The works of the Reverend and learned John Lightfoot D. D., late Master of Katherine Hall in Cambridge such as were, and such as never before were printed : in two volumes : with the authors life and large and useful tables to each volume : also three maps : one of the temple drawn by the author himself, the others of Jervsalem and the Holy Land drawn according to the author's chorography, with a description collected out of his writings.

A FEW CHOROGRAPHICAL NOTES.

CHAP. I. Of the places mentioned in LUKE III.

I. Some Historical Passages concerning the Territories of Herod and the Tetrarchies of his Sons. II. Whether Perea was not also called Galilee. III. Some things in general concerning the Country beyond Iordan. IV. Trachonitis. V. Auranitis. VI. Iturea. VII. Abilene. VIII. 2 Sam. XX. 18. discust.

SECT. I. Some Historical Passages concerning the Territories of Herod, &c.

BEFORE we make any particular enquiries into the Countries men∣tioned Luke III. 1. it will not be amiss to dip into History a little more generally.

a 1.1 Augustus Cesar received Herod's Sons Alexander and Aristobulus, upon their arrival at Rome, with all the kindness imaginable, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; granting a power to Herod to establish the Kingdom in which of his Sons he pleased: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: yea and moreover, gave him the Region of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Abranitis. We find Perea (peculiarly so called) not mention'd in this place, when yet it was most assuredly under Herod's jurisdiction; how else could he have built Herodium, which was in the extreme confines of Perea, Southward, where he himself was buried?

Neither indeed doth St. Luke say any thing of Perea, even then when he mentions the Tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, under whose jurisdiction Josephus tells us, was both Perea and Galilee. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, b 1.2 Perea and Galilee were both under Antipas,

Why Josephus should not mention Perea when he is speaking of the Fathers Kingdom, or why St. Luke should omit it, when he instances the Tetrarchy of the Son, that being so unquestionably within his jurisdiction; I confess is something strange to me: nor could I pass it without some remarque.

The same Josephus tells us this of the Tetrarchy of Philip: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. c 1.3 Batanea also and Trachonitis, Auranitis, and some parts of Zeno's House, about Jamnia; yielding the profits of one hundred talents, were under Philip's Government. And again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. d 1.4 Then died Philip, in the twentieth year of the Reign of Tiberius, when he himself had governed for seven and thirty years, over Trachonitis, Gaulonitis, and the Country of the Bataneans. Here we see Auranitis is not mentioned, but Gaulonitis is; and in St. Luke, neither Batenea, nor Gaulonitis, nor Auranitis; but instead of them, Iturea. There is a Chronological dif∣ficulty

in these words of Josephus, which is not easily solved; but this is not the busi∣ness of this Treatise.

It is hard to say whether this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 House of Zenon, have any relation with Zenodorus the robber. Josephus in the place above quoted, mentions him, saying, That Augustus was the more willing to put Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis under the Government of Herod the Great, that he might the more effectually suppress the Thefts and Rapines committed by one Zenodorus and the Trachonites. e 1.5 Strabo also speaks of this Zenodorus, telling us, That there were few Robberies committed now; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Robbers of Zenodorus party being cut off.

But if the name should be writ in the mother tongue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth Zenun, it might signifie a place or region of cold; and so denote some Country adjacent to the Snows of Lebanon; or some part 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the mountain of Snow; which I rather believe.

SECT. 2. Whether Perea may not also be called Galilee.

I. ALthough the whole Transjordanine Country might justly enough be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Perea; for this very reason; because it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, on the other side Jordan: yet, generally speaking, the Country is distinguisht, and that is peculiarly called Perea; which was the Kingdom of Sehon, the dwelling afterwards of the Reu∣benites, and part of the Tribe of Gad.

Hence that of Ptolomey, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, From the East of the River Jordan; there are only these Cities reckoned up by him.

• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cosmos.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Livias.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Callirrhoe. Of old Lasha.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gazorus.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epicerus.

Other places that were beyond Jordan, he mentions under other districts; as some under Celosyria, others under Batanea.

That which we are now enquiring about is, whether the Transjordanine Country was ever called Galilee. The rise of this question is, because our Evangelist mentions the whole Tetrarchy of Herod, under the name of Galilee, when as Perea was a great part of it. I encline much to the affirmative, for these Reasons: And first, I suppose that the upper part of the Country beyond Jordan might be called Galilee.

1. From Matth. IV. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, By the way of the Sea beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. Are not those places beyond the Sea of Gennesaret, called in this place Galilee of the Gentiles, in distinction to Galilee pro∣perly so called, on this side Jordan?

2. Judas who moved the Sedition against the Roman Tax, is by Gamaliel called Ju∣das of Galilee, Acts V. 37. who yet by Josephus is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a 1.6 A Gaulonite of the City of Gamala. Now it is well enough known, that Gaulona and Gamala were beyond Jordan.

II. I suppose Perea, properly so called, to have gone also under the name of Galilee, for these Reasons:

• 1. The whole Land of Canaan, both that beyond, and that on this side Jordan, was under the jurisdiction of Herod the Great. So that divide this whole Country into four Tetrarchies, the first Judea; the second, Samaria; both which were under the Govern∣ment of Pilate; the third, Iturea and Trachonitis, under Philip; the fourth will be Ga∣lilee on this side, and Perea beyond Jordan. Whereas therefore St. Luke, in the divi∣sion of the Tetrarchies, names only Galilee, as that which belonged to Herod; it is manifest he includes Perea under that of Galilee, and speaks of it as a known, and com∣monly received thing.
• 2. In Luke XVII. 11. It is said of Jesus, That as he went to Jerusalem, he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. One would have thought it had been proper to have said, through the midst of Galilee and Samaria. For when he went from Jerusalem to his own Country, he then passed through Samaria, and so into Galilee; but going from home to Jerusalem, be in his passage went through Galilee, and then through Samaria: But now it is very certain that in that journey he did pass through Perea, having first gone through the Samaritan Country. Whence it is very probable that Perea is called by our Evangelist in this place, Galilee; in the very same manner as he had also inclu∣ded it in the mention of Galilee, Luke III. 1.
• 3. In that Tragical Feast wherein the last mess was the Head of John Baptist, those

• who then were treated by Herod, are called the great estates of Galilee, Mark VI. 21. Now that Supper was kept in the Palace Herodium which was in the very extreme parts of Perea toward the South, and therefore surely those great Estates of Galilee that were with him, must be no other than the Great Estates of Perea.
• 4. There is mention 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Geliloth of Jordan, Josh. XXII. 11. when the passage was concerning Perea: whence that Country might well take its name of Galilee.

SECT. III. Some things in general concerning the Country beyond Iordan.

