Anacalypsis/Volume 1/Book 2/Chapter 2

CHAPTER II.

On THE WORD ALEIM OR JEWISH TRINITY.—SADDAI ADONIS.—TRINITY OF THE RABBIS.—MEANING OF THE WORDS AL AND EL.

1. Perhaps there is no word in any language about which more has been written than the word Aleim; or, as modern Jews corruptly call it, Elohim.[1] But all its difficulties are at once removed by considering it as a representation of the united Godhead, the Trinity in Unity, the three Persons and one God. It is not very unlike the word Septuagint—of which we sometimes say, it gives a word such or such a sense, at other times they give such a sense, &c. A folio would be required to contain all that has been said respecting this word. The author believes that there is no instance in which it is not satisfactorily explained by considering it, as above suggested, as the representation of the Trinity. se

The root אל al, the root of the word Aleim, as a verb, or in its verbal form, means to mediate, to interpose for protection, to preserve;[2] and, as a noun, a mediator, an interposer. In its feminine it has two forms, אלה ale, and אלוה alue. In its plural masculine it makes אלים alim, in its plural feminine אלהים aleim. In forming its plural feminine in ים im, it makes an exception to the general Hebrew rule, which makes the plural masculine in ים im. But though an exception, it is by no means singular. It is like that made by עזים ozim, she-goats, דבים dbim, she-bears, &c.[3] In the second example in its feminine form, it drops the u or vau, according to a common practice of the Hebrew language.

A controversy took place about the middle of the last century between one Dr. Sharpe and several other divines upon the word Aleim. The Doctor was pretty much of my opinion. He says, “If there is no reason to doubt, as I think there is none, that אלה ale and אלוה alue are the same word, only the vau is suppressed in the one, and expressed in the other, why may not אלהים aleim be the plural of one as well as of the other? If it be said it cannot be the plural of אלוה alue, because it is wrote without the vau; I answer, that קרבים qrbim, רחקים rhqim, גברים gbrim, גדלים gdlim, &c., are frequently wrote without the vau: are they not, therefore, the plurals of קרוב qrub,” &c.? Again, he says,

“When, therefore, Mr. Moody tells us that אלהים aleim may be the plural masculine of אלה ale, as אדנים adnim, and אדני adni, are also plurals of אדון adun, Lord, so may אלהים aleim and אלהי alei be plural of אלוה Alue, God.”[4]

In the course of the controversy it seems to be admitted by all parties, that the word has the meaning of mediator or interposer for protection, and this is very important.

T cannot quite agree with Mr. Moody, because, according to the genius of the Hebrew language, it is much more in character for אלהים aleim to be the plural feminine of אלה ale, a feminine noun, than the plural masculine; and for אלים alim to be the plural masculine, of the masculine noun by אל al.

But it does not seem to have ever occurred to any of those gentlemen, that the words in question, אלה ale, or אלוה alue, and אל al, might be one the masculine, and the two others the feminine, of the same word—like God and Goddess. They never seem to have thought that the God of the Hebrews could be of any sex but their own, and, therefore, never once gave a thought to the question. The observation of Mr. Moody is very just, if אלה ale be a masculine noun. But it is much more according to the genius of the language that it should be feminine. If אלה ale be masculine, it is an exception. I beg the reader to observe, that the Arabians, from whose language the word al properly comes, have the word for the Sun, in the feminine, and that for the moon, in the masculine gender; and this accounts for the word being in the feminine plural. From the androgynous character of the Creator, the noun of multitude, Aleim, by which we shall now see that he was described, probably was of the common gender: that is, either of one gender or the other, as it might happen.

From the plural of this word, אל al, was also formed a noun of multitude used in the first verse of Genesis: exactly like our word people, in Latin populus, or our words nation, flock, and congregation. Thus it is said, בארא אלהים bara aleim, Aleim formed the earth; as we say, the nation consumes, a flock strays, or the congregation sings psalms, or a triune divinity, or a trinity blesses or forms. It is used with the emphatic article: “Their cry came up to the Gods,” האלהים e-aleim. In the same way we say, wolves got to the sheep, or the flock, or the congregation sing or sings. Being a noun of multitude, according to the genius of the language, the verb may be either in the singular or plural number.

