who have preceded in these researches, would have bid fair for noble
discoveries, had they not been too limited, and biassed, in their notions.
But as far as I am able to judge, most of those, who have engaged in
inquiries of this nature, have ruined the purport of their labours through
some prevailing prejudice. They have not considered, that every other
nation, to which we can possibly gain access, or from whom we have any
history derived, appears to have expressed foreign terms differently from
the natives, in whose language they were found. And without a miracle the
Hebrews must have done the same. We pronounce all French names differently
from the people of that country: and they do the same in respect to us.
What we call London, they express Londres: England they style Angleterre.
What some call Bazil, they pronounce Bal: Munchen, Munich: Mentz, Mayence:
Ravenspurg, Ratisbon. The like variation was observable of old. Carthago of
the Romans was Carchedon among the Greeks. Hannibal was rendered Annibas:
Asdrubal, Asdroubas: and probably neither was consonant to the Punic mode
of expression. If then a prophet were to rise from the dead, and preach to
any nation, he would make use of terms adapted to their idiom and usage;
without any retrospect to the original of the terms, whether they were
domestic, or foreign. The sacred writers undoubtedly observed this rule
towards the people, for whom they wrote; and varied in their expressing of
foreign terms; as the usage of the people varied. For the Jewish nation at
times differed from its neighbours, and from itself. We may be morally
certain, that the place, rendered by them Ekron, was by the natives called
Achoron; the Accaron, [Greek: Akkaron], of Josephus, and the Seventy. What
they termed Philistim, was Pelestin: Eleazar, in their own language, they
changed to Lazar, and Lazarus: and of the Greek [Greek: sunedrion] they
formed Sanhedrim. Hence we may be certified, that the Jews, and their
ancestors, as well as all nations upon earth, were liable to express
foreign terms with a variation, being led by a natural peculiarity in their
mode of speech. They therefore are surely to be blamed, who would deduce
the orthography of all antient words from the Hebrew; and bring every
extraneous term to that test. It requires no great insight into that
language to see the impropriety of such procedure. Yet no prejudice has
been more [598]common. The learned Michaelis has taken notice