AS to the Tetrarchies of Herod and Philip: this I suppose we may determine with∣out prejudice or question, that nothing was within their jurisdiction, but what was within the confines of the Land of Israel, properly so called. (As to what may be objected concerning Iturea, we shall consider in its own place.) Whiles we are therefore looking into these Countries, our main business will be with what was beyond Jordan; for that on this side the River, was only Galilee, about which we shall not much trouble our selves, because there is no difficulty concerning it.

The Trans-jordanine Country, if I mistake not, from geatest Antiquity, is divided in that story, Gen. XIV. 5. Chedorlaomer and the Kings that were with him, smote the Re∣phaims in Ashtaroth-Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiria∣thaim, and the Horites in Mount Seir.

These two things we may apprehend from this passage: 1. That the Country of Ba∣san was inhabited by the Rephaims; Perea (another part of the Land beyond Jordan) by the Zuzims, Moab by the Emims. 2. That Ashtaroth-Karnaim, Ham, and Shaveh Kiriathaim, are not every one the names of whole Countries, but particular places in those Countries; perhaps where the several fights were, or where the people of that Country had been subdued.

As to Ashtaroth-Karnaim, there is little doubt but that was in the Kingdom of Bashan, the larger Region being called Astaroth, Karnaim is added in a distinstuishing limited sense: [Deuter. I. 4. Og the King of Bashan which dwelt at Ashtaroth in Edrei.]

Of the place it self the Jewish Doctors thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 At twen∣ty Cubits a 1.7 Man sits in the shadow of his tent (viz. in the Feast of Tabernacles) he does not sit in the shadow of his Tabernacle beyond twenty cubits, but in the shadow of its sides. [That is, if the roof or cover of his Tabernacle be above twenty cubits high.] Abai saith unto him, if therefore any one shall pitch a Tabernacle in Ashtaroth-Karnaim, is not the Ta∣bernacle so also? Glosse. Ashtaroth Karnaim were two great Mountains, with a Valley be∣tween; and by reason of the height and shadow of those Mountains, the Sun never shone upon the Valley.

Why the Samaritan Copy should use here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aphinith Karnaiah, instead of Ashtaroth Karnaim, especially when it retains the word Ashtaroth elsewhere, is not easie to say, unless it should have some relation to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Boughes; as a place thick and shady with Boughes. But such is the confusion of the guttural Letters in the Samaritan Lan∣guage, that ue can determine nothing positively.

That the Zuzims inhabited Perea, as it is distinguisht from the Country of Bashan, may be evident from the progress of the Conquerour; for, whereas it is plain that the Re∣phaims dwelt in Bashan, and the Emims in the Country of Moab, Deuter. II. 10, 11. It is manifest that the Zuzims who were conquered after the Rephaims, and before the Emims, lay in a Country between both, and that was Perea.

And hence are those to be corrected, that would correct the reading here, and instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Zuzims in Ham, would render it, the Zuzims with them. So the Gr. Vulg. &c. As if the Zuzims were amongst the Rephaims, when they were distin∣guisht both in Nation and dwelling. The Samaritan we may be sure took 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for no other than a place, when it renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Lishah.

When the Israelites went out of Aegypt into that Land, the whole Trans-jordanine Region was divided into these two Seigniories, the Kingdom of Sehon, and the King∣dom of Og. That of Sehon was Perea, strictly so called now; That of Og was all the rest under the name of Bashan. But, after the return of Israel from Babylon, Bashan was so sub-divided, that Batanea, or Bashon, was only a part of it, the rest going under the name of Trachonitis, Auranitis, and, if you will, Gualonites too, for we meet with that distinction also in Josephus b 1.8 To give therefore all these Countries at this time their proper bounds and limits, if it does not exceed all humane skill and wit, I am sure it doth mine.

So that all we can do in this matter, is only to propound a few things of these places thus divided, as far as conjecture may carry us, which we submit fairly to the fair and candid judgment of the Reader. Let us therefore begin with Trachonitis.

SECT. IV. TRACHONITIS.

ARGOB mentioned Deuter. III. 14. is by the Targumists called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Trachona. And so Jonath. 1 Kings IV. 13. the Samaritan hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rigobaah, which seems akin to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Regab, amongst the Talmudists.

a 1.9 Tekoah hath the preeminence for Oyl: Abba Saul saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the next to that is Regab beyond Jordan.

Gul. Tyrius would derive the name from Dragons. For so he: It b 1.10 (Trachonitis) seems to have taken its name from Dragons. Those hidden passages and windings under-ground, with which this Country abounds, are called Dragons. Indeed, almost all the people of this Country, have their dwellings in Dens and Caves; and in these kind of Dragons.

Other things might be offered as to the signification of the word: but we are looking after the situation of the place, not the Etymology of the name. And the first things to be enquired into, as to its situation, is, whether it extended in longitude from the South to the North, or from the West to the East. The reason of our enquiry is partly upon the account of Auranitis, which we are to speak of presently, and partly those words in Josephus c 1.11 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Batanea was bounded with Trachonitis. How so? Either that Batanea lay between Perea and Trachonitis, extend∣ing it self from the West toward the East, or between Trachonitis and Galilee, strictly so called, extending it self in length from the South toward the North: which last I pre∣sume most probable; and so we place Trachonitis in the extreme parts of the Trans-jor∣danine Country toward the East. And both which, upon these reasons taken together.

• 1. The Gemarists describing the circumference of the Land from the North, do men∣tion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tarnegola [or Gabara] the upper, which is above Cesarea [Philippi] and Trachona which extends to Bozrah d 1.12: where the extension of Trachona, must not be understood of its reaching to some Bozrah in those Northern borders; but to some Bozrah or Bosorrah in the confines of Perea e 1.13: and so it supposes the Country extending it self from the North toward the South.
• 2. f 1.14 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Of the Province of Batanea; East of which is Saccea, and here under the Hill Alsadamus, are the Trachonite Arabians. Behold here the Trachonites living East of Batanea.
• 3. g 1.15 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ The Country of Gamala, and Gaulonitis, and Batanea, and Trachonitis. But were not Gamalitiea it self and Gau∣lonitis within Batanea? right; but by this distinction he divides between that Batanea that was nearer Galilee, and that that was further off. That Country that lay nearest, from those noted Towns, of Golan, and Gamala, he calls Gaulonitis, and Gamalitica; and that which was further off, he calls by its own name of Batanea, and what lies still yond that, Trachonitis.

There was a time when all that whole Country which now is distinguisht into these severals, had one general name of Bashan: which word, how it came to change into Bathan, or Batanea; as also with the Targumists and Samaritane, into Bathnin and Mathnin, any one indifferently skilled in the Syrian Tongue will easily discern.

