reality, nor preclude the identifying it with some place formerly known, or hereafter to be known, by that name.

*

[i.] Suppose, then, that the town is meant. This is always in the historical parts of the Old Testament writings without a final n—thus, 1722, (Josh. xii. 21; xvii. 11; Judges v. 19; 1 Kings ix. 15; 2 Kings ix. 27; 2 Chron. xxxv. 22); once in a prophetical passage with an n (Zech. xii. 11). The Septuagint sometimes write it with a final n, mostly not so. They always double the d, except in one passage (1 Kings ix. 15), where they write it Maydw. The Hebrew Scriptures always speak either of "Megiddo" simply, or of "the valley of Megiddo," or "the waters of Megiddo." They never use the expression, the city of Megiddo." Megiddo was, however, the chief city of a small district (Josh. xvii. 11). It may possibly be, then, that the great final war between Christ and His people on the one hand, and those who oppose Him and the truth on the other, may be called "the war of Armageddon" from this town, celebrated for the two great and decisive battles which ended, the one in the victory of some of the northern tribes of Israel under Deborah over the troops of Jabin, king of Canaan, commanded by his celebrated general, Sisera, and the other in the defeat of Judah under good King Josiah. At the same time, in human histories, though a treaty may be called after the name of a town where it was signed, and a battle from the name of even a small village, or town, near which it was fought, a war seldom, if ever, receives its designation from so limited and inconsiderable a field, or rather locality; though it may from the capital or name of a country, eg, "the Carthaginian war." In the prophet Joel, the great decisive and final contest and slaughter are connected with "the valley of Jehoshaphat." There is no valley in the Holy Land which bears that name in the Old Testament, nor any in Josephus. The name may possibly have reference to its meaning "in the Hebrew tongue," i.e., "the valley of Jehovah's judgment;" or it may mean some valley in the wilderness of Tekoah, which was the scene of Jehoshaphat's great victory. It can hardly mean the valley of the Kedron, to which it has been applied, and that generally in comparatively modern times, but without sufficient authority. This has probably arisen from an idea

* It may not be without importance to remark, that where the received text in Matt. xv. 39, has “Magdala,” N, B, and D (A does not contain this part of Matthew) have Mayadav; Syriac, Magedun; and Vulgate, Magedan. And in the present text of the parallel narrative in Mark viii. 10, we find "the parts of Dalmanutha," though in the time of Eusebius and Jerome the two were in agreement, as Matthew still is in D.-Smith's Dictionary of the Bible.

that the great final contest for Jerusalem will take place in the most conspicuous and well-known valley in its immediate neighbourhood. It may derive some countenance from passages in other prophets, viz., Isa. xxx. 33; Jer. vii. 32, for "the valley of the son of Hinnom " is a branch of the valley of the Kedron; but, on the other hand, it has been observed, that the valley, or ravine, of the Kedron is always called in the Old Testament a ; whereas the term Joel used is pay. The valley of Jezreel is designated by the latter term, but the valley of Megiddo, or great plain of Esdraelon, by the word yp, from "to cleave," a word employed to denote a vast broad valley arising from a very deep and extensive cleft in the crust of the earth, such as the valley of the Euphrates.

בקע

[ii.] Are we to seek for the meaning of the word Mageddon in the Hebrew tongue, which alternative, as it should seem, is certainly to be preferred? If so, what is the meaning? Whether we read the Greek word with one d, or two, (1st.) wv must be a termination; 2d. The root must be T. (1.) That wv is a termination, after the manner of our ion, ing, ness, or Lat. tio, or Greek opos, &c., is manifest from the common occurrence of such a termination in Hebrew, and from the fact that Hebrew roots are for the most part of three letters. Thus we have any "to barter," "to give in pledge," y "a pledge; "to be pure," "the being pure," "purity;" "to be delighted,"

the " תיכון ,to divide ** תוך ";the being delighted" רצון

we מגד c. Thus from& שכרון שכר from ; שגעון שגע from

being in the middle;" and so from na, na (σaßßaтioμos);

should have 22. (2.) Grotius, Vitringa, Fuerst, and others after them, would have the root to be 77, the being derived from a participle of the verb, and would make the meaning to be" the mountain of decision" or " of destruction." But against this stands the stubborn and undeniable fact, that of all the words in the Hebrew language with a termination 7, to the number of about sixty, exclusive of proper names (and on the supposition now before us 777 would not be such), and of many others with the same termination, which are proper names of places, there is not a single one which is of a participial form, not one with a prefixed to the root. All, without exception, are formed directly from the root. Hence in that part of the question now to be inquired into, the root can be none other than 722. But if so, what is the meaning? Though the verb itself does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, more than one derivative from it does, Moreover, in Arabic it does occur, and means "to excel in honour," or "in glory;" and the Arabic substantive from it means "nobility," "honour," "glory."

