Dec.4] PROCEEDINGS. [189+-REMARKS.
My venerable critic (mayhe long continueto take interestin
our Proceedings) is quite right in assuming that my paper was
' mainly occupied in disproving the identity of Tarshish and
Tartessus,'and he adds, "mostof his scripture quotationsgo to prove
this,but do not apply to Tarsus." I certainly had no intention of
arguingagainstTarsus,becauseI thought scholarshadalreadyseen
a sufficiently peremptoryreasonfor putting asidethis hypothesis.
Theidentification of Tarshish withTarsusis held to be philo-
logicallyuntenable.
Theseconds in Tarsus is not a radical like the UJ in Tarshish,
but the mere Greek termination of the nominative case. The
Semiticformof the name is T-in, whetherin Phenician coinsor in
an Assyrian inscriptionof Shalmaneser II. Andif the name be a
Semiticone it has a different meaning (firmness) from that of
Tarshish(breakage).
WhenMr.Ainsworthsaysthat" many authoritieshaveidentified
Tarshishwith Tarsus,"I fear that I may havegivenoccasionto
thismistake by speaking of "some later Jewish and Christian
authorities." Theword authorities is wrongly used. Notoneof
the authors I meant couldon this subject havehad any information
whichwe do not possess. Longbefore the time of Josephus all
authenticknowledgeaboutit had perished.
If (per impossible)the philological difficultycouldbe got over,
we should still require historical evidenceshowing thatpreviousto
its Greek periodthe commerce of Tarsus (whichwas not a seaport)
wasat all remarkable. Historyknows nothing whatever of the
" ever-enduringcommerceand civilisingimportanceof the city." Nor
will either historyor biblical exegeticsbe satisfied withthe statement
thatTyrewas called " the daughter of Tarshish " (= Tarsus) " since
her ships camefromthence,"untilsomeevidenceis given thatsuch
reallywas the case.
P. le P. Renouk.
307 2 c