Parkhurst says, that “the word Al means God, the Heavens, Leaders, Assistance, Defence, and Interposition; or, to interpose for protection.” He adds, “that אלל All, with the ל l doubled, has the meaning, in an excessive degree, of vile, the denouncing of a curse: nought, nothing, res nihili.” Mr. Whiter[5] says, that it has the same meaning in Arabic, and that Al Al, also means Deus optimus maximus. Thus we have the idea of creating, preserving, and destroying.

The meaning of mediator, preserver, or intervener, joined to its character of a noun of multitude, at once identifies it with the Trinity of the Gentiles. Christians will be annoyed to find their God called by the same name with that of the Heathen Gods; but this is only what took place when he was called שדי Sdi, Saddi, Saddim, or אדני adni, Adonai, or Adonis, אדון adun, or בעל bol, Baal: so that there is nothing unusual in this.

The Jews have made out that God is called by upwards of thirty names in the Bible; many of them used by the Gentiles, probably before they fell into idolatry.

The word אל al, meaning preserver; of course, when the words יהוה ה אלהים ieue-e-aleim are used, they mean Ieue the preserver, or the self-existent preserver—the word Ieue, as we shall afterward find, meaning self-existent.

When the אלהים aleim is considered as a noun of multitude, all the difficulties, I think, are removed.

It seems not unlikely that by the different modes of writing the word אל al, a distinction of sexes should originally have been intended to be expressed. The Heathen divinities, Ashtaroth and Baal-zebub, were both called Aleim.[6] And the Venus Aphrodite, Urania, &c., were of both genders. The God Mithra, the Saviour, was both male and female. Several exemplars of him, in his female character, as killing the bull, may be seen in the Townly Collection, in the British Museum. By the word Aleim the Heathen Gods were often meant, but they all resolved themselves at last into the Sun, as triune God, or as emblem of the three powers—the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer—three Persons but one God—he being both male and female. Without doubt Parkhurst and the divines in the controversy with Dr. Sharpe, do not give, till after much research, as meanings of the verb אל al, to mediate, to interpose, or intervene; and of the noun the mediator, interposer, or intervener. But here we evidently have the preserver or saviour. At first it might be expected that the gender of the word Aleim and of the other forms from its root would be determined by the genders of the words which ought to agree with it: but from the extraordinary uncertain state of this language nothing can be deduced from them—as we find nouns feminine and plural joined to verbs masculine and singular (Gen. i. 14); and nouns of multitude, though singular, having a verb plural—and, though feminine, having a verb masculine (Gen. xli. 57). But all this tends, I think, to strengthen an observation I shall have occasion to make hereafter, that the Hebrew language shews many marks of almost primeval rudeness or simplicity; and, that the Aleim, the root whence the Christian Trinity sprung, is the real trinity of the ancients—the old doctrine revived. Nothing could be desired more in favour of my system than that the word Aleim should mean preserver, or intervener, or mediator.

At first it seems very extraordinary that the word אל al or אלה ale, the name of the beneficent Creator, should have the meaning of curse. The difficulty arises from an ill-understood connexion between the Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer—the Creator being the Destroyer, and the Destroyer the Creator. But in this my theory is beautifully supported.

2. It appears that in these old books, God is called by names which are sometimes singular, sometimes plural, sometimes masculine, and sometimes feminine. But though he be occasionally of each gender, for he must be of the masculine or feminine gender, because the old language has no neuter; he is not called by any name which conveys the idea of Goddess or a feminine nature, as separable from himself. My idea is very abstruse and difficult to explain. He is, in fact, in every case Androgynous; for in no case which I have produced is a term used exclusively belonging to one sex or the other. He is never called Baaltes, or Asteroth, or Queen of Heaven. On this subject I shall have much to say hereafter.

Many Christians no doubt, will be much alarmed and shocked at the idea of the word ale being of the feminine gender. But why should not the Hebrew language have a feminine to the word אל al, as the English have a feminine to the word God, in Goddess, or the Romans in the words Deus and Dea? And why should not God be of the feminine gender as easily as of the masculine? Who knows what gender God is of? Who at this day is so foolish as to fancy that God is of any gender? We have seen that all the Gods of the Gentiles were of both genders. We find God called Al, Ale, Alue, Alim, and Aleim—more frequently Aleim than any other name. It must be observed, that God nowhere calls himself by any of those names, as he does by the name יה Ie or Jah, or יהוה Ieue, which is the only name by which he has ever denominated himself. Dr. Shuckford, on Genesis xxvi. 25, makes Ieue,[7] mean Preserver or Mediator.

