Note 214 — RADICALS.

In respect to this city it may be objected, that if it had signified, what I suppose, we should have found it in the sacred text, instead of חנס, expressed עין אש. If this were true, we must be obliged to suppose, whenever the sacred writers found a foreign name, composed of terms not unlike some in their own language, that they formed them according to their own mode of expression, and reduced them to the Hebrew orthography. In short, if the etymology of an Egyptian or Syriac name could be possibly obtained in their own language, that they had always an eye to such etymology; and rendered the word precisely according to the Hebrew manner of writing and pronunciation. But this cannot be allowed. We cannot suppose the sacred writers to have been so unnecessarily scrupulous. As far as I can judge, they appear to have acted in a manner quite the reverse. They seem to have laid down an excellent rule, which would have been attended with great utility, had it been universally followed: this was, of exhibiting every name, as it was expressed at the time when they wrote, and by the people, to whom they addressed themselves. If this people, through length of time, did not keep up to the original etymology in their pronunciation, it was unnecessary for the sacred Penmen to maintain it in their writings. They wrote to be understood: but would have defeated their own purpose, if they had called things by names, which no longer existed. If length of time had introduced any variations, those changes were attended to: what was called Shechem by Moses, is termed [214]Σιχαρ or Συχαρ by the [215]Apostle.