As to the question Whither?' we perceive that a smaller body of them, five hundred, went to Mount Seir, and settled there. But this expression includes all the mountainous district of Northern Arabia; and we cannot from this text alone define the spot where these five hundred settled.

The greater body, we are told, went to 'Gedor': but where was that? BERTHEAU says, truly enough, it cannot be the 'Gedor' in the mountains of Judah, Jo.xv.58; and so he adopts with EWALD the reading of the LXX, viz. ‘Gerar,' i.e. 77 for 77. But Gerar lay on the southern border of Palestine, close by the Simeonite town of Beersheba,-so close, in fact, that CYRIL (comm. on Amos) took it for Beersheba itself; whereas the Chronicler's account implies plainly a migration to some more distant place.

9. Besides, the Chronicler says that Hamites lived there originally: whereas, according to Genesis, the Philistines inhabited Gerar; and though these, indeed, are numbered, somewhat loosely, among the descendants of Ham in G.x.14, yet they certainly spoke a Hebrew dialect, and the Chronicler, if he wished to be understood, would scarcely have spoken of Hamites, if he merely meant the Philistines of Gerar. In fact, if the Simeonites merely made a step, as it were, beyond their own boundary, so as to conquer Gerar, why are they not mentioned after Solomon's death, as taking part with Judah and Benjamin?

10. Again at 'Gedor,' we are told, among these Hamites, dwelt 'the Minoans,' -'strangers,' says BERTHRAU, 'who lived in this region among the descendants of Iam.' This, however, is the name of an ancient Arabian people of great renown, which by its commerce became one of the richest in the whole peninsula. The Minæans, says GESENIUS, lived too far south, to be meant in the passage before us, -as if the Simeonites might not have gone 'far south,' but must have remained close to Palestine! So the Masoretic reading was preferred, but explained as a Proper Name, viz. the Mahonim or Mehonim, so called from the town Mahon, near Petra (BERTHEAU, after ROBINSON). But here again we have the same difficulty as with Gerar, viz. that the place was too near. Thus we have not yet found the proper answer to the question, Whither?'

11. As to the question' When?' almost all commentators fix the time of this emigration in the reign of Hezekiah. But, if so, how is it that, after Solomon's death, the Simeonites are not named with the men of Judah and Benjamin? In fact, v.41 does not say that they 'migrated' in Hezekiah's time, but that their names were registered—a list was taken of them-in that king's days, which list the Chronicler very probably had before him. The time of the migration is really indicated in v.31, 'These were their towns until the reign of David. From this it follows, says Prof. Dozy, that the Simeonites inhabited the thirteen towns just named, v.28-31, during Saul's time, but not afterwards, so that the migration took place before David's time under the reign of Saul.

12. But we should rather infer, from the above expression, that the migration took place some time during the reign of David: comp. the phrase 'unto this day,' which implies that the matter referred to was still existing at this day.' In our

view, the Simeonites in the early part of David's reign, when Jacob's Blessing' was written, were still living in Canaan, and inhabiting their thirteen cities—but not exclusively not as an independent tribe. These towns were mainly inhabited by men of Judah, and hence they are regularly reckoned to Judah. The Simeonites, like the Levites, were 'portioned-out and scattered' in Israel, G.xlix.7, living as subordinates and dependents in the towns of others. The Chronicler, indeed, speaks of 7,100 Simeonites, mighty men of valour for war,' who joined David at Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him,' 1Ch.xii.23,25. But we cannot place any reliance on the accuracy of this statement, though, if true, it would tend to support our view, that the main body of the tribe had not yet migrated.

13. The fact, that the movement in question took place about the time above indicated, is confirmed by the notice in 1Ch.iv.42,43, where we are told that the five hundred Simeonites, who went to Mount Seir, 'smote the remnant of the Amalekites that had escaped,' i.e. apparently, those who had escaped from David, when he took revenge upon them for the sack of Ziklag, on which occasion, we are told, David smote them from the twilight even until the evening of the next day; and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, who rode upon camels and fled,' 18.xxx.17. Here, then, we have the five hundred Simeonites attacking the four hundred Amalekites, and slaying them ruthlessly, because they had just plundered the town of Ziklag, one of their own (Simeonite) towns, which, though given by Achish to David, 1S.xxvii.6, very probably contained, even under the Philistine rule, men of Simeon and their families, as well as David's followers and men of Judah,-after which time the Amalekites never appear again in the history of Israel, the reference in 28.viii.12 being to David's earlier victory now under consideration.

14. At this period, then, just before the death of Saul, this smaller body of Simeonites migrated. And, as it stands in close connection with the other larger migration, we may conclude,' says Prof. Dozy, 'that the latter took place about the same time.'

