in the spirit of the language. The verbs employed, as well as the turn of the phrase, differ in almost every one of the examples I have given; but the same idea prevails in all, and warrants us in concluding that to eat or feed upon the flesh of another, means figuratively, among the Arabs, to calumniate or falsely accuse that person.

There are passages in Martial, which bear a striking resemblance to the phrases I have given you from Oriental poets. They are generally in epigrams expressly entitled in Detractorem. For instance,

"Vacua dentes in pelle fatiges Et tacitam quæras quam possis rodere carnem.'

Again,

In fine,

"Non deerunt tamen hac in urbe forsan,

Unus vel duo, tresve, quatuorve,

Pellem rodere qui vellent caninam."t

"Quid dentem dente juvabit

Rodere? carne opus est, si satur esse velis."+

The resemblance, however, is more in the words than in the sentiment.

* Lib. vi. epig. 64, v. 31.

† Lib. v. ep. 50, v. 8.

* Lib. xiii. epig. 2. Martial's meaning is simply, that it is folly for the detractors to attack him, who has been as severe a critic on himself; whence to attack him was like one tooth trying to gnaw another, which was, of course, foolish and vain. The figure is, therefore, used in another sense from the Arabic expression, as flesh in Martial only serves to indicate a softer material in opposi

3. Let us now pass to the language which our Saviour himself spoke, and which was vernacular among the Jews whom he addressed. In Chaldaic, the most common expression for to accuse falsely, calumniate, is to eat a morsel, or the flesh of a person, ;* and in Syriac, exactly the same,

. Hence the name does is translated throughout the Syriac version of the New Testament, by, Ochel Kartzo, the eater of flesh. The older philologists, probably from not being acquainted with the expression as preserved in the Arabic idiom, gave to this phrase a most forced and unwarrantable interpretation. They rendered the word, to eat, by proclaim, (as edo in Latin) and xy, a morsel cut out, by calumny,† without

tion to the tooth. The idea, however, of gnawing, biting, &c. is applied to calumny in most languages. So Horace (Ep. lib. ii. ep. i. 150)

"doluere cruento

Dente lacessiti."

And again, (Sat. I. lib. i. v. 81) "absentem qui rodit amicum;" St. Isidore (Offic. lib. i. cap. 5) 'Cujus præ ceteris officium est... cum fratribus pacem habere, nec quemquam de membris suis discerpere." The Italians use the term, to devour a person by calumnies. The Greeks use, in like manner, the verb evdarovuar, Eschyl. Sept. adv. Theb. 580. Sophocl. Trachin, 788. Ed. Lond. 1819, tom. i. p. 326.-where see the Scholiast.

* Dan. iii. 8. vi. 24.

† See "Buxtorf's Lexicon," Rabbin. Basil, 1639, p. 85, Castell sub voce,, Parkhurst, Lond. 1813, p. 661, where his etymological reasoning is a fair specimen of his usual taste and judgment. What an idea, that a language should draw its usual

any authority, etymology, or reason, except the necessity of accounting for the meaning of every thing, whether they understood it or not.

Aben Ezra, however, had long since seen the true meaning of the expression, observing, that the calumniator was the same as one who eats the flesh of his neighbour.* Modern philology has totally exploded the old interpretation, and established the one, which, while it gives to each word its natural signification,† coincides so strongly with the Hebrew, and more especially the Arabic, idioms already quoted. I shall content myself with citing the authority of some of the most eminent philologers in the Semitic languages of the present age. Michaelis, on more than one occasion, gives this explanation of the phrase, which he considers fully

expression for an accusation, from the winks and nods which might occasionally accompany such an action. Only the imagination of a Hutchinsonian in philology could make this leap.

Gesenius, "Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ,” tomi i. fascic i. Lips. 1829, p. 91.

† No doubt can exist of the literal meaning of the verb, The word is a double

which always means to eat.

corresponding ones,

root; for in Arabic, we have two compressit, whence to press the lips, (Prov. xvi. 30) the eyelids (ib. x. 10.-Ps. xxxv. 9) clay, so as to shape it, (Job. xxxiii. 6.) The other is resecuit, excidit, obsolete in Heb. but found in its derivative y, (Jer. xlvi. 20) and in the Chald. p, a morsel cut out. See Winer's "Lexicon Manuale Hebr. et Chald." Lips. 1828, p. 874. His words will be found in the text,

warranted by the analogy of the Arabic language.* Jahn gives the same as perfectly established.

66

,cum comederent frusta ܕܒܕ ܐܟܠܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܩܪ̈ܨܘܗܝ

seu carnem ejus, i.e. eum accusarent, calumniarentur, Mat. xxvii., 12. Hebræi id exprimunt per , comedit carnem alterius."+

Ammon, the annotator of Ernesti, without any hesitation renders the phrase in the same manner. "Difficilius expediuntur tropi ex translatione rhetorica orti, verbi causa dißoos, Izio\l, comedens carnem."‡

Winer, perhaps, the most complete sacred philologist of the present day, agrees in the same explanation. These are his words: "Hinc tropice, , alicujus frusta comedere; qua phrasi, etiam in Targum, et in N. T. Syriaco frequentata, obtrectatio et calumnia exprimitur. Assimilantur, scilicet, calumniatores, obtrectatores, et sycophantæ canibus rabidis, qui frusta corporibus avulsa avide devorant."§

I will close this list of authorities, by that of

"Beurtheilung der Mittel lie Hebräische Sprache zu verstehen," p. 230, and in his edition of "Castell's Syriac Lexicon." Gotting. 1788, p. 35.

Johannis Jahn "Elementa Aramaicæ seu Chaldæo-Syriaca Linguæ," Vienna, 1820, p. 172.

+ Ernesti, " Institutio interp. N. T.” p. 42.

§ Ubi supra. He repeats his interpretation in another work, as follows: "Die Stücken jem. fressen, d. h. jem. verleumden, denun ciren." Erklärendes Wortregister, in his "Chaldäisches Lesebuch," Leipz. 1825, p. 75.

Gesenius, the most learned Hebrew scholar, and perhaps the most sagacious in penetrating the spirit of the Semitic languages; whenever his peculiarly free doctrines do not prejudice him in his interpretation. Both in his first and second Hebrew Lexicons, he agrees with the interpretation of the philologers whom I have quoted. In his first work he renders the phrase by "to eat pieces of any one, a metaphorical expression, for, to calumniate, to bring to trial:"* In his last work, he repeats his opinion. "Veram formulæ rationem dudum recte intellexit Aben Esra, eum qui clam alterius famam lacerat, instar ejus esse monens, qui carnem ejus arrodit; ac sane non erat, cur alias rationes ingrederentur interpretes, ex parte plane ἀπροσδιονυσους.”

The

The conclusion, from all that I have said, is obvious. Whether we consult the phraseology of Scripture, the spirit and ideas of the Semitic nations, or the current use of the language employed by our Saviour, the expression to eat the flesh of a person, had an established metaphorical meaning. phrase, therefore, could not be used metaphorically, in any other sense; so, that if the hearers found themselves compelled to fly from its literal meaning, and take refuge in a figurative interpretation; so long as they had to interpret words and phrases

"Hebräisches und Chaldäisches Handwörterbuch," zw. ausg. Leipz. 1823, p. 677.

†Thesaurus loc. cit.