the meaning of θερος αρης, and μνησασθε δε περιδος αλκης, which occur so often in Homer: and we may learn from it, that the meaning of the word Arioch is Ouc Ares," the mighty lion;" or, according to the later acceptation of it, "the great god of "war.'

There is a passage in Diodorus 26 Siculus, which relates to this war; but is mentioned in a very confused manner. He makes Ninus very truly the invader of the Babylonians, but joins him with the Arabians, whose king he calls Ariaus: by which means he has perplexed both the time and order of history. Ariaus, or, as he is otherwise called, Arius was certainly an Assyrian; and a successor of Ninus: and the Arabians were the very people, that the Assyrians attacked. The king of Babylonia was of the posterity of Nimbrod and Cush, the great heads of the people called afterwards Arabians for as yet there was hardly any nation of that name: and if there were, yet it is scarce credible, that they should be engaged against their own people, and in alliance with their enemy the Assyrian. When therefore it is mentioned by Diodorus, that Ninus marched to Babylonia, να έυοντα των Αραίων παραλαβων, “ taking with him "the king of the Arabians;" it should be corrected from Eupolemus before quoted, and the true

26 Diodorus Sic. lib. 2. pag. 64.

τον δυο

reading will be found των Αραμων, “ being joined by "the king of Aram," his neighbour and natural ally. In like manner, instead of Agalias 27 in another place, the word Agapias should be substituted; which was doubtless the reading that occurred in the original history, from whence that of Diodorus was copied. The Greeks knew nothing of Aram or Aramia; and therefore altered to Arabian and Arabia, what came under that article. But the true reading, I think, may be proved, both from the tenor of the Scripture history, and from the evidence of Eupolemus. Tidal is by the Greek Scholiast called βασιλευς Παμφυλίας, and in the Samaritan, the king of the Chammin: but in the original, "Tidal king of nations." This seems to be a Hebrew expression, analogous to that of Isaiah, where the country above Jordan is called "Galilee of the nations." It is quoted by St. Matthew : 39 Τη Ζαβέλων και γη Νεφθαλείμ, ὁδου θα λάσσης, πέραν το Ιορδανε, Γαλιλαία των εθνών, by some interpreted, Galilæa populosa. It was indeed populous; but that is not the circumstance intimated here and it is more properly rendered in the English version, "Galilee of the Gentiles." It was more mixed with foreigners and aliens, than

28

27 Diodorus Sic. lib. 2. pag. 64.

28 Chap. 9. v. 1.

29 Chap. 4. v. 15.

the other parts of the Jewish territories: and seems on that account to have been abhorred by those of Jerusalem, who would not allow any good thing to proceed from it. 30 Search and look: for out of *Galilee ariseth no prophet." Josephus speaking of upper and lower Galilee says, that they were surrounded with strange tribes and nations; "DVEσIV 37 εθνεσιν αλλοφύλοις κεκυκλωμεναι. But this was not all: they were certainly mixed with them; as was likewise Cæsarea, though not in Galilee. The first occasion of the war with the Romans arose from a quarrel between the Syrians and Jews of that place. It was upon the same account that Galilee was called by the like title in Maccabees; "ETIσυνήχθαι ἐπ' αυτες εκ Πτολεμαΐδος και Τυρε και Σίδωνος και πάσης Γαλιλαιας αλλοφύλων : in our translationThey of Ptolemaïs, and of Tyrus, and Sidon, " and all Galilee of the Gentiles." In consequence of this mixture the people of these parts were to be distinguished by their manner of speaking, either the tone or dialect. The man in the Gospel says to St. Peter, 34 xa yag гaλıλaios εi, nai και Γαλιλαιος και ἡ λαλια σε ὁμοιάζει. I have dwelt upon these circumstances; because some persons, among whom

30 John. 7. v. 52.

31 Joseph. de Bell: Jud. lib. 3. cap. 3.

32 Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 13.

33 1 Maccab. 5. v. 15.

34 Mark. 14. v. 70.

is the learned Grotius, have imagined that Tidal was king of Galilee, merely from his being termed

king of nations." He must at this rate have been a Canaanite, and at the same time warred upon the Canaanites, in confederacy with princes of another race: which is not probable. But there is not the least ground for the supposition. He was king of Aram: and his kingdom, or at least his army, did not consist of one people or family, like that of Elam or Ashur; but was made up of different tribes. Some of them possibly were of the sons of Japhet, of the race of Tubal and Meshech, called afterwards the Moschi and Tibareni; who bordered upon the sons of Aram, and might be confederate with them. The mixture of nations in Galilee was in consequence of the captivity of the ten tribes; and the captivity of Judah afterwards. It began then to admit foreigners: but in the days of Tidal it was occupied by the Canaanite, and uniformly peopled.

OF

THE DEPARTURE

OF THE

FIRST SHEPHERDS FROM EGYPT,

AND OF

THE AMALEKITES.

WE are informed by Manetho, that after a long series of tyranny and oppression the Cuseans were at last opposed by the joint forces of Egypt, and were forced to retreat before them. They were first discomfited by king Misphragmuthosis, and driven to their city Avaris: where they were beleaguered by Amosis or Thummosis, the son of the former prince; who streightened them very much. This place, where they were shut up, is said to have been 10000 arouras in circumference: which

According to Strabo, vol. 2. pag. 1136. Egypt was divided into provinces, toparchies, and other smaller portions, of which the aroura was the least. It was a square of 100 Egyptian cubits; and contained 33269.76 English square feet. Herodotus, lib. 2. cap. 168. says, that the Calasirian soldiers had each alVOL. VI.

P