The God Baal was both masculine and feminine, and the God of the Jews was once called Baal. The learned Kircher[8] says, “Vides igitur dictas Veneris Uraniam, Nephtem, et Momemphitam, nihil aliud esse quam Isidem, quod et vaccæ cultis satis superque demonstrat proprius Isidi certe hanc eandem quoque esse, quæ in historia Thobiæ Dea Baal dicitur quæ vacca colebatur; sic enim habetur, C. i. 5, Ε(Greek characters)νον τῃ Βααλ τῃ δαμαλει. Scilicet faciebant sacra τῃ Βααλ juvencæ seu vaccæ, quod et alio loco videlicet L. iii. Reg. C. xix. ubi Baal legitur feminino genere; Ουκ εκαμψαν γονατα τῃ Βααλ—non incurvaverunt genu Baali. Hesychius autem Βηλ(Greek characters)ης inquit, ἡ Ἡρα ἡ Αφροδιτη, Belthes, Juno sive Venus, est cuicum juvencam sacrificârint Phœnices, veresimile est, eandem esse cum Venere Ægyptia, seu Iside, seu Astarthe Assyriorum, sicut enim Baal est Jupiter, sic Baalis seu Belthis est Juno seu Venus, cui parallela sunt, Adonis seu Thamus, et Venus seu Astaroth; (quorum ille Baal Assyriorum hæc eorum Beltis est;) quibus respondent Osiris et Isis, Jupiter et Juno seu Venus Ægyptiorum; eternum secuti בעל שמים Baal samim est Jupiter Olympius, ita בעלת שמים Baalet samaim est Juno Olympia, scilicet, Domina cœli seu Regina: quemadmodum Jerem. vii. 44, eam vocant Septuaginta Interpretes, quod nomen Isidi et Astarthi et Junoni Venerive proprie convenit: uti ex variis antiquarum inscriptionum monumentis apud Janum Gruterum videre est.[9]

Parkhurst says,[10]But Al or El was the very name the Heathens gave to their God Sol, their Lord or Ruler of the hosts of heaven.

The word Aleim אלהים has been derived from the Arabic word Allah God, by many learned men; but Mr. Bellamy says this cannot be admitted; for the Hebrew is not the derived, but the primitive language. Thus the inquiry into the real origin or meaning of this curious and important word, and of the language altogether, is at once cut short by a dogmatical assertion. This learned Hebraist takes it for granted from his theological dogma, that the two tribes of Israel are the favourites of God, exclusive of the ten other tribes—that the language of the former must be the original of all other languages; and then he makes every thing bend to this dogma. This is the mode which learned Christians generally adopt in their inquiries; and for this reason no dependance can be placed upon them: and this is the reason also why, in their inquiries, they seldom arrive at the truth. The Alah, articulo emphatico alalah (Calassio) of the Arabians, is evidently the אל Al of the Chaldees or Jews; whether one language be derived from the other I shall not give an opinion at present: but Bishop Marsh, no mean authority as all will admit, speaking of the Arabic,[11] says, “Its importance, therefore, to the interpretation of Hebrew is apparent. It serves, indeed, as a key to that language; for it is not only allied to the Hebrew, but is at the same time so copious, as to contain the roots of almost all the words in the Hebrew Bible.” If this be true, it is evident that the Arabian language may be of the greatest use in the translating of the Scriptures; though the Arabian version of them, in consequence of its having been made from the Greek Septuagint or some other Greek version, (if such be the fact,) instead of the original, may be of no great value. And if I understand his Lordship rightly, and it be true, that the Arabic contains the roots of the Hebrew, it must be a more ancient language than the Hebrew. But, after all, if the two languages be dialects of the same, it is nonsense to talk of one being derived from the other.

In the first verse of Genesis the word Aleim is found without any particle before it, and, therefore, ought to be literally translated Gods formed; but in the second chapter of Exodus and 23d verse, the emphatic article ה e is found, and therefore it ought to be translated, that “their cry came up to the Gods,” or the Aleim. In the same manner the first verse of the third chapter ought to have the mountain of the Gods, or of the Aleim, even to Horeb, instead of the mountain of God. Mr. Bellamy has observed that we cannot say Gods he created, but we can say Gods or Aleim created; and the fact, as we see above, of the word Aleim being sometimes preceded by the emphatic article ה e shews, that where it is omitted the English article ought to be omitted, and where it is added the English article ought to be added.