SECT. V. AURANITIS.

THAT Auranitis took its denomination from Hauran, hardly any one will question, especially that observes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ezek. XLVII. 16. to be rendered by the Gr. Interp. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which are upon the borders of Au∣ranitis.

Hauran is reckoned up amongst those Hills, at the top of which, by lifting up some flaming Torches, they were wont to give notice of the new year.

a 1.16 Where did they hold up those lights? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From Mount Olivet to Sar∣taba. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And from Sartaba to Gryphena. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And from Gryphena to Hauran. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And from Hauran to Beth Baltin. And from Beth Baltin, he that held up the light there, did not depart, but waved it hither and thither, up and down, till he saw the lights kindled throughout the whole Captivity.

The Gemarist quaeries, What is Beth Baltin? Rabh saith it is Biram. What is the Captivity? Rabh Joseph saith it is Pombeditha. Glosse. The sense of it is this: That Bi∣ram is in the Land of Israel, How? Is Biram the same with Beth Baltin, and yet is Biram within the Land of Israel? When in the Jerusalem Gemara, Rabh Honna saith, When we came hither, we went up to the top of Beth Baltin, and discerned the Palm-trees in Babylon. If this be true, the Geographers are to consider whether there can be any prospect of Babylon from the Land of Israel. In their sense it may be true enough, who commonly by the name of Babylon, understand all those Countries into which the Ba∣bylonish Captivity were carried; not only Chaldea, but Mesopotamia also, and Assyria: So that bounding the Land of Israel with the River Euphrates, (which indeed the Holy Scriptures themselves do) they make it contiguous with Mesopotamia, the River only between; and they place Beth Baltin not far from the bank on this side the River.

The Gemarists acknowledge that Lights were lifted up upon some Hills between those which they had mentioned, but these were the most known and celebrated, and there∣fore they named them only. Now it is probable enough that Mount Hauran gave the denomination to the whole Country Auranitis, which we are now upon: Perhaps there might be some part of Antilibanus, called Hauran, either from the Syriac word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Havar, which signifies white; or from the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hor, a Cave. It may well enough agree either way, the Hill being white with Snow, and hollow with the subter∣ranean passages that were there.

However, it is plain enough from the place in Ezekiel before quoted, that Hau∣ran was situated in the very extreme parts of the Land, toward the North, and from thence the Country as it had its situation there, so had its name Auranitis. Gul. Tyri∣us a 1.17 (by what authority I cannot tell) placeth it near the Sea of Gennesaret Subitò enim transcursâ regione Auranitide quae secus Mare Tyberiadis est, &c. The Country of Au∣ranitis being suddenly run through, which is by the Sea of Tiberias, &c.

And that the River Orontes [Springing between Libanus and Antilibanus near Heliopi∣lis, as Pliny b 1.18 hath it; took its name from Hauran, the word it self seems to assure us. Although some quoted by Eustath. in Dionys. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. do apprehend it to be a Latine name. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ As if Orontes were the same with Orientalis, The Eastern. But what that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should mean is a little difficult. Orontes was of old called Typhon, as Strabo c 1.19 tells us.

SECT. VI. ITUREA.

THE Reader must excuse me if I make a narrower search into the situation of Iturea, although Barradius may confidently enough have told him (upon his own trust meerly, as far as I can learn) That the Country is in the Tribe of Nepthali, at the foot of Mount Libanus. Perhaps he hath followed Borchard, who himself writes only upon the credit of Jacobus de Vitriaco: Scias regionem Decapolin quàm variè in Scripturis denominari, &c. You must know the Region of Decapolis hath several names in Scripture. Sometimes it is called Iturea, sometimes Trachonitis; sometimes the plain of Libanus, sometimes the Land of Moab: in one place Gabul, in another place Galilee of the Gentiles, and the upper Ga∣lilee; but every where it is all one and the same Country. Thus he confusedly enough.

a 1.20 Pliny places some Nation or other, called by the name of the Itureans, in Cyrristica of Syria: Et inde Cyrristica, &c. Next that is Cyrristica, the Irneates, the Gindarèni, the Gabeni, two Tetrarchies, which are called Granii Com••titae, the Emisenes, the Hylatae, a Na∣tion of the Itureans, and those of them also called the Betarreni, the Mariamitani, &c.

b 1.21 After Macra, is Marsyas, wherein are some hilly places, on one of which stands Chalcis a Garrison of Marsyas. The beginning of it is Laodicea, about Libanus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ The Itureans and Arabs hold all the Mountanous places, a very mischievous sort of people, all of them.

c 1.22 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ David made war with the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Itureans, the Nabbathites and Nabdites, He had said before, That he had sub∣dued the Syrians dwelling by Euphrates and Commagene, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Assyrians and Phenicians that were in Galladene.

d 1.23 Secus Mare Galilaeae viam carpentes, &c. Taking the way by the Sea of Galilee, we entred Phenice, and leaving Paneas, which is Cesarea Philippi, on the right hand, we came to Iturea.

e 1.24 Rex pertransiens agrum Sydonensem, &c. The King passing through the Country of Si∣don, and going up some hilly places, which lay between ours and the enemies borders, he

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

came to a place every way accomodated with all necessaries, a fruitful soil, and well watered; the name of it Messahara. Going thence into the Valley called Bacar, he found the Land which hath been said to flow with Milk and Honey. Some are of opinion, that this Country was of old called Iturea. But long before that, viz. in the days of the Kings of Israel, it was called the Grove of Libanus.

Where at length shall find this Iturea? Had Philip any part of his Tetrarchy within Cyrristica, Chalcidice of Syria? And yet, if you believe either Pliny or Strabo, there were the Itureans. I suspect there is something coucht in the Etymology of the word, that may as much puzzle as the situation of the place.

If Bacar, as it is described by Tyrius, be indeed Iturea, it may be derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hittur, which signifies wealth; or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which denotes crowning, especially when the Country its self is crowned with so much plenty. It is a notion familiar enough a∣mongst the Talmudick Authors.

Indeed, if I could believe that Iturea were the same with Decapolis, then I would sup∣pose the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ten, might have been altered by the change of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shin into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thau, ac∣cording to the Syriack manner; but I neither can believe that, nor have I ever met with such a change made in that word, but rather that it would go into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Samech.

