1. The evidence on which the assumed fact rests is both deficient (1) Inconin amount and suspicious in character. Not more than two independent clusive witnesses, if they be independent, have, so far as I know, been produced. * (i) Chrysostom at the close of the fourth century in his exposition of Chrysothis epistle writes somewhat obscurely; ‘Hagar was the name of the stom. bondmaid; and Mount Sinai is so interpreted in their native tongue (ro 2wa 3pos ooro uséeppnveilerai intoxopio adrów y\cirrm);’ and afterwards he speaks of the mountain as ‘bearing the same name with the bondmaid (óudovvuov ri 800Am).’ To the same effect writes Theophylact, who is often a mere echo of Chrysostom, as do one or two anonymous commentators in the CEcumenian Catena, without doubt deriving their information from the same source". (ii) The Bohemian traveller Harant, who visited Sinai in the year Harant. 1598, says: ‘The Arabian and Mauritanian heathen call Mount Sinai Agar or Tur".” Though, for anything that is found in the context, this might have been written without a thought of the passage of St Paul, yet I think it hardly probable. Luther, following Erasmus, had maintained this inter- Their pretation; and from the enormous popularity of his commentaries on the stateGalatians, it is likely that they were known to Harant, who himself ulti- :...d mately became a protestant. If so, he did not necessarily derive his inform-for. ation from the Arabs on the spot, but may have accepted without question the popular statement, as more recent travellers have done. In later works of travel I have not found any direct personal testimony to this assumed fact. If there be any, it will from the nature of the case require careful sifting. The word “Hagar’ (Chagar) meaning “a rock, or “a stone,’ must be heard again and again from native lips in this wild region”; and a traveller, once possessed of the idea, might easily elicit the word from his Arab guide by a leading question, and on the strength of an

work was written in Bohemian, but
translated into German by his brother
and published by his nephew (see Bal-
binus Bohem. Doct. II. p. 104). [A
friend, who has consulted the Bohemian
original, informs me that Weissenberg is

1 Chrysostom's interpretation of the passage in St Paul may perhaps underlie the account of the word “Hagar' given in Bar Bahlul's Syriac Lexicon,

[ocr errors][merged small]

a miswriting of the name of a traveller
whom Harant quotes, and that Tucla is
there written Turla.] I give the passage
of Barbosa to which Harant refers, as it
stands in the copies which I have con-
sulted. The title is Primo volume delle
Navigationi e Viaggi (Venet. 155o and
1554); Libro di Odoardo Barbessa or
Barbosa, p. 313 (323), ‘passato il detto
monte Sinai, il quale i Mori dimandano
* The index to Ritter's Erdkunde,
Sinai etc. II. p. 1331, s.v. “Hadschar,'
“Hadjar,” etc., names several “stones'
on and about Sinai; “Hadschar Elma,’
“Hadsjar räkkäbe,” “Hadj Musa, etc.

answer thus obtained unsuspiciously confirm the statement that it was a
local name for the mountain.
Thus the independent testimony to this supposed fact is confined to
Chrysostom and Harant, or, if my supposition with regard to Harant be
correct, to Chrysostom alone. To Chrysostom then, if I mistake not, or to
some earlier writer whom he copied, this statement is due. Nor should
we be doing any injustice to one who makes St Paul speak of Sinai as
“contiguous to Jerusalem,' were we to suppose that having heard of some
place bearing the name “Hagar’ whether in Arabia Petraea or in some
district bordering upon the Sinaitic mountains, (for the name seems to have
been not uncommon",) he compressed the geography of the whole region
and assigned this name to Mount Sinai itself, imagining that he had thus
found the key to St Paul's meaning”. It is at least worthy of notice that
no mention whatever of this assumed fact, or the interpretation based on
it, is made either by his friend Theodore of Mopsuestia, or by Theodoret
the pupil of Theodore, both natives of Antioch, and both acquainted with
his work. Probably they were better informed on the subject, and for
this reason tacitly abandoned Chrysostom's explanation.
2. But supposing it were proved that Sinai were so called by the
Arabs, this word ‘Chagar’ is not written or pronounced in the same way as
the proper name “Hagar,’ and etymologically the two are entirely distinct.

