De Moor VIII:28: The Fifth Day, Part 2

Whether the Phœnix is also among the Birds, etc.  All things that are related concerning the Phœnix, and are able to make for the admission of a bird of this sort in the nature of things, have been collected by BOCHART, the greatest in this class of studies, according to his incomparable erudition; but he also at the same time took pains, that he might explode these little narratives as fabulous, Hierozoico, part II, book VI, chapter V, whom I wish to be consulted, together with VOETIUS being of the same opinion, Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 723, 724; and also JOHANN HEINRICH HOTTINGER,[1] Examino Historiæ Creationis, chapter VI, question 84 C, pages 235, 236.  The great SPANHEIM, Oratione XI Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Antiquitatum, opera, tome 2, column 1441, also judges, that the Phœnix does not exist in the nature of things, but is a hieroglyphic, devised aptly to express other things that do truly exist.  ALPHONSUS DES VIGNOLES, Chronologia Sacra, tome 2, book VI, chapter IV, § 6, pages 671-675, specifically contends, that those things that are fabulously related concerning the Phœnix were to the Egyptians hieroglyphic of the great Canicular[2] Cycles of one thousand, four hundred and sixty-one years.  Some of the Fathers admitted the truth concerning the history of the Phœnix, so that in this example they might find an argument to confirm the Resurrection of the dead.  Hence PATRICIUS JUNIUS, in his notes on 1 Clement 25,[3] although he acknowledges certain things related concerning the Phœnix to be uncertain, admits, that he does not doubt that there is a bird of this sort, which is renewed by a re-used humor of its flesh, and rises from its own pyre, and is the heir of its own body, and the offspring of its own ash.  Our AUTHOR also does not deny, that many fabulous and Hieroglyphic things are related concerning the Phœnix, whither he refers its Absolute Singularity.  Inasmuch as things that are narrated concerning its age, which some relate to rise to five hundred years, others to a thousand, and yet others even extend them further, are not able to be true at the same time:  while JARCHI on Job 29:18 ascribes immortality to this Bird, writing, that to this bird death is not imposed for punishment, because it did not eat of the tree of knowledge; but that at the end of a thousand years it it renewed and returns to its youth.  Moreover, our AUTHOR does not believe it to be absolutely repugnant, that there is a Bird of this name, quite rare, of especially great age, and at length being born from seed introduced in ashes.  Others relate, that from the ashes of the Phœnix a worm is born, and from this worm the bird is reborn anew.  And to this Bird our AUTHOR also thinks the passage to have regard, not Psalm 92:12, where it is to be understood of the Palm tree, which the Septuagint has as δίκαιος ὡς φοῖνιξ ἀνθήσει, the righteous shall flourish like the Phœnix/ palm,[4] just as in the Hebrew text it is ‎כַּתָּמָר, like the palm tree:  but in Job 29:18, ‎וְ֜כַח֗וֹל אַרְבֶּ֥ה יָמִֽים׃, and like the sand I shall multiply my days, where again the Greek have regard to the great longevity of the Palm tree, having in their Version, ὥσπερ στέλεχος φοίνικος, like the trunk of the Phœnix/ palm; which the Vulgate follows, reading, sicut palma multiplicabo dies, like the palm I shall multiply my days:  but according to the Hebrew verity the text is to be rendered, either after the likeness of sand I shall multiply my days, or after the likeness of the Phœnix I shall multiply my days.  Many more recent men, following the Syriac, choose the former; our AUTHOR prefers the latter, 1.  Because he believes that it is too hyperbolic, to compare even the most lengthened days of life with the altogether innumerable sand of the sea.  2.  Because it is not treated here simply of multitude, but of multitude of days, or a lengthy life, for the indication of which a living animal makes, more than the mass of sand without life; especially when here in the text ‎כַחוֹל is set before the assertion, and the language of the multiplication of days is subjoined, which ‎כַחוֹל in that is therefore to be understood before anything else:  just as ‎חוֹל multiplies days, I will multiply days.  3.  Because, if we wish both members of this verse to cohere aptly with each other, the immediately preceding mention of a nest, having regard to Birds, and of exspiring either with it, or in the midst of it, or in it, has no regard to Sand, but great regard to the Phœnix.  However, that, from this mention of the Phœnix in Job, a demonstrative argument for its existence is not yet formed, our AUTHOR acknowledges; since also from the fabulous or hieroglyphic tradition scattered among various nations Job could have summoned the proverb, in the same way as the Greeks and the Latins, who with Lucian[5] say φοίνικος ἔτη βιοῦν, to live the years of the Phœnix, and seek other sayings from the Phœnix.  And so Job could have spoken of the Phœnix, even if he himself would not admit the verity of the history commonly related concerning the Phœnix:  just as, in order to signify the consummate love of parents toward their offspring, we are able to make use of the resemblance of the Pelican, cutting its breast so that it might nourished, or even vivify, its young, even if we are not at all persuaded of the truth of this history:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Textuales VII, text VIII, pages 292-296.  But VRIEMOET, Thesibus scripturarum, CCCCLXII on Job 29:18, has:  “Neither in Job 29:18 by the name of חוֹל, which the Alexandrians render στέλεχος φοίνικος, stump of the Phœnix/palm, nor elsewhere ever in the Sacred Codex, is there mention of that celebrated Bird, the Phœnix; as it has appeared to some.”  If the existence of the Phœnix is not presupposed as true, what things occur here I myself would not readily interpret of the Phœnix bird, although the comparison of the years of a human life with the multitude of Sand appears harsher and more catachrestic; lest the Holy Spirit come into suspicion of speech borrowed from an error of the common people.  At the same time, the catachresis whereby the years of a human life are compared with the multitude of Sand is no more harsh than when also in a manner similar God is said to have bestowed upon Solomon wisdom and understanding, and largeness of heart ‎כַּח֕וֹל אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־שְׂפַ֥ת הַיָּֽם׃, even as the sand that is on the sea shore, 1 Kings 4:29.  Concerning the Pelican, see BOCHART, Hierozoico, part I, book I, chapter III, column 14, chapter IX, column 65, part II, book II, chapter XX, column 276, chapter XXIV, columns 292-297, chapter XXV, § 4, column 301.

Finally, Theologians observe, that not unsuitably did God will to bring forth these two classes of animals, namely, Fish and Birds, on the same Day, on account of the great agreement that comes between them, 1.  in the Place designed for each, Water for the Fish, that region of the Air for the Birds, where the upper Waters, the cloud of Heaven, are:  2.  in the Fins and Wings, 3.  in the motion of Swimming and Flying, 4.  in Agility, 5.  in their eminent Fertility, etc.  So also, adds MARESIUS, Systemate Theologico, locus V, § 23, God willed that on that page of the book of nature Birds were together with Fish after the manner of vocalized and silent letters, from the conjunction of which sentences are formed.

[1] Johann Heinrich Hottinger (1620-1667) was a Swiss Reformed theologian philologist.  He served as Professor of Church History, Oriental Languages, and Rhetoric at Zurich (1642-1655), and later as Rector of the same (1661-1667), with a brief stay in Heidelberg as Professor of Oriental Languages (1655-1661).

[2] That is, pertaining to the Dog Star.

[3] Patrick Young, also known as Patricius Junius (1584-1652), was a Scottish scholar and royal librarian to James I and Charles I.  Among his scholarly publications, he published a catena of the Greek Fathers on the Book of Job, and an edition of the two epistles of Clement of Rome.

[4] Φοῖνιξ can signify the Phœnix, or a palm tree.

[5] Lucian of Samosata (c. 120-c. 180) was a trained rhetorician, particularly skilled in satire.