Isle of Corn and Barley, divine district, I arrive in thee. I encounter and I bear off that which proceedeth from the head of Ră: the pair of horns which have the force of purification. (19) I make myself fast to the Block of Moorage on the heavenly stream, and I utter my praise to the gods who are in the Garden of Hotepit. NOTES. The text of this chapter handed down by the Turin papyrus and those which agree with it contains nothing very difficult for a translator, but on being compared with the older copies it is found to consist of a collection of small fragments of the older text put together without any regard to their original order or context. And about three-quarters of the old chapter are suppressed in the new recension. The editors of the fine papyrus of Sutimes in their notes upon this chapter remark, that in the Turin text the sentences are in quite a different order from that of their papyrus, "On peut y voir," they say, "l'effet de lectures et de transcriptions en rebours du sens, par des scribes ayant mal compris les éditions, en colonnes rétrogrades." This is, curiously enough, the very fault of the papyrus of Sutimes itself, which is here wrong from beginning to end, though probably derived from an excellent original. It begins with the "Isle of Corn and Barley," and jumbles together quite incoherent sentences. The oldest copy of the chapter yet discovered is that of the Tomb of Cha-em-hait, at Thebes, and by a strange fatality it has been published in such a form that in order to read it correctly, we must begin with what is printed as line 11 and finish with line 1. We have it also in a very incomplete condition. We miss the first eighteen lines contained in the papyrus of Nebseni and the last words of every line. The papyrus of Nebseni is the only complete text we have, and here as well as elsewhere it is extremely incorrect. Some parts are so corrupt that a translation must necessarily be dependent upon conjectural emendations which can have no genuine claim upon the reader's confidence. We must be content with waiting till better authorities are discovered. * See M. Naville's remarks, Einleitung, p. 156. The Gardens of Hotepit and Aarru are the Paradise, Elysian Fields and Islands of the Blessed of the Egyptian imagination.* They were supposed to be situated in the neighbourhood of the rising Sun, but certain features were apparently suggested by the islets of the Delta. ||| The usual meaning of the word Hotepit, ,† when written according to the orthography of the Pyramid Texts, is oblations, offerings. This, however, is only a derived meaning. The word really only expresses a predicate of the things offered, as putting together, uniting, reconciling; Hotep might signify Rest, ती is or Peace; very appropriate names for such a garden. Pepi I (line 423), as mother of the great Scarab: and the same name The Pyramid Texts furnish some interesting information not contained in the Book of the Dead. We are told that the approach to the Garden is over the Lake of Putrata (see chapter 40, note 1), that there is a great lake (? that of Konsit) in the middle of the Garden of Hotepit, upon which the great gods alight, and that the Achmiu Sekiu, the starry deities who never set, there feed the which they themselves live, in order that he too may live." Shu and Tefnut are mentioned as divinities of this place. But perhaps the most remarkable fact is that Horus had enemies even here, who, however, were annihilated by the divine weapons at the disposal of the departed worthy, who was led there in order that "he might sit among the stars in heaven.” And here it was that the beatified personage sat upon his throne of steel, which was decorated in front with faces of the lion-god Maaḥes, the feet of it being the hoofs of the great Bull Sma-ură, and extended his hand to the coming generation of men (the), whilst the gods approached him in submissive attitude, and made offerings to him. It was, perhaps, from these offerings that the Garden derived its name. ww (These notes will be continued in the next number of the Proceedings.) יהוה ON THE DIVINE NAME BY REV. G. MARGOLIOUTH. It is well known that the Divine Names and 77 have, by several modern scholars, been held to mean, "the sender of storms, of lightning, and the like." This theory rests on the derivation of * from the Aramaic NT, 1, "to cast," or "to throw down,” and on the supposition that the name does not represent the Kal with its simple intransitive meaning of "being," or "becoming," but the Hifil, or causative of the verb, which in Arabic (d) means "to fall down," and which, in the form N, also bears the same meaning in Job xxxvii, 6, where the phrase occurs: " for he saith to the snow, fall down upon" לשלג יאמר הוא ארץ the earth." This conjecture has, however, hitherto been confined to the Sacred Name itself, whilst its explanation by the phrase N , as given in Ex. iii, 14, has not been supposed to bear any other meaning than that which the verb usually has in Hebrew. The only question that has been admitted on the point was whether expresses the absolute being of God (LXX, v), or the "simpler meaning of actuality," with which, as Professor W. R. Smith suggested, the ovuar of Aquila and Theodotion appears to be connected, or whether finally it is more akin to the Greek you, to "become something," the latter being the γιγνομαι, meaning favoured in the new edition of Gesenius' Dictionary, which is now being published by Drs. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, where is translated by, I shall be the one who will אהיה אשר אהיה be it." * Gesenius (Thesaurus, under ) mentions Seb, Schmid and Dryling as ap parently the first to suggest this derivation of, but it was the late Professor R. W. Smith who brought the theory into prominent notice for both names. Dr. Driver's very important article on the subject in Studia Biblica, I. + See W. R. Smith's Prophets of Israel, pp. 385-7. See It appears, however, that the possibility of extending the abovementioned conjecture on the meaning of 7 also to the ex ,is by no means excluded אהיה אשר אהיה planatory phrase and the main purpose of this paper is to offer a few tentative remarks in the direction just indicated. One reason why the explanatory phrase before us has not hitherto been allowed to embody the meaning which Professor W. R. Smith and others claimed for ", is the idea that the designation of the Deity by the term "sender of storms," was held to be derogatory to the spirituality of the Mosaic idea of the Supreme Being. It was all very well to suppose that such an idea existed in very ancient pre-Mosaic days, but even advanced critics have felt a certain very laudable shrinking from a theory which would carry a merely physical attribute like this into the very centre of the religious system propagated by Moses. This objection need, however, not stand in our way, if we only suppose-as we are fully justified in doing-that the physical notion of "sending down things from the sky" would gradually pass over into the meaning of "sending to man all things that he needs," and, like the Arabic J, it might even have assumed the idea of "sending down a انزل revelation." , therefore, if it be taken as the causative of MITS ,"to fall," might in the Mosaic conception have had the meaning of the "sender of the law," and from this point of view there can so far be no objection to a similar interpretation of the explanatory phrase in Ex. iii, 14, and 778 ¬ÙN MIN may, therefore, not inaptly be taken to mean: "I will send down what I will send down," ie., "I will give you a law from heaven in accordance with the plan of my inscrutable providence." But the other and perhaps more serious objection to this theory lies in the fact that the verb never means anything but "to be" or "to become" in the Hebrew that has come down to us. It is different, so it may fairly be argued, with regard to the name ", for there we have a root, which in the Arabic fourth form actually means "to send down," and which, as we have seen, is also found once in Job in the unmistakable sense of "falling down;" we have the usual verb אהיה אשר אהיה whereas in the phrase 7, which nowhere means anything but "to be." This argument * Instances of similar evolutions of ideas and terms are too common to need any specific justification. |