all this positive evidence on one side Bochart has nothing to oppose but the doubts and scruples of " Strabo, who was not quite satisfied, whether the antient Tyrians were not a colony from Greece.

20 66

In another place Bochart puts a question to this purport: Why it happens, if the Phenicians were the descendants of Canaan, that the Greek writers never speak of them as such; nor call them by this family name? To which Bochart returns no very satisfactory answer. Respondebo Chananæos "puduisse sui nominis, et desiisse sic appellari, "propter anathema contortum in patrem suum "Chanaan." Whence does the learned Bochart obtain this knowledge? how was it possible for him to arrive at it, if it were true? But it is certainly a most improbable notion. All nations, but the Israelites, were in great uncertainty about their original and there is no more reason to think that the Canaanites were acquainted with the true history of Ham and Canaan, than the Ionians and Greeks were with that of Javan and Elisha. Be

Red Sea, &c. first ventured upon long voyages. This makes a wide difference in the narration. This latter part is no more an history borrowed from Persia, than the stories of Io, and Europa are, which are joined with it, and are mentioned in the same account. Bochart supra. See Herodotus. lib. 1. at the beginning.

19 Strabo. lib. 1. pag. 73.

20 Geogr. Sacr. pars prior. lib. 4. cap. 34.

sides, how strange it is to suppose, that they should admit this gentile name from the general dispersion of mankind; that is, at least for twelve or fourteen hundred years; and then in the time of the Greeks become of a sudden ashamed of it, and lay it aside! It would certainly have been an unnecessary precaution, at whatever time their acquaintance commenced for the Greeks, if it had been continued, would have been never the wiser; nor have found out the history annexed to it. It was an account, I believe, too antient for the natives themselves to have been acquainted with. They looked up to

Belus and Chronus for their ancestors: and held Qgus and other "heroes for their founders, of a very uncertain original; their notions not being uniform. For they were a trading people, and the Tyrians particularly a mixed multitude. The trade of this place, as well as government, was at last engrossed by the sons of Edom, who were called Phoinic, and entailed that name upon the country.

That I may complete this argument, I beg to know, if the Canaanites were ab origine Pheni

δε

21 Such as Demaroun and Melicarthus. To de Anμagurti YiVETAI Meλinaglos, o nas Heanλns. Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. Eusebius mentions likewise one Dasanaus, Chron. Canon. interprete Hieron. ad num. CCCCXCVIII. which seems to be the same name as the Dorsanes of Hesychius. Δορσανης, ὁ Ἡρακλης Tag Ivdors. See Vossius de Orig. et Progr. Idololatr. lib. 1. cap. 22.

22

cians, how it comes to pass, that the sacred writers are silent on this head, who are so particular about the history and original of the sons of Canaan? And as they are silent in respect to this piece of history, I should be glad to be informed, whence the learned Bochart gets his intelligence? The same demand may be made upon bishop " Cumberland; who takes this point for granted, and in consequence of it makes the Shepherds, who invaded Egypt, Canaanites; and builds largely upon this notion. The greatest part of the country of Canaan was seized upon by the Israelites, and the natives almost extirpated. Those, who remained

22 It is true, in the remains of Sanchoniatho we are told, that Chnaa, or Canaan, was the father of Phoinix or the Phenician. But it must be considered, that these are not the real words of this writer, but a Greek version: where the translator, instead of the word Canaanite, which was not familiar to him, has substituted a name with which he was better acquainted. It cannot possibly be supposed that Sanchoniatho, when he speaks of Canaan, who was the true father of the Canaanite, and where he must naturally allude to the patronymic, should go wide of the `mark, and term him the father of the Phenician: even if we suppose the two names to relate to the same people; which they certainly did not. The sons of Canaan are enumerated in Genesis chap. 10. v. 15. according to their families; and no such name as Phenix or Phenician occurs. Stephanus Byzantinus mentions the same circumstance, that we find in Sanchoniatho; but introduces it with a proper limitation: Χνα· όντως ἡ Φοινικη εκαλείτο, Το εθνικόν ταύτης Χναος. This in some degree may be accepted as

true.

to the north, were subdued by the king of Damascus, and other Syrian princes; and the sea coasts were occupied by the sons of Edom, as I have shewn. The Jews to the last called that part of the country, which they did not possess, Canaan; and the people are sometimes termed Canaanites. Thus St. Matthew mentions 23❝a wo

man of Canaan, who cried unto Jesus." But when we come to inquire farther, we find by St. Mark, that "the woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation:" so that she had not the least tincture of the antient Canaanitish blood; but was merely an inhabitant of the country. And although the Apostles do still make mention of the land of Canaan, yet they seem industriously to distinguish the coast of Tyre and Sidon from it: which they call "Phenice. We may therefore rest assured, that the Phenicians were not Canaanites. I may be asked in my turn, if the Phenicians were from Edom, how it comes to pass, that the sacred writers never take notice of this circumstance, nor mention them by either of those names? The an

23 Chap. 15. v. 22.

νισσα τῳ γενει.

Mark 7. v. 26. Γυνη Ελληνις, Συροφορώ

24 Acts. 11. v. 19. Chap. 15. v. 3. Chap. 21. v. 2, §. Και ένξοντες πλοιον διαφέρων εις Φοινίκην, επιβαντες ανήχθημεν. Αναφα νεντες δε την Κύπρον, και καταλιποντες αυτήν ευωνυμον, επλεομεν εἰς Συρίαν, και κατηχθημεν εις ΤΥΡΟΝ. The sea coast only was Phenicia; the rest was Canaan.

swer in this place is obvious. The name Poinic, from whence came the word puniceus of the Romans, the Dog of the Greeks, and the name of the Carthaginians Panic, was not the original name of this people, but Edom; in the room of which the former was substituted, being a word of the same purport. This however was not the term, which the sacred writers were used to: had they called this people by their family name, it would have been Edomites. But this would have been accompanied with some ambiguity; as there would have been two nations of the same name: and with some impropriety; as they were not of that country, though in great measure of the same lineage. They therefore call them always the Tyrians, and the Sidonians; which was the strict truth, and attended with no uncertainty. As to the silence of the Scriptures concerning this people coming originally from Edom; it amounts to nothing. The Scriptures are never fraught with unnecessary truths; 25 had it been a circumstance at all necessary to have been made known, and of consequence in the Jewish history; it would certainly have been transmitted to us.

25 The history of Canaan was very much connected with the history of the Israelites: but that of the Phenicians had not the same relation; nor was it so necessary to be explained.