PROOFS THAT THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS EXCAVATED A NAVIGABLE CANAL

FROM THE NILE TO THE RED SEA, AND THAT THE NAVIGATION OF THIS CANAL WAS THE ONLY ROUTE WHEREBY THE MERCHANT FLEET OF SOLOMON COULD SAIL FROM EZION-GEBER TO TARSHISH, AND FROM TARSHISH TO EZION-GEBER EVERY THREE YEARS.

THE larger portion of the treasures of gold and silver amassed by Solomon was imported into Palestine by his two fleets, built at Ezion-geber on the Red Sea. One fleet navigated the length of the Red Sea and of the Persian Gulf, sailing round the peninsula of Arabia, and coasting and trafficking with the entire sea-shore of the kingdom of the Queen of Sheba. This fleet imported the greatest part of the gold, also almug-trees and precious stones. Whether this fleet traded as far as Hindostan writers are not agreed. To the best of my knowledge no PROOF has ever been adduced that the mercantile marine of Solomon ever traded with India, or that the wise and royal author of Ecclesiastes had any DIRECT communication with any country or people eastward of the river Indus. The other fleet 'WENT TO TARSHISH' (2 Chron. ix. 21), and is therefore called 'A NAVY OF TARSHISH' (1 Kings x. 22), and brought back triennially a freight of 'gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks,' I prefer to render 'GOLD, SILVER, ELEPHANTS' TEETH, TRUNKS OF TREES, AND MASTS FOR SHIPS.' The commodities represented by the two last nouns were constituent parts of the freight or cargo imported into Ezion-geber by the Tarshish fleet. Apes and peacocks, if SOMETIMES brought for amusement or exhibition, could scarcely be designated part of the triennial freight. A writer of the past generation shrewdly asks: Would Solomon's dealing in such commodities have been any proof of his wisdom?' We would also remark, that gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks were not of bulk sufficient for the freight of a single ship, much less of this NAVY OF TARSHISH. Lexicographers have concocted derivations of these two words from the languages of India, languages altogether unknown to Solomon. These terms occur only in Kings and Chronicles, and are confessedly and by universal consent foreign nouns embodied in the Hebrew Scriptures. Both nouns occur in Coptic, which was both the mother tongue of the daughter of Pharaoh, the first wife of

King Solomon, and the language of Lower Egypt, traversed by this Tarshish fleet. They exactly correspond with the Hebrew terms in Kings and Chronicles. The former noun will be found in page 114 of the Coptic Lexicon of La Croze and Scholtz, edited by Woide, namely, ‘XMI, OTEλEXOS, ARBOR TRUNCUS CAUDEX,' and in page 272 of the Coptic Lexicon of Peyron, where it is rendered πvėμŋv, RAMUS, PALMES, σTEλEXos, TRUNCUS.' The second noun occurs in page 25 of the Coptic Lexicon of La Croze and Scholtz, namely, 'OUR, MALUS, ARBOR NAVIS,' and in page 51 of the Coptic Lexicon of Peyron, where it is rendered 'MALUS NAVIS.'

I could have wished to corroborate the meaning of these two Coptic terms by reference to the dialect of Upper Egypt, but a good Sahidic lexicon is yet a desideratum. Dr. Ford, Principal of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, whilst editing the remains of the Sahidic New Testament, prepared a Sahidic lexicon for the press, and showed it to me a few weeks before his decease, stating his intention to publish it, and also a Sahidic version of Job. After the death of Dr. Ford, I called on his son Frederick Ford, Esq., but could obtain no information respecting this manuscript. The disappearance of this Sahidic lexicon is an irreparable loss to Oriental literature. This manuscript Sahidic lexicon filled a quarto book about the size of the Arabic Grammar of Erpenius, edited by Golius. It was most carefully written. Whilst I was turning over its pages Dr. Ford stated that it was quite ready for the press, and that on receipt of letters he expected from Germany, he meant to publish both this Sahidic lexicon and the Sahidic version of Job. The next intelligence I received of Dr. Ford was the announcement of his decease. This did not surprise me, as when I called he received me in his study, in his dressing-gown and slippers, being æger. Never will be erased from my memory his condescending kindness in so freely conversing with me, then an undergraduate, on Oriental literature, and showing me his literary treasures, especially the subscription copy of Walton's Polyglott, formerly belonging to Bishop Butler.

Prime mast-timber was more essential to ancient than to modern ships. Ancient ships, even carrying 600 men, were almost entirely propelled by one large square sail suspended on one mast. As the strain of the mast on the hull rendered it necessary to frap or undergird, and ropes for frapping were an essential part of the ship's gear, so the strain of the huge square sail on the mast required the choicest and toughest wood for the mast. The import of mast-timber into Eziongeber would be far less expensive than the land-carriage of trees from Lebanon to Ezion-geber. If it be objected to this proposed rendering from the Coptic, that the ancient versions and our authorized version concur, we reply, that no writer has ever followed implicitly and in all things the ancient versions. Do not the ancient versions designate Solomon A PREACHER, who never preached one sermon in all his life?

The supposition of a Tarshish in the Indian Ocean is a myth. No Tarshish in the Indian Ocean is recorded in any history, sacred or profane, nor is there any historic mention of ships having been built by King Solomon on the shores of the