May it not therefore be derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hitture, diggings; because of the Caves and hollows under-ground? So that the Iturei might signifie the same with Troglodyte, those that dwell in Caverns and holes. And so the Troglodytes which were on the North of Israel, are distinguisht from those that were on the South, viz. the Horites in Edom. Now that these Countries of which we are treating, were peculiarly noted for Caves and Dens; and they not only numerous, but some very strange and wonderful, Strabo, Jo∣sephus, Tyrius and others do abundantly testifie.

f 1.25 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There are beyond Damascus two Mountains called Trachones. Afterward; Toward Arabia and Iturea, there are some cragged Hills, famous for large and deep Caves; one of which was capable of receiving four thousand men in it. But that was a prodigious Cave of Zedechiah's, whereever it was, that was XVIII. miles space; at least if those things be true which are related concern∣ing it g 1.26.

There was a Cave beyond Jordan, about XVI. miles from Tiberias, that was three stories high; had a lower, a middle, and an upper Dining-room h 1.27. Which indeed was fortified, and held a Garrison of Souldiers in it.

So that we may, not without reason, conjecture the Iturea of which we now speak, might be so called from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chitture, such kind of diggings under ground. And that Pliny and Strabo when the talk of the Nation of the Itureans in Cyrristica and Chalcis, do not place the Country of Iturea there; only hinted that the Troglodytes, who dwelt in Dens and Caves were there.

Iturea therefore, mentioned by our Evangelist was in the Country beyond Jordan, viz. Batanea, and Auranitis or Auranitis alone, as may appear out of Josephus, compared with this our Evangelist. For St. Luke saith, That Philip was Tetrarch of Iturea and Tracho∣nitis: Josephus, That he was Tetrarch of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis: Either therefore Auranitis and Batanea in Josephus, is the Iturea in St. Luke, or else Batanea in Josephus is confounded with Trachonitis mentioned in St. Luke, and Auranitis alone is Iturea. For that passage in Josephus i 1.28 ought to be taken notice of: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Caesar in∣vests Agrippa with the Tetrarchy that Philip had, and Batanea, adding moreover Trachoni∣tis with Abella. Where it is observable, that there is mention of the Tetrachy of Philip distinct from Batanea and Trachonitis; And what is that? certainly Auranitis in Jose∣phus, and perhaps Iturea in St. Luke.

SECT. VII. ABILENE.

JOsephus in the words before quoted, speaking of Abella, adds this passage; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that had been the Tetrarchy of Lysanias. So also Ptol. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Abila that bore the name of Lysanias: and he reckons this up among the Cities of Celo-Syria under these degrees:

• Heliopolis 68. 40. 33. 40.
• Abila. 68. 45. 33. 20.

a 1.29 speaks of Abila in that Country: Paneas in quâ Caesarea, cum supra dicto fonte [viz. cap. 15.] Abila, Arca, Ampeloessa, Gabo.

It is not without cause distinguisht by its relation to Lysanias, because in one place or another, there were several Abila's or Abella's: for the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abel, goes into that termination in the Greek; and there were many places of that name.

Abel Shittim, where the Israelites pitcht their Tents immediately after they had passed the River Jordan, in Josephus b 1.30 is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abila, distant from Jordan threescore fur∣longs: which he also mentions with Julias c 1.31 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Perea. There is also Abel Meholah, and Abel beth Maacah, &c.

Near this sound comes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d 1.32 Abelas of the Cilicians. The very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abilene is in Vajicra Rabba e 1.33 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away, Job I. 15. R. Abin bar Cahna saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ They came out of Caphar Karinus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they went through all Abilene, and came to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Migdol Zaba••••h, and there dyed.

SECT. VIII. 2 Sam. XX. 18. discusst.

AMongst all the Cities and Countries that bear the name of Abel, the most celebra∣ted is that in 2 Sam. XX. made famous by the History of a foolish Sheba and a wise Woman. The Woman's expression is not a little wrested and tortured by Inter∣preters. :〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They were wont to speak in old time, saying, they shall surely ask counsel at Abel; and so they ended the mat∣ter.

The Greek Version hath more perplext it: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Latine Interpreter renders it thus: They spake a word in former days, saying, asking he was asked in Abel, and in Dan, if those things have failed which the faithful of Israel laid up. Asking they will ask in Abel, and so if they have failed.

If any one can make any tolerable sense of these words, he would do well to teach others how to do it too; especially let them tell the reason why Dan should be added here. It is true Dan and Abel beth Maacah are mentioned together as not very distant from one another, 1 King. XV. 20. And if we do by the words understand their neigh∣borhood to one another, I see nothing else that can be pickt out of them.

However, both the Roman and Alexandrian Edition agree in this reading, which have the preference of all other Editions of the Greek Version. And let them now who are for correcting the Hebrew Bibles by the Greek, say whether they are for having them corrected here: only let them give me leave to enjoy the Hebrew Text as we now have it.

The Hebrew makes the sense plain if the first words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be but rightly applied, namely to Sheba and his party speaking; When Sheba and his followers come hi∣ther, they at first certainly said thus, that they would ask Abel of its peace, or on whose side it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so they made the matter intire, or made a show of their own integri∣ty. For that that Joab was chiefly to be satisfied in, was, that this City had not taken part with the Conspirators, which is directly done, if we admit this sense and interpre∣tation of the words. This prudent Woman assures him that those of Abel had by no means invited Sheba and his fellow Rebels into their Town, or by any consent with them in their Rebellions would ever willingly have admitted them, but that they were miserably deceived by their fawning and false words, whiles they only pretended to enquire about the peace and well being of that City. And that you may know more effectually that all this is true which I now affirm to you, we will immediately throw you the head of Sheba over our wall.

CHAP. II. SAREPTA.

I. Zarephath, Obad. ver. 20. where. II. Sepharad. where. III. The situation of Sarepta.

SECT. I. Zarephath. Obad. vers. 20. where.

SAREPTA in the Story of Elijah, 1 King. XVII. is written in Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tzarephath, and with the same Letters in Obad vers. 20. and therefore it may be reasonably enquired whether it be one and the same place. Indeed, there would hardly be any doubt in it, but that the Jews ordinarily by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 understand France, and by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sepharad, which by the Prophet is used in the very same verse, Spain. The words of the Prophet are very variously rendered, and yet in all that variety, nothing hinders but that Zarephath there may be understood of the Zarephath mentioned in the Kings. For, whether the passage concern the Captivity's being detained in Zarephath, or the Captivity's possessing the Land to Zarephath (for in that variety chiefly, the words are expounded) in either sense, it may well enough be, that the Sarepta that belongs to Zidon, may be the scene of the affair. As to the former, if we compare but that passage concerning Tyre, the Sister of Sidon, Amos I. 9. and withal the potency and dominion of the Sidonians, it may not be improbable but that the Israelites might be captived in Sarepta of Sidon. And as to the latter, whereas in the vers. immediately before, the discourse is of the possession of the Mount of Esau, of the Fields of Ephraim, Samaria, and Gilead, and then there is mention of possessing the Land of Canaan, as far as Zare∣phath; who would seek Zarephath in France, and not in some neighbouring place, ac∣cording to all the rest of the places their named, which were all very near. Let me add moreover, that whereas there is mention of possessing the Land of the Canaanites even unto Zarephath, the Greek Interpreters will tell you who those Canaanites were, that are distinguisht from the rest of the Nations in the Land of Canaan, viz. the Phe∣nicians, Josh. V. 1. And by the Kings of the Hittites mentioned 1 Kings X. 29. and 2 Kings VII. 6. I would likewise suppose the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phenician Kings.