But, surely, the larger migration would be likely to take place after, not before, the smaller one. Perhaps the success of the latter may have even given rise to the other. In other words, it seems more probable that the greater migration occurred during David's reign,-perhaps, in the first decade of it, not long after G.xlix.5–7 was written rather than before it, during the reign of Saul.

15. Did this larger migration include the whole tribe of Simeon? The answer is, No. In 1Ch.iv.28-31, thirteen towns are named, of which it is said 'These were their towns until the reign of David.' And then follows a list of five other towns, v.32,33,—a phenomenon which we observe also in Jo.xix.2-7, except that four towns are here named in the second list, instead of five. It would seem that the population of the thirteen towns had emigrated in David's time, while the inhabitants of the four (or five) had remained behind. And these last, being so few in number, and these few mixed up largely, as we suppose, with men of Judah, would naturally not be reckoned separately from the tribe of Judah, which would occupy completely the other thirteen towns, now altogether abandoned by the Simeonites.

16. Prof. Dozy, however, supposes that they must have been compelled to this migration by some special event in their history, and he suggests that they may have been forcibly expelled for sparing Agag, and the best of the flocks and herds of Amalek, as described in 18.xv, instead of making a complete kherem of them as commanded. And he quotes in support of this conjecture an Arabian legend, as follows:

'When Moses had conquered Canaan, he commanded a numerous force to go and make a kherem of the Amalekites, who inhabited the whole region of Khigaz. They, accordingly, killed them all, even their king el-Arkam, but not his son, whom they spared on account of his youth and beauty, and reserved for the decision of Moses. When they returned to the main body, Moses was dead; and the other Israelites declared that, since they had not obeyed the command of their Prophet, they should not be allowed to live any longer in the land of Canaan. Then said they, 'Since you expel us, there is no better land than that which we have just left.' Khigaz, in fact, in those days was rich in wood and water: so they went back, gave their cattle pasture, and built dwellings and fortresses, and were joined by some Arabian tribes.'

17. The agreement between the above account and that of 1S.xv is obvious, as is also the mistake of naming Moses instead of Samuel,* of whom, indeed, the Arabs know nothing, as, according to the Koran, the Israelites desired a king immediately after the death of Moses. Saul, indeed, is spoken of by them, but is confounded with Gideon; while Samuel is not named at all, though mention is made of some prophet who lived in Saul's time. The king is here called Arkam, not Agag. But Agag is merely a title, meaning 'king,' and Tabarî says the same of Arkam, Heb. D, Rekem, which we find as the name of one of the kings of Midian, N.xxxi.8.

On this account Prof. Dozy is disposed to place the migration in the days of Saul. But his argument here, though very ingenious, does not appear to me convincing. There is no indication in the Scripture narrative that the Simeonites were more guilty than others on the above occasion. Rather, Saul speaks of the people, generally, as having spared the choice of the 'sheep and oxen,' v.15,21, and of himself as having spared Agag, v.20; and so, too, the history says that 'Saul and the people,' (200,000 footmen, and 10,000 men of Judah, v.4) spared Agag and the best of the sheep and oxen, &c. v.9.

* It is remarkable that in the only passage of the Prophets before the Captivity where Moses is mentioned at all, Jer.xv.1, he is coupled with Samuel, 'Though Moses and Samuel stood before me.' This close association-and, in the Arabian tradition, confusion-of Samuel with Moses may have a significance in relation to the fact that Samuel was, most probably, the Elohistic writer, who laid the basis of the Pentateuchal story about Moses. Perhaps, the oldest (so-called) Mosaic laws were in reality Samuelic, and Samuel himself was the actual lawgiver, instead of Moses, to whom was first revealed the depth of meaning which lay hid from common eyes in the name 'JHVH.'

18. Upon the whole, I adhere to the belief that the migration may have taken place chiefly for want of room, and to relieve the necessities of their condition as described. in G.xlix.7. The Simeonites were a poor dependent tribe, like the Levites, when that passage was written in the early part of David's reign-without lands or towns of their own. The Levites were relieved by being employed by David for sacred purposes: the Simeonites-perhaps about the same time-relieved themselves by migration. It is quite possible, however, that the Arabian story, to which Prof. Dozy refers, may have been based on some traditions-imperfect in some respectsas to the memorable event in which their forefathers had been last engaged, not long before their leaving Canaan, viz. the great war of extermination in Saul's time against the Amalekites. And they may have even seen the good land of 'Gedor' at this time, and some years afterwards set off to seize it.

19. We have now sufficiently replied to the question When?' having determined that the smaller migration of the Simeonites very probably took place near the end of Saul's reign, and the greater migration about the middle of David's. Let us return to the consideration of the question Whither?'