Perhaps the word Septuagint may be more similar to the word Aleim. But if there be no idiom in our language, or the Latin, or the Greek, exactly similar to the Hebrew, this is no way surprising.

3. Persons who have not given much consideration to these subjects will be apt to wonder that any people should be found to offer adoration to the evil principle; but they do not consider that, in all these recondite systems, the evil principle, or the destroyer, or Lord of Death, was at the same time the regenerator. He could not destroy, but to reproduce. And it was probably not till this principle began to be forgotten, that the evil being, per se, arose; for in some nations this effect seems to have taken place. Thus Baal-Zebub is in Iberno Celtic, Baal Lord, and Zab Death, Lord of Death; but he is also called Aleim, the same as the God of the Israelites;[12] and this is right, because he was one of the Trimurti or Trinity.

If I be correct respecting the word Aleim being feminine, we here see the Lord of Death of the feminine gender; but the Goddess Ashtaroth or Astarte, the Eoster of the Germans,[13] was also called Aleim.[14] Here again Aleim is feminine, which shews that I am right in making Aleim the plural feminine. Thus we have distinctly found Aleim the Creator, (Gen. i. 1,) Aleim the Preserver, and Aleim the Destroyer, and this not by inference, but literally expressed. We have also the Apis or Bull of Egypt expressly called Aleim, and its plurality admitted on authority not easily disputed. Aaron says, אלה אלהיך ale aleik, these are thy Aleim who brought thee out of the land of Egypt.[15]

Mr. Maurice says,[16] Moses himself uses this word Elohim, with verbs and adjectives in the plural. Of this usage Dr. Allix enumerates two, among many other glaring instances, that might be brought from the Pentateuch; the former in Genesis xx. 13, Quando errare fecerunt me Deus; the latter in Gen. xxxv. 7, Quia ibi revelati sunt ad eum Deus; and by other writers in various parts of the Old Testament. But particularly he brings in evidence the following texts: Job xxxv. 10; Josh. xxiv. 19; Psa. cxix. 1.

The 26th verse of the first chapter of Genesis completely establishes the plurality of the word Aleim. And then said Aleim, we will make man in our image according to our likeness. To rebut this argument it is said, that this is nothing but a dignified form of speech adopted by all kings in speaking to their subjects, to give themselves dignity and importance, and on this account attributed to God. This is reasoning from effect to cause, instead of from cause to effect. The oriental sovereigns, puffed up with pride and vanity, not only imitated the language of God in the sacred book; but they also went farther, and made their base slaves prostrate themselves before them in the same posture as they used in addressing their God. In this argument God is made to use incorrect language in order that he may imitate and liken himself to the vainest and most contemptible of human beings. We have no knowledge that God ever imitated these wretches; we do know that they affected to imitate and liken themselves to Him. This verse proves his plurality: the next, again, proves his unity: for there the word bara is used—whence it is apparent that the word has both a singular and plural meaning.

On the 22d verse of the third chapter of Genesis, my worthy and excellent old friend, Dr. A. Geddes, Vicar Apostolic of the Roman See in London, says,[17] “Lo! Adam—or man—is become like one of us. If there be any passage in the Old Testament which countenances a plurality of persons in the Godhead; or, to speak more properly, a plurality of Gods, it is this passage. He does not simply say, like us; but like one of us כאחד ממנו. This can hardly be explained as we have explained נעשה Let us make, and I confess it has always appeared to me to imply a plurality of Gods, in some sense or other. It is well known that the Lord or Jehovah, is called in the Hebrew Scriptures, ‘The God of Gods.’ He is also represented as a Sovereign sitting on his throne, attended by all the heavenly host;” in Job called the sons of God. Again he says, “Wherever Jehovah is present, whether on Sinai or Sion, there he is attended by twenty thousand angels, of the Cherubic order. When he appeared to Jacob, at Bethel, he was attended by angels, and again when he wrestled with the same patriarch.”

The first verse of the twelfth chapter of Ecclesiastes is strongly in favour of the plurality of Aleim—Remember thy Creators, not Creator—זבר את בוראיך. But many copies have the word בוראך and others בראך without the י. “But,” as Parkhurst observes, “it is very easy to account for the transcribers dropping the plural י I, in their copies, though very difficult to assign a reason why any of them should insert it, unless they found it in their originals.”[18] The Trinitarian Christians have triumphed greatly over the other Christian sects and the Jews, in consequence of the plurality of the Aleim expressed in the texts cited above. It appears that they have justice on their side.