SECT. II. SEPHARAD. Where.

THE Italian Interpreter for Sepharad, retains Zarphath: For so he, Et i transferiti de questo esercito de figlioli de Israel, che sono de Chenahanei, in fino a Zarphath, & i transferiti di Jerusalem, che Sono in Zarphath, &c. Whether too warily, or too un∣warily he hath thus done, let him look to that himself.

The Greek hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ephratha, with which the Arabian Interpreter agrees. But the Syriack with the Targumist, Spain. The vulgar, Bosphorus, confusedly, besides that it makes the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a radical Letter: And yet Nobilius hath this passage. St. Je∣rom tells us, the other Interpreters agreed with the Hebrew word Sepharad, which he ren∣dered Bosphorus. If he means that all agreed in acknowledging the word Sepharad, he tells us no news: but who agreed with his word Bosphorus?

I must confess, Sepharad is not a place so obvious as Zarephath, nor can any thing be offered in it, but conjecture only: and if I might be allowed my guess; I would look for Sepharad in Edom, rather than in Spain: and that because Obadiah prophesies against the Edomites, properly so called. Whereas therefore he tells us, That the Captivity of Israel in Sarepta of the Phenicians shall possess the Land of the Canaanities: It is pro∣bable he means by the Captivity in Sepharad, those Captives in Edom, who shall pos∣sess the Cities of the South. The Zarphathani, or Sareptani were of the North, the Sepharadeni of the South: amongst the a 1.34 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Whom you may rightly call the Troglodyte Arabs, saith Strabo, b 1.35 That is, probably the Horims in Mount Seir; for I suspect Horim, by ill use, might form it self into Eremb.

If we consider that the Jews do generally by Edom, understand the Roman Empire, and indeed all the Christian Nations in the West, we shall easily perceive why they fix these places Zarephath, and Sepharad so far from Palestine. For Obadiah prophesying against the Edomites, properly so called, the Jews change the scene and persons, ac∣cording to the vulgar construction of Edom, which they had received amongst them∣selves.

SECT. III. The situation of Sarepta.

a 1.36 INDE [à Tyro] Euhydra, ac Sarepta, & Ornithon oppida▪ Et Sidon artifex vitri•• Thebarumque Baeotiarum parens. From Tyre is Euhydra, and Sarepta, and Ornithon, certain Towns so called: Sidon where Glass is made, and from whence sprung the Beoti∣an Thebes.

Borchard. A Tyro ad tres leucas admodum breves, &c. About three very short leagues from Tyre, the River Eleutherus runs into the Sea; About two leagues from that River is Sarepta: About two leagues from Sarepta is Sidon. Sarepta at this time doth not consist of above eight Houses, though the ruines do still say it was once a brave Town.

Some would have Zarephath signifie as much as a place of melting; from boiling and melting metals, but especially Glass.

b 1.37 Between Acon and Tyre there is a shoare all spread over with little hillocks of sand; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that bears a glassey sand: the Glass indeed is not cast here, but be∣ing carried to Sidon, there it is made fusile, &c.

CHAP. III. NAIN. Luk. VII. 11.

I. Concerning Naim near Tabor, shewn to strangers. II. Concerning Nain in Iosephus and the Rabbins. III. The Greek Version of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eugannim.

SECT. I. Concerning Naim near Tabor, shewn to strangers.

IN the Alexandrian Copy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ijon is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nain, 1 Kings XV. 20. In the Roman, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain. So Hazar-Enan Numb. XXXIV. 9. in the Roman Copy is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arsenain, in the Alexandrian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asernain; neither of them agrees with our Nain. For it is very absurd to conceive that our Saviour ever was at Hazar-Enan the ut∣most borders of the Land toward Syria; nor can we suppose him in Ijon, that seeming to be according to the order of the places as they are ranked in the Text above quoted, either beyond Dan, or in the extreamest borders of the Land on that side.

As to our Nain, Borchard saith thus, A Nazareth duabus leucis, &c. Two leagues from Nazareth, not much above one from Mount Tabor, Southward is Mount Hermon the less, on the North side of which is the City Nain; at whose Gates Jesus recovered a Wi∣dows Son from death, as we read, Luke VII. So also Breidenbach: So some Tables as to the situation of Hermon near Tabor, and the situation of Naim near Hermon.

I am well enough satisfied that they should place Naim in the Tribe of Issachar, if there be no mistake among them as to Mount Tabor. For whereas Tabor is indeed the very utmost border of Issachar, Northward, Jos. XIX. 22. a 1.38 It must needs be that what is beyond that, Southward, a league or two, should be reckoned within that Tribe. But I much suspect the Tabor mentioned by them, and that which is now shewn to Travellers, is not the true Tabor: nor do I much question but that Hermon of which they talk, is made out of a mistake, and misconstruction of Psal. LXXXIX. 12. Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy Name. My scruple as to Mount Tabor, ariseth hence; because

that Tabor which is shewn to strangers, as our Country-man Biddulph, and another ac∣quaintance of mine own, who were on the top of it, do describe it, does not at all agree with the description Josephus gives us of the true Mount Tabor. Our Country∣man tells us, It is an hill not very steep, nor very high, nor very large; but a round beauti∣ful hill, &c. On the contrary, * 1.39 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mount Tabor is in height thirty furlongs, very difficult of ascent on the North-side; the top is a great plain of about six and twenty furlongs.

The Persian Interpreter instead of Nain hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nabelis, that is, Neapolis, which is also Sychem: but for what reason I know not. Nor do I suppose that it was conceived by any one Expositor, that the Widow's Son whom Christ raised from death, was a Samaritan; he was indeed upon the borders of Samaria, but at a great distance from Sychar.

SECT. II. Concerning the Nain in Iosephus and the Rabbins.

THE a 1.40 Darshanim (Expositors) upon Beresh. rabb. speak of a certain place called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naim, upon this occasion. Issachar is a bony (or strong) Ass, [Gen. XLIX. 14.] It is spoken of Issachar's Country. For as an Ass is low before and behind, and high in the middle; so is it in the Tribe of Issachar; it is a Valley here and a Valley there, and hilly otherwhere; it couches between two borders. These are the two valleys, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Valley of Pislan, and the Valley of Jezreel. And he saw that rest was good, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this is Tinaam: And the Land, that it was pleasant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this is Naim.