The proper name “Hagar,’ with the simple aspirate (h)n, in Arabic jo-lo), signifies “a wanderer or fugitive, being connected with the Arabic “Hegira”

(2) False etymology.

1 Older critics, as Bochart and others (le Moyne War. Sacr. p. 834, Pfeiffer Op. 1. p. 504), assert that Petra itself bears the name Hagar (Chagar) in Arabic writers, just as in Greek it is

called IIárpa, and in Hebrew yop,
words having the same meaning ‘rock.”
This statement however is founded on
a twofold error; (1) The vocalisation of
the proper name referred to is not
“Chagar,” but Chigr’; and (2) The
place which bears this name “El Chigr’
in Arabic writers is not Petra itself,
but a station several days south of
Petra on the pilgrims' route between
Damascus and Mecca. See Ewald
Paulus p. 493 sq., Robinson's Palestine
etc. II. p. 522. There is no evidence
that Petra itself was so called.
There is a place Non, “Chagra,'
mentioned four times in the Targum of
Onkelos, Gen. xvi. 7, 14, xx. 1, Exod.
xv. 22. In the second passage it is
substituted for ‘Bered,” in the remain-
ing three for “Shur,’ of the original
text. It must therefore have lain
somewhere at the south of Palestine in

the desert on the way to Egypt. In
Gen. xvi. 7 it occurs in connexion with
the flight of Hagar.
I venture to conjecture that there
was also a place ‘Hagar' (whether

or ) in Belka, and that the

appearance of “Belka' in the Arabic
version of Gal. i. 17 and iv. 25 (see
above, p. 87) is to be explained by this
* Wieseler explains Chrysostom's
meaning in a different way, insisting on
the strict sense of plebepunvečeral. Ac-
cording to Fürst Concord. and Hebr.
Handb. s. v., "X"b signifies ‘rocky,' so
that interpreted in Arabic it would be

, and to this identity of meaning

in “Sinai' and “Hagar” he supposes Chrysostom to allude. But even if the account which Fürst gives of the word "2"b were altogether satisfactory, it would still remain in the highest degree improbable that Chrysostom should be acquainted with an etymology so abstruse.

the familiar term for the flight of Mahomet (compare also the Hebrew *]; and ny'). Thus it has nothing in common with ‘Chagar,’ ‘a stone'

[ocr errors]

that the gutturals are closely allied, and were sometimes confounded";
and this circumstance would deserve to be considered, if the supposed
name for Sinai were supported by sufficient testimony: but where this is
wanting, the false etymology throws an additional obstacle, to say the least,
in the way of our accepting the explanation in question. Nor will it appear
very probable that St Paul should have set aside the true derivation, when
it is given and allegorized by his contemporary Philo”.
It seems much more probable indeed, if St Paul is alluding to any local
name of Sinai, that he should have regarded the true etymology, and that
the name in question was not non ‘rock, but non “wanderer.' This latter
name was at least not uncommon among the Arab tribes; and it is far from
unlikely, though direct evidence is wanting, that a settlement of these
“wanderers, these children of ‘Hagar,’ occupied the country about Sinai
in St Paul's day and gave it their name for the time.

3. But lastly, is it probable, supposing this to have been St Paul's (3) St meaning, that he would have expressed himself as he has done? If in Paul's

writing to a half-Greek, half-Celtic people he ventured to argue from an Arabic word at all, he would at all events be careful to make his drift intelligible. But how could his readers be expected to put the right interpretation on the words “this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia’? How could they

[blocks in formation]

tion of the gutturals to each other, see
Ewald, Ausf. Lehrb. d. Heb. Spr. § 39
Assemani indeed (Bibl. Or. III. 2,
p. 753) gives an instance of the inter-
change of the gutturals He and Cheth
in this very word Hagar : ‘Hagar