"They smote their tents and the Minai who were found there.' These 'Minai'* seem to have been unknown to the Mohammedan writers; but they are often named by the Greeks and Romans. STRABO, xvi.p.768 C (ed. Kramer), says that the four great nations, which inhabited the SW. parts of Arabia were the Minai in that part which lies by the Red Sea,† whose chief town is Karna or Karnana,—— on their confines the Sabai, whose chief town is Mariaba,-the third people, the Kattabanes, whose land reaches to the strait, where the Arabian Gulf is crossed (i.e. the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb), the residence of whose king is Tamna,-lastly, the most easterly, the people of Hadramaut, where is the town of Sabata.'

20. It will be seen that STRABO, in describing the first three nations, follows the direction from north to south, and sets the Minæi the most northerly of all, more to the north than the Sabæi with their famous town, Mariaba, the 'Mareb' of the later Arabs. STRABO's datum, then, would allow us to place the Minai in the north of Yemen, and to the south of Khigaz. But it was, as the ancients testify, a great people, and seems to have stretched itself very far to the north.

21. This may be inferred from PLINY, H.N. VI.xxviii.157 (ed. Sillig), where,

* In Jobii.11, &c. we have 'Zophar the Naamathite,' for which the LXX have Σωφὰρ Μιναίων βασιλεύς. How is this to be explained? Dozy suggests that instead of 'yan, should be read ɲy, ‘the Raamathite'; for the Minæi, says PLINY, were a brother-folk of the Rhammei, and these inhabited the Sabæan town of 'Raamah,' ¡у, LXX, 'Paμμà, G.x.7, Ez.xxvii.22, and the Alex. translator has used the name which was more common and well-known in his time. From G.x.7 it appears that the Rammæi, and therefore also the Minai, were regarded as Hamites.

† MARCIAN. HERACL. places them on the coast of the Red Sea, Geog. Gr. Min. (ed. Müller) I.p.527, and URANIUS does the same (Fragm. Hist. Gr. iv.p.525).

however, the text should be corrected, as follows (he is numbering the peoples in Arabia from north to south), 'Tamudæi, oppidum Badanatha,-Carrei, oppidum Cariati,-Achoali, oppidum [Foth ac Minai, for which read] Fothac,-Minæi, &c' where Fothac-Fadak, frequently named in the old Arabian history, and in that of Mohammed's time. The Achoali also of PLINY are represented in later times under the name of the 'Owâl' near Fadak. From the above, then, it may be inferred that the northern boundary of the Minai was not far from Medina. And this seems to be confirmed by the fact that STRABO, as we have seen, names their chief town ‘Karna,' and PTOLEMY names a town 'Karna' immediately after 'Jathrippa' Jathrib, the name of 'Medina' before Mohammed's time.

22. The Minæi, then, whose wide territory stretched northward to the neighbourhood of Medina, and far to the south, were found upon the spot whither the Simeonites went, though they were not the only dwellers there. And the Simeonites 'made a kherem of them unto this day, and dwelt in their place.' Whether this expression, 'unto this day,' belongs properly to the Chronicler, or to the record from Hezekiah's time which he was copying, it is plain that the ‘kherem' in question was not a passing one,-as a mere massacre would have been,—but a permanent one, in other words, a dedication of land, &c. to the service of the Deity.

23. Was there, then, any such a holy locality, dedicated to the Divine Being, in Arabia? We have not to look far. There is one spot in Arabia, and only one spot in the whole country, which, as far back as the memory of the Arabian reaches, has borne the name kherem or kharam,-(the Arabs have the same mark for a and e) -and that is the holy ground of MECCA. Wherever the name is found elsewhere, it is of later origin, and given in imitation, (as e.g. Mohammed declared Medina a kherem); and, wherever else there is a holy ground attached to a temple, it is called by the true Arabic name khimâ. Only the ground at Mecca, then, can possibly be meant in the passage of Chronicles. Its boundaries were marked by stones or pillars, which strangers—those who worshipped another deity-might not cross.

24. And this is strongly confirmed by the very name MECCA itself. The Arabians, as is well known, have a very defective way of indicating the vowels: for all the Vowels they have only three signs, so that the same sign serves for a and e, and the choice depends on the reader's will. But Makkah, as some Oriental scholars of the present day (e.g. SPRENGER, OSIANder, Krehl) write it, is the true, the ancient, pronunciation. Another form of Makkah is Bakkah, which certain Arabian writers distinguish, making (as some) Makkah the holy district and Bakkah the place of the temple, or (as others) Makkah the town and Bakkah the temple, &c. But a number of others regard Makkah and Bakkah as the same name, with the interchange, so very common in Semitic tongues, of m and b. This, according to Bekri, was the view of most, if not of all, linguistic scholars.

25. Makkah, then, is to be regarded as by far the most usual form of the name; and the question now arises, can it be explained from the Arabic tongue? The Arabian philologers give us, indeed, six different attempts at such derivation-all equally droll. The root Makkah denotes, (a) 'suck out entirely,' (B) ' diminish,'