We have here by the way a tast of those allegorical and far-fetcht ways of expound∣ing the Scriptures, wherein these egregious Commentators do so much please and value themselves. However, we are thus sar beholding to them, that they have given us to understand, that there was a Naim in the Tribe of Issachar, called so from the pleasant∣ness of its situation (as indeed Tinaam bears the same derivation) which we have some reason to judge was the same Naim with ours in the Evangelist, and that in Josephus.

b 1.41 It was usual for the Galileans, coming up to the holy City to the Feasts, to take their journey through the Samaritans Country, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And then their way lay through a Town called Nais. (I confess the Greek expressions are something perplext; but it is no great matter.) It happened that some of the Samaritans and inhabitants of the great plain, fought with them, and killed a great number.

You may think he repeats the very same Story, though differing in some circumstan∣ces c 1.42. There was another fight betwixt the Galileans and Samaritans; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ••or hard by a Town called Gema situated in the great plain of Samaria, multitudes of Jews going up to the Feast there was a certain Galilean slain.

It is not much worth our examining whether they be one and the same story with the other, or whether this Gema be the same Town with Nain; but this we may gather hence, that Nain was in the extreme borders of Issachar, touching upon the Samaritan Country, and Gema in the extreme borders of Samaria that were next adjoining to Issa∣char. And when the Galileans went down from Nain, a Town in Issachar, into the great plain of Samaria, the first Town in their way is Gema, there the enemy meets and fights them: if at least Gema and Nain be not one and the same place.

SECT. III. ENGANNIM.

THere is a great inclination in me to believe, that Naim is the same with Engannim, mentioned Josh. XIX. 21. and Chap. XXI. 29. For, I. Both of them were with∣in the Tribe of Issachar; Engannim, as the H. Scriptures, and Naim as the Jewish Do∣ctors tell us; and why we should not take their word in such a thing as this, I know no reason. II. Both of them signifie pleasantness: Naim in the very Etymon implies plea∣santness: and Engannim, a Fountain and Gardens. III. The Engannim mentioned Jos. XXI. 29. in 1 Chron. VI. 73. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Anem. Now if you transpose the Letters (as is done in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) it will be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naim. IV. Let me add, That Engannim (if there be any credit to those guides, that commonly shew these places to Travellers) lies di∣rectly in the way, going from Galilee to Jerusalem; and so, as is very evident, was our Naim. Of this place, thus our Country-man Biddulph: a Town, commonly called Je∣nine, of old Engannim: exceedingly pleasant, abounding with waters and gardens, and delightsome walks.

Why the LXX should render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Engannim by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a fountain of letters, Jos. XXI. 29. let those that are more learned search out. It is true the Children of Issachar are celebrated for their skill in computing the times, 1 Chron. XII. 32. where the Targumist; They were skilled in calculating the beginnings of the Years, the Calends of the Months, and the intercalation both of Years and Months 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So∣phists [skilful] in new Moons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Astrologers [conversant] about Planets and Stars, &c.

If we would include the Levites that dwelt amongst the Tribe of Issachar, under the general name of Issachar, then might Engannim (being a Levitical City) be an Academy for that kind of Mathematical learning; but in both we are very uncertain. Nor is it less obscure that the same Greek Interpreter hath instead of Remeth, Engannim, Enhad∣dah, and Bethpazes rendered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Rem∣mas, and Jeon, and Tomman, and Aemerec, and Bersaphes, Jos. XIX. 21.

CHAP. IV. EMMAUS. Luk. XXIV.

I. Several things about its name and place. II. Its situation. III. Some Story of it. Also of Timnath, and Mount Gilead, Iudg. VII. 3.

SECT. I. Several things about its name and place.

WE have spoken something already concerning Emmaus in our Choragraphical Century, Chap. 45. let us add some few things in this place.

I. It was distant from Jerusalem, as appears both from our Evangelist, and Josephus a 1.43, about threescore furlongs. By account of common miles, Seven and a half: Eight of the Jewish. What copy therefore of Josephus must the Learned Beza have by him, who thus speaks upon the place? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sixty, so the Syriac hath it and indeed all copies: so that here is either a mistake in the number, or else it is ill written in Josephus b 1.44; thirty furlongs. Our Josephus plainly hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ A Town called Emmaus distant from Jerusalem threescore fur∣longs.

II. The Syriac, Arabic, and Persia Interpreters write the name in the Evangelist with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the beginning; the Syriac and Persian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So also the Syriac, in 1 Macc. III. 40. But the Arabic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Talmudists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the beginning. Indeed in Talm. Bab. in Erachim, fol. 10. 1. it is writen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but in the Misnaioth printed by them∣selves it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So it is in Succah. fol. 51. 5.

III. Josephus commonly renders Chammoth of Tiberias (a place so called from the Hot∣Baths) by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ammaus; but whether our Emmaus ought to have this derivati∣on is a question. There were indeed at Emmaus noted waters; but we can hardly suppose they were warm, if we consider but the usual writing of the word amongst the Talmudists.

c 1.45 Rabban Johanan ben Zacchai had five Disciples, who while he lived sate always with him, but when he died they retired to Jafne. But R. Eliezer ben Erech betook himself to his Wife 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at Emmaus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a place of pleasant waters, and pleasant dwelling. There is something in this little Story that might not be unworthy our enqui∣ry, as to the Scholastical History of the Jews; viz, where Rabban Johanan should make his abode, if not in Jabneh? for that is the place they commonly allot to him: But this is not a place to dispute of such matters.

d 1.46 Pervenerunt Nicopolim, &c. They came to Nicopolis: Now Nicopolis is a City in Pale∣stine. This the Book of the Gospel calls Emmaus; while it was yet a Village. There through the plenty of good waters, and all necessary provisions, they enjoyed a good comfort∣able night.

This Author, upon this occasion, quotes some passages out of Sozomen, in the sixth Book of the Tripartite History, which are in his fifth Book, Chap. 20. wherein the waters

at Emmaus are celebrated not only for their plenty, but as they were wonderfully whole∣some and medicinal. For thus he: There is a City in Palestine which now hath the name of Nicopolis, of which the Holy Gospel makes mention, as of a Village (for then it was so) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and calls it Emma. The Romans, having sackt Jerusalem, and gained an entire victory over the Jews, from the event of that War, gave this Town the name of Ni∣copolis. Before the City near the road (where our Saviour after he had arisen from the dead, walking with Cleophas, made as if he was hastening to another Town) there is a certain Me∣dicinal Spring, wherein not only men that are sick, being washt, are cured, but other sort of Animals also, of whatsoever diseases they are afflicted with. The report is, that Christ as he was once going that way with his Disciples, turned aside to that fountain, and having washt his feet in it, the waters have ever since retained an healing quality and vertue in them.