. ... , Arabibus Josu- Hagiar, hoc est,
-U -
Petra; Ptolemaeo Agra, unde Agraei
populi Arabiae juxta sinum Persicum,
etc.' But is there not a misprint or an
error here? Was this place ever written
in Arabic otherwise than with a simple
aspirate as in Syriac? At all events
Winer (Realw. s.v. Hagariter) is wrong
in understanding Assemani's remark
of the station between Damascus and
Mecca (see p. 196, note 1), and has been
blindly followed by others.
* rapolkmous, Leg. Alleg. 1. p. 135 M,
Sacr. Ab. et Ca. I. p. 17o (trapolket gopig,
karoukei). Another derivation of
Hagar, or rather a play upon the word,
was Th;N Nn, “here is thy wages'; see
Beer Leben Abraham's p. 148.

language. Philo's allegory,

possibly understand, knowing nothing of Arabic, that he meant to say, “this word Hagar in the Arabic tongue stands for Mount Sinai’s Even if it be granted that his readers were acquainted with the fact which was the key to his meaning, is €v ri, 'Apašig at all a likely expression to be used by any writer for év 'Apašuxi, y\dororm or "ApaGuart, unless it were made intelligible by the context? Yet this is the meaning generally assigned to év ri, 'Apašíg by those commentators, ancient or modern, who adopt the interpretation in question, and indeed seems to be required to justify that interpretation.

In the face of these difficulties, it seems at least improbable that the point of the passage is the identity of ‘Hagar’ and ‘Sinai’ as different names of the same mountain, and the reading which retains ‘Hagar'in the text loses any support which it may seem to draw from this identity, assumed as a fact.

Philo's allegory of Hagar and Sarah'.

In giving an allegorical meaning to this passage of the Old Testament narrative St Paul did not stand alone. It might be inferred indeed from his own language that such applications of the history of Hagar and Sarah were not uncommon in the schools of his day”. But, however this may be, it is more than once so applied in the extant works of Philo. I have already pointed out the contrast presented by his treatment of the history of Abraham in general to the lessons which it suggests to the Apostle of the Gentiles. This contrast extends to the application of the allegorical method to this portion of the sacred narrative. Philo's allegory is as follows.

Abraham—the human soul progressing towards the knowledge of God —unites himself first with Sarah and then with Hagar. These two alliances stand in direct opposition the one to the other". Sarah, the princess—for such is the interpretation of the word"—is divine wisdom. To her therefore Abraham is bidden to listen in all that she says. On the other hand Hagar, whose name signifies ‘sojourning’ (rapoikmats), and points therefore to something transient and unsatisfying, is a preparatory or intermediate

[ocr errors][merged small]

training—the instruction of the schools—secular learning, as it might be termed in modern phrase". Hence she is fitly described as an Egyptian, as Sarah's handmaid. Abraham's alliance with Sarah is at first premature. He is not sufficiently advanced in his moral and spiritual development to profit thereby. As yet he begets no son by her. She therefore directs him to go in to her handmaid, to apply himself to the learning of the schools. This inferior alliance proves fruitful at once. At a later date and after this preliminary training he again unites himself to Sarah; and this time his union with divine wisdom is fertile. Not only does Sarah bear him a son, but she is pointed out as the mother of a countless offspring”. Thus is realised the strange paradox that “the barren woman is most fruitful.” Thus in the progress of the human soul are verified the words of the prophet, spoken in an allegory, that ‘the desolate hath many children”.' But the allegory does not end here. The contrast between the mothers is reproduced in the contrast between the sons. Isaac represents the wisdom of the wise man, Ishmael the sophistry of the sophist”. Sophistry must in the end give place to wisdom. The son of the bondwoman must be cast out and flee before the son of the princess". Such is the ingenious application of Philo—most like and yet most compared unlike that of St Paul. They both allegorize, and in so doing they touch with St upon the same points in the narrative, they use the same text by way of * illustration. Yet in their whole tone and method they stand in direct contrast, and their results have nothing in common. Philo is, as usual, wholly unhistorical. With St Paul on the other hand Hagar's career is an allegory, because it is a history. The symbol and the thing symbolized are the same in kind. The simple passage of patriarchal life represents in miniature the workings of God's providence hereafter to be exhibited in grander proportions in the history of the Christian Church. The Christian

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« 前へ次へ »