There would have been no difficulty, with the word Aleim, if some persons had not thought that the plurality of Aleim favoured the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, and others that the contrary effect was to be produced by making Aleim a noun singular. But whatever sect it may favour or oppose, I am clearly of opinion that it conveys the idea of plurality, just as much as the phrase Populus laudavit Deum, or, in English, The Congregation sings.

4. It has already been observed that the God of the Jews was also called by a very remarkable name אל שדי al sdi. The proper name Sdi is constantly translated God Almighty.[19]

In Gen. xlix. 25, שדי Sdi is put for the Almighty, (as it is translated,) not only without the word אל al preceding it, as usual, but in opposition to it.

In Deut. xxxii. 17, the Israelites are said to have sacrificed to שדים sdim and not to אלה ale—as it is translated in our version, “to devils and not to God,” אלהים לא ידעום eos noverunt non diis, to Gods whom they did not know. Here is a marked distinction between the Sadim and the Aleim. Here is Ale in the singular number, God; Aleim in the plural number, Gods: and here is Sadim, the plural number of another name of the Deity, which is both of the masculine and feminine gender.

In Gen. xiv. 3, the kings are said to have combined, “in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea.” This shews that the Gods called Saddai were known and acknowledged, by the Canaanites, before the time of Abraham. This word Siddim is the plural of the word used, in various places, as the name of the true God—both by itself as Saddi and El Saddi. In Exodus vi. 3, the Israelites are ordered to call God Ieue; but before that time he had been only known to their fathers as Al Saddi, God Almighty.

Now, at last, what does this word Sadi, Saddim, or Shaddai, שדי Sdi, really mean? Mr. Parkhurst tells us, it means all-bountiful—the pourer forth of blessings; among the Heathen, the Dea Multimammia; in fact, the Diana of Ephesus, the Urania of Persia, the Jove of Greece, called by Orpheus the mother of the Gods, each male as well as female—the Venus Aphrodite; in short, the genial powers of nature.[20] And I maintain, that it means also the figure which is often found in collections of ancient statues, most beautifully executed, and called the Hermaphrodite. See Gallery of Naples and of Paris.

The God of the Jews is also often known by the name of Adonai אדני.[21] But this is nothing but the God of the Syrians, Adonis or the Sun, the worship of whom is reprobated under the name of Tammuz, in Ezekiel viii. 14.

From these different examples it is evident that the God of the Jews had several names, and that these were often the names of the Heathen Gods also. All this has a strong tendency to shew that the Jewish and Gentile systems were, at the bottom, the same.

Why we call God masculine I know not, nor do I apprehend can any good reason be given. Surely the ancients, who described him as of both genders, or of the doubtful gender, were more reasonable. Here we see that the God of the Jews is called שדי Sdi, and that this Sdi is the Dea Multimammia, who is also in other places made to be the same as the אל al or אלה ale. Therefore it seems to follow, that the Gods of the Israelites and of the Gentiles were in their originals the same. And I think by and by my reader will see evident proof, that the religion of Moses was but a sect of that of the Gentiles; or, if he like it better, that the religion of the Gentiles was but a sect of the religion of Jehovah, Ieue, or of Moses.

It may be here observed that these names of God of two genders are almost all in the old tracts, which I suppose to have been productions of the Buddhists or Brahmins of India, for which I shall give more reasons presently.

5. From what I may call the almost bigoted attachment of the modern Jews to the unity of God, it cannot for a moment be supposed, that they would forge any thing tending to the proof of the Trinity of the Christians; therefore, if we can believe father Kircher, the following fact furnishes a very extraordinary addition to the proofs already given, that the Jews received a trinity like all the other oriental nations. It was the custom among them, to describe their God Jehovah or Ieue, by three jods and a cross in a circle, thus: (symbol characters). Certainly a more striking illustration of the doctrine I have been teaching can scarcely be conceived: and it is very curious that it should be found accompanied with the cross, which the learned father, not understanding, calls the Mazoretic Chametz. This mistake seems to remove all suspicion of Christian forgery; for I can hardly believe that if the Christian priests had forged this symbol, the learned Father would not have availed himself of it to support the adoration of the Cross, as well as of the Trinity. The the jods were also disposed in the form of a crown, thus (symbol characters), to signify the mystical name of Jehovah or Ieue. The reader may refer to the Œdipus Ægyp. Vol. II. Cap. ii. pp. 114, 115, where he will find the authorities at length, and where, among the reasons given by the father to prove the Christian Trinity, is proof enough of that of the Jews. He will find also an observation of Galatinus’s that the three letters יהו ieu were the symbol of Jehovah, an observation made by me in the Celtic Druids,[22] though for a different reason, and accounted for in a different manner; but the fact is admitted. The cross here seems to be united to the Trinity—but more of this hereafter.