We leave the credit of the Story to the relater of it: only one thing we may observe from the hint he gives us, that it is no wonder if in the Evangelists time, Emmaus was but a little Village, whenas not long before it had been burnt and destroyed by Varus e 1.47. Nor is it more strange that its antient name Emmaus, should change into Nicopolis, when the place it self, became a Roman Colony f 1.48.

SECT. II. Its situation.

PTOLOMEY tells us something of its situation by its degrees, saying, Emmaus, 65. 45. 31. 45.

As to the vicinage of Countries or places adjacent; thus the Jerusalem Sheviith a 1.49: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From Beth-horon to Emmaus it is hilly. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From Emmaus to Lydda it is Champagne, and from Lydda to the Sea is Valley.

If you would hear Ptolomey more largely, thus he writes:

• Jamnia 65. 40. 32. 0.
• Lydda 66. 0. 32. 0.
• Antipatris 66. 20. 32. 0.
• Emmaus 65. 45. 31. 45.
• Jerusalem 66. 0. 31. 40.

Although this account of the distance betwixt Jerusalem and Emmaus, doth not very well agree, with what our Evangelist, and Josephus have said; yet may we learn, from the places named along with it, in what quarter of the Heaven it was situated. To all which we may add that of Josephus Antiq. lib. 12. cap. 11. and 1 Maccab. IV. Judas Maccabeus engages with Gorgias near Emmaus: the Gorgians fly, and the Maccabeans pur∣sue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, As far as Gadaron (Gezer) to the plains of Edom, Azotus, and Jamnia.

I therefore recite this passage, that it may appear that Emmaus, lay toward Galilee, although from Jerusalem it inclined also Westward: For whereas, considering the latitude of Galilee extending it self from West to East, there must of necessity be several Roads from Jerusalem to this or that part of it: So this through Emmaus was one; through Beth Horon another; through Antipatris a third; if at least this last did not fall in with that of Emmaus. That passage in Gul. Tyr. makes me think it might; who, describing the Encampings and journeyings of the Croysade Army, tells us, b 1.50 Relictis a dextrâ, &c. Leaving the Maritime Towns, Antipatris and Joppe, on the right, they passed through Eleu∣theria, and came to Lydda, which is Diospolis. And Cap. 24. From whence, taking guides along with them, persons well skilled in those places, they came to Nicopolis: Which is the same with Emmaus.

From all which, we may reasonably presume that the two Disciples were going to Emmaus, not as to the utmost limit of their journey, but as that lay in their way to∣ward Galilee.

SECT. III. Some Story of it. Also of Timnath and Mount Gilead, Jud. VII. 3.

To what Tribe Emmaus belonged would be something hard to determine, because of the situation of Bethoron, which was in Ephraim, Josh. XVI. But that the Talmudists do clearly enough say it was not in the Samaritan Country.

a 1.51 They were Servants of the Priests, saith R. Meir. But R. Jose saith, They were of the Family of Beth Pegarim, and Beth Zippory, in Emmaus, who had placed their Daughters in Marriage with the Priests.

The discourse is about the Musicians in the Temple, and the dispute is, whether they were Levites, or Israelites, particularly natives of Emmaus, and of those two Families who for their purity were thought worthy to be taken into the affinity and blood of the Priests themselves. And this passage indeed puts it out of all question that Emmaus was not within the Tribe of Ephraim; because it would be ridiculous to suppose that either Samaritan Women should be joyned in Marriage with the Priests, or that Samari∣tan Men should be admitted to play on the Instruments in the Temple. Emmaus there∣fore must be placed in the Tribe of Benjamin, which, what it was called before, is not easie to guess.

I conceive there is mention made of this place, in Spihra b 1.52. R. Akibah said; I asked Rabban Gamaliel, and R. Joshua 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the shambles of Emmaus, when they went to receive the Beast to make a Feast for their Son, &c. Now Rabban Gamaliel, and R. Joshua were both of Jafneh; so that by considering the situation of Jafne we may more confidently believe, that they were in the Emmaus we are speaking of. We have the same passage in Maccoth, fol. 14. 1.

It was one of the larger Cities: For so Josephus speaks of it; c 1.53 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cassius disfranchised four Cities, the greatest of which was Gophna and Em∣maus: and next to these was Lydda and Thamna.

d 1.54 Under the disposition of the Duke of Palestine amongst the rest, was Ala Antana of the Dromedaries of Admatha; where Pancirole notes that Admatha in St. Jerom in his He∣brew places, is called Ammata. This, by the agreeableness of sound may seem to be our Emmaus, unless more probably at this time it bore the name of Nicopolis.

When I take notice that Chammath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Baths of Tiberias, are commonly in the Greek rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and withal, that our Emmaus was much celebrated for fa∣mous Waters: I cannot forget the waters of Nephtoa, or the Fountain of Etam, from whence water was conveighed by Pipes into the Temple. This was in the same quarter from Jerusalem with our Emmaus: So that our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may as well be derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ammath, a Channel of waters, as well as the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chammath, the warm Baths. But this I leave to the Reader's judgment.

In memory of this place let us record a Story out of Sigeverts Chronicle in the Reigns of Theodosius and Valentinianus. Hoc tempore in castello Judeae Emmaus, &c. At this time in a Garrison in Judea called Emmaus, there was a perfect Child born. From the Navel upward, he was divided, so that he had two Breasts, and two Heads, either of which had their proper senses belonging to them: The one eat when the other did not: the one slept when the other was awake. Sometime they slept both together; they plaid one with another: they both wept, and would strike one another. They lived near two years; and after one had died, the other survived about four days.

If this two headed Child was the issue of a Jew, then might that question be solved, which is propounded, Menacoth, fol. 37. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any one should have two heads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on which of the Foreheads should the Phylacteries be bound? No mean scruple indeed. But let us have from the Glossator as considerable a Story: Asmodeus produced from under the pavement before Solomon, a Man with two heads. He Marries a Wife, and begot Children like himself, with two heads, and like his Wife with one. When the Patrimony comes to be divided, he that had two heads requires a double por∣tion; and the cause was brought before Solomon to be decided by him.