Gesenius says he has no doubt but that it is the same word as

(m and n being often interchanged), and that it is connected with another Arabic word "to be chief," or "noble ;" and so we have in Hebrew 7, "a prince." We must not, however, altogether ignore the fact that, according to the Masoretic points, the analogy of Hebrew verbals in 7 offers some little difficulty, as regards the vowels supplied, in order to form Magedon, or Mageddon. Many Hebrew words with this termination are from verbs with a feeble third letter. We will put these aside, as not offering a strict analogy with, which has not. The greater number of verbals in 71 from roots without this feeble radical take, in the Masoretic pointing an i under the first radical, and a long a under the second, which second radical is then doubled, e.g., pikkadōn, shibbaron, &c. Those with an r for second radical are of the same form, only that the i is replaced as usual by a long e, because the r cannot be doubled in Hebrew, e.g., yērākōn. A second class take the very short e, or half-vowel sheva, under the first radical, and a long a under the second, as peragōn, Lebanon. Feeble and guttural radicals make a slight change here, as and Abaddōn, in which last example the A is radical, and the third radical is doubled, as in Mageddon; but this is, I believe, the only example of the doubling of the third radical, and it arises perhaps in this case from the fact that the first radical is a feeble letter; I say, perhaps, not certainly, as will be seen by subsequent examples with the same letter. A third class are dissyllables, as agmōn, almon (where the a is radical), shalmōn, chishrōn, &c., the second radical taking a silent sheva. A fourth class take a short a in the first syllable, and double the second radical. I know, however, but of one example, shabbathon, where the a of the first syllable may possibly spring from the existence, and very frequent occurrence of the word "Sabbath." Thus it will be seen that the vowels supplied in Magedon, or Mageddon, if the word is derived from T2, are not altogether according to the common analogy of the Masoretic points. But it must be remembered, on the other hand, that the vowels thus supplied in Hebrew verbals do not form part of the original text. They were no doubt according to the use and tradition of the period at which they were added, but this was probably not until after St John's time.* There is demonstrable proof of two things. First, That in the transition from Hebrew to Greek, and so with other languages, the vowels are often changed, more frequently than the con

* Gesenius says that "Historical facts warrant the conclusion that the present vowel system was not completed till the seventh century of the Christian Era."

sonants. Thus, while in i, Lebanon, they are the same, in ni, Aßavos, they differ. In the following proper names i o the Masoretic pointing is changed to alpha or epsilon in the Septuagint: Emmanuel, Maria (Miriam), Samson, Kedron, Rebecca, Zedekiah. . In these others, simple or compound sheva becomes omicron : Sodom, Gomorrha, Roboam (Rehoboam). In these again, a simple sheva or a longer e becomes in Greek alpha: Mathusela (Methuselah), Manasseh, Salomon (Solomon), Jared, Nathanael, Akaron (Ekron), Kamuel (Kemuel), and so in the words πασχα, μα χειρα. In the following various changes occur:-Abdias (Obadiah), o to alpha; Molech, e to omicron; Melchisedec, a to epsilon; Phulisteim, sheva to upsilon, in Josephus, Palaistinai, modern Palestine, Philistia; Persis, long broad a to epsilon; Sumeon (Simeon) i to upsilon.* Examples might be multiplied to almost any extent. It should be added that of roots with verbals in there are hardly a dozen in the whole Hebrew language which have three letters all different, and none of them feeble or guttural. But, secondly, what is of far more importance is this, that while the Masoretic points have faithfully stereotyped the pronunciation and the rules which guided in this matter the school by which they were added to the text, and perhaps the pronunciation of the greater number of Jews of that day, the Septuagint is conclusive evidence that the Jews who made that translation read the text in numerous instances with very different vowels from those of the Masorites. This is evident even in many passages which do not contain proper names, and in the case of proper names is notorious. Even their Μαγεδδω, Μαγδο, Μαγεδδων is an example. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible" will furnish the reader with others in profusion. It might be replied that the era of the Masorites was nearer to St John's time than the era of the Septuagint translators. Even that, however, is exceedingly doubtful. But, on the other hand, we may return to what was said at the opening of this branch of our inquiry. If the meaning of Magedon, or Mageddon, is to be sought "in the Hebrew tongue"-and it is on that supposition that we are now reasoning-there can be little, or rather no manner of doubt that it is a verbal in 7 from the root ; and the question of the vowel points in one of comparative insignificance, the more so when we consider the multiform changes to which vowels are subject, not only at various epochs of a language, but especially in the passage of words from one language to another.

[C] Thus, from what has been said, it appears, 1st, That

"The Septuagint expresses vocal sheva by e, even 7, often by a, but very often they give it a sound to accord with the following vowel."—Gesen. Gr.

some

Magedon, or Mageddon, would certainly be represented in Hebrew without points by 17; 2d, That if the meaning of this is sought "in the Hebrew tongue," it must be considered as a verbal from 7; and 3d, That in Greek it may be represented by σεβασμιοτης, and Armageddon by πολις σεβασμιοτητος, οι Σεβαστοπολις. By this I would not understand the well-known modern Sebastopol (though some have laid stress on the fact at the time of the Crimean War that there was a place bearing the name of Armageddon in the neighbourhood of that now celebrated fortress), but the city, which bore the same name, Constantinople, ZeßaoTos being the Greek equivalent for the Imperial name, Augustus. But let us return to our word, and its derivatives, and the Scriptural use of the latter. First, we have, which Gesenius renders thing very precious," or "very noble," Deut. xxxiii. 13. "And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the Lord be his land for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and for the precious things brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon [or rather "in the several months," or "month by month," the word being plural in the Hebrew]; and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills; and for the precious things of the earth, and the fulness thereof." Cant. iv. 13, "Most precious fruits;" iv. 16, “Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant (or most precious) fruits;" vii. 12, "Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine flourish, whether the tender grape appear, and the pomegranates bud forth. . . . At our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits (or things), new and old." Secondly, Again, we have from the same root : Gen. xxiv. 53, “The servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave (them) to Rebecca; he gave also to her mother and her brother precious things;" 2 Chron. xxi. 3, "Their father gave them great gifts of silver, and of gold, and of precious things;" xxxii. 23, "And many brought gifts to the Lord, and precious things to Hezekiah;" Ezra i. 6, " And all they that were about them strengthened their hands with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, and with beasts, and with precious things."

Now, compare with these passages Gibbon's descriptions of Constantinople, and its port, as the place selected by Constantine on account of its numerous natural advantages for New Rome: :—chap. xvii.—"The Golden Horn:" "The epithet 'golden' was expressive of the riches which every wind wafted from the most distant countries into the secure and spacious port."