Dr. Alix, on Gen. i. 10, says, that the Cabalists constantly added the letter jod, being the first letter of the word Ieue to the word Aleim for the sake of a mystery. The Rabbi Bechai says, it is to shew that there is a divinity in each person included in the word.[23] This is, no doubt, part of the Cabala, or esoteric religion of the Jews. Maimonides says, the vulgar Jews were forbidden to read the history of the creation, for fear it should lead them into idolatry;[24] probably for fear they should worship the Trimurti of India, or the Trinity of Persia. The fear evidently shews, that the fearful persons thought there was a plurality in Genesis.

6. It is a very common practice with the priests not always to translate a word, but sometimes to leave it in the original, and sometimes to translate it as it may suit their purpose: sometimes one, sometimes the other. Thus they use the word Messiah or Anointed as they find it best serves their object. Thus, again, it is with the word El, in numerous places. For instance, in Gen. xxviii. 19, And he called the name of the place Beth-el, instead of he called the place The House of the Sun. The word Beth means House, and El Sun.[25]

“Ai was situated between Bith-Avon (read Bith-On) and Bith-El; and these were temples of the Sun, under his different titles of On and El.”[26]

Speaking of the word Jabneel, Sir W. Drummond says, “El, in the composition of these Canaanite names does not signify Deus but Sol.”[27] This confirms what I have before observed from Parkhurst.

“Thus Kabzeel, literally means The Congregation of the Sun.”[28]

“Messiah-El a manifest corruption of the word Messiah—The Anointed of El, or the Sun.[29]

“Carmel, The Vine of El, or of the Sun.”[30]

“Migdal-El Horem, The Station of the Burning Sun.”[31]

“Amraphel, Ammon, or the Sun in Aries, here denominated Amraphel, Agnus Mirabilis.”[32]

“El-tolad signifies the Sun, or The God of Generation.”[33]

In all the above-named examples the word El ought to be written Al. In the original it is אל Al; and this word means the God Mithra, the Sun, as the Preserver or Saviour.


  1. In the Synagogue copies it is always Aleim.
  2. Parkhurst in voce.
  3. Parkhurst’s Grammar, p. 8.
  4. Sharpe, on Aleim, pp. 179, 180.
  5. Etymol. Univ. Vol. I. p. 512.
  6. Sharpe, p. 224.
  7. Which means self-existent. Vide Celtic Druids, Ch. v. Sect. xxxvii. and xxxviii.
  8. Œd. Æg. Synt. iv. Cap. xiii. Vol. I. p. 319.
  9. Proserpine, in Greek Περσεφονη, was styled by Orpheus, (in his Hymn Εις Περσεφονην,) Ζωη και Θανατος, both Life and Death. He says of her—φερεις γαρ αιει και παντα φονευεις, Thou both producest and destroyest all things. Porphyry and Eusebius say, she said of herself, “I am called of a three-fold nature, and three-headed.” Parkhurst, p. 347.
  10. Lex. p. 20.
  11. Lecture XIV. p. 28.
  12. Sharpe, p. 224.
  13. See Ancient Universal History, Vol. II. pp. 334—346.
  14. Sharpe, p. 224.
  15. Parkhurst, p. 81.
  16. Ind. Ant. Vol. IV. p. 81.
  17. Crit. Rem. Gen. iii., pp. 48, 49.
  18. Parkhurst, Lex. p. 82.
  19. Gen. xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, xliii. 14, xlviii. 3; Exod. vi. 3.
  20. Parkhurst, Lex. pp. 720, 721.
  21. Vide Parkhurst, p. 141 and p. 788.
  22. Ch. v. Sect. xxxviii.
  23. Maur. Ind. Ant. Vol. IV. p. 86.
  24. Ibid. p. 89.
  25. See Œdip. Jud. p. 250.
  26. Ibid. p. 221.
  27. Ibid. p. 270.
  28. Ibid. p. 272.
  29. Ibid. p. 280.
  30. Ibid. p. 334.
  31. Ibid. 338.
  32. Ibid. p. 76.
  33. Ibid. p. 286.