As to that Thamna or Timnath which Josephus in the place above quoted makes men∣tion of, it is disputed in Sotah, fol. 17. 1. where Rabh asserts, that there were two Tim∣naths, one in Judea, and the other that of Samson. We all know of a third of that name, Josua's Timnath, viz. Timnath-Serah in Mount Ephraim where Josua was buried, Jos. XXIV. 30. Here give the Rabbins a little play, and let them trifle by transposing the names of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Serah and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheres, and from thence ground a fiction that the image of the Sun was fixed upon the Sepulchre of Josua, in remembrance of the Sun's miraculous standing still by his word. This is like them. Nor indeed is that of a much better mould, which the LXX add, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. There they put into the monu∣ment with him, the stone-knives, with which he circumcised the Children of Israel in Galgal, when he brought them out of Egypt, as the Lord had commanded them. Were these, think you, in the Hebrew Text once, and have they slipt out since? Do they not rather sa∣vour of the Samaritan gloss, or the Jewish tradition?

They recede from the Hebrew Text in the same Story, but something more tolerably when they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the North-side of the Hill Gaash: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, From the North-side of the Hill Galaad: where, as far as I am able to judge, they do not paraphrase ill, though they do not render it to the Letter. Let us con∣sider that obscure passage which hath so much vext Interpreters in Jud. VII. 3. Proclaim now in the ears of the people, saying, whosoever is fearful and afraid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

let him return early from Mount Gilead. The place where this thing was acted was either in or very near the vale of Jezreel, distant from Mount Gilead beyond Jordan, twenty or thirty miles; and therefore how could these Gideonites depart from Mount Gilead? I am not ignorant what some do alledge toward the untying this knot, viz. that it should be ta∣ken thus, Whoever be of Mount Gilead let them return. The Targumist to this sense; Whosoever is fearful, let him return, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and let choice be made out of Mount Gilead, i. e. Let the Gileadites be chosen. But whether his meaning was, that the Gi∣leadites should be chosen to remain because they are not afraid; or be chosen to return because they were; I shall not reckon it worth the while to enquire.

But may not Mount Gilead in this place, be understood of the Hill Gaash? It is certain, the situation agrees well enough, and perhaps there is no great difference in the name.

Whence that Mount Gilead beyond Jordan first had its name, is not unknown; namely, from that heap of stones set up by Jacob for a witness of the Covenant betwixt him and Laban, Gen. XXXI.

We read of something not unlike it, set up by Josua near Shechem, in testimony of the Covenant betwixt the people and God, Jos. XXIV. 26. Now therefore, who can doubt but that Josua was buried near Shechem? For when that place was particularly bequeathed and set out by Jacob, for his Son Joseph; who of the whole stock and line∣age of Joseph could justlier inherit that part of the Country than Josua?

He was buried on the North-side of the Hill Gaash, in his own ground. Might not that Hill be also called Gilead, upon the account of that Pillar of Witness that was built there a little from Sichem? whence the foot of the Hill, and the Hill it self beginning to rise (if it were Northward, which we suppose, then it) might very well reach not far from that place where this matter of Gideon was transacted. For, whereas the field wherein the Battel was, was within the Tribe of Manasseh, contiguous to Mount Ephraim, and Gideon proclaims that whosoever were afraid should depart from Mount Gilead; we can perhaps think of no proper sense wherein this Mount Gilead can be ta∣ken, than that that part of Mount Ephraim was so called from the Pillar of Testimony placed on the South-side of it, when the common name for it was the Hill Gaash.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Joseph. An∣tiqu. lib. 15. cap. 13.
• b 1.2

  De Bell. lib. 2. cap. 9.
• c 1.3

  De Exid. lib. 2. cap. 9.
• d 1.4

  Antiqu. lib. 18. cap. 6.
• e 1.5

  Strab. lib. ••••.
• a 1.6

  Antiqu. lib. 18. cap. 1.
• a 1.7

  Succah. fol. 2. 1.
• b 1.8

  Lib. •••• Ex∣cid. 3. cap. 4.
• a 1.9

  Menacoth, fol. 85. 2.
• b 1.10

  De Bell. Sacr. lib. 16. cap. 9.
• c 1.11

  Attiqu. lib. 17. cap. 2.
• d 1.12

  Hieros. She∣viith, fol. 36. 3.
• e 1.13

  Antiqu. lib. 1••. cap. 12.
• f 1.14

  Ptol. cap. 15. toward the end.
• g 1.15

  Joseph. de excid. lib. 3. cap. 4.
• a 1.16

  Rosh hasha∣nah, cap. 2. Hal. 2.
• a 1.17

  Lib. 22. 26.
• b 1.18

  Lib. 5. cap. 22.
• c 1.19

  Lib. 16.
• a 1.20

  Lib. 5. 23.
• b 1.21

  Strabo, lib. 16.
• c 1.22

  Eupolemus in Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. lib. 9. cap. 30.
• d 1.23

  Gal. Tyr. de bell. Sacro lib. 9. cap. 15.
• e 1.24

  Ibid. lib. 2••. cap. 11.
• f 1.25

  Strab. lib. 16.
• g 1.26

  Bemidbar rab. fol. 21 1. 2.
• h 1.27

  Gul. Tyr. lib. 22. 15.
• i 1.28

  Antiqu. lib. 20. cap. 5.
• a 1.29

  Nat. Hist•• lib. 5. cap. 18.
• b 1.30

  Antiqu. lib. 5. cap. 1.
• c 1.31

  De Exid. lib. 2. 22.
• d 1.32

  Targ. Jonath. upon Numb. xxxiv. 8.
• e 1.33

  Fol. 18••. 1.
• a 1.34

  Hom. Odyss. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.35

  Strab. lib. 1.
• a 1.36

  Plin. lib. 5. cap. 19.
• b 1.37

  Strabo, lib. 16.
• a 1.38

  Joseph. Antiq. lib. 5. cap. 1.
• * 1.39

  Joseph. de excid. lib. 4. cap. 16.
• a 1.40

  Sect. 98.
• b 1.41

  Antiqu. lib. 20. cap. 5.
• c 1.42

  In Lib. 2. de excid. cap. 21.
• a 1.43

  De Excid. lib. 7. cap. 27.
• b 1.44

  Lib. de Bell. Jud. 7. cap. 27.
• c 1.45

  Midras Cohe∣leth, fol. 101. 2.
• d 1.46

  Gul. Tyr. lib. 7. cap. 24.
• e 1.47

  Joseph. Antiq. lib. 17. cap. 12. and de Excid. lib. 2. cap. 7.
• f 1.48

  I••. de Excid. lib. 7. cap. 27.
• a 1.49

  Fol. 38. 4.
• b 1.50

  Lib. 2. cap. 22.
• a 1.51

  Erachin, fol. 10. 1. and Suc∣cah, fol. 51. 1.
• b 1.52

  Fol. 9. 4▪
• c 1.53

  Antiqu. lib. 14. cap. 18.
• d 1.54

  Notitia I••∣per. Orient.