomer; Diamond, as if it were Shamir; Dregs, as if it were Shamerim; Thorns, as if it were Shemir, or Shemer. Thus Shaar signifies a Gate, or Hair; Sheir, shaggy, like a Goat; Sheirim, Demons. We put down all these under the same Word, because we can have no knowledge of what was the true original Pronunciation of the Term we treat of; and that the three Letters that compose the Theme, or the Root of the several Words, may receive all these Significations, according to the several Manners in which they may be pronounced. It is difficult to display the full Force of this Reasoning to such as understand nothing of the Hebrew Tongue; and those that do understand it, perhaps may think we have done amiss, by heaping up thus, without Distinctions, all 2 these Significations under the same Word. But how could all these Distinctions be observed in an Abridgment, as this is? Besides, it would have been an insupportable Jargon to such as have no Taste or Knowledge of such grammatical Inquiries.

N.B. In this English Translation of our Author’s Etymological Dictionary, we have not only set down all the Proper Names in their order, but, for the greater Convenience of the Reader, we have likewise inserted, in their proper Places, all the other Articles of the Dictionary; so that this may supply the Office of a complete Index to the whole Work.