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.

VERS. XVI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Were carry'd over into Sychem.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ever let a man teach his disciple concisely s 1.1, or briefly. So that a short way of speaking, especially in a thing plain, was not strange amongst the Jews; which rule if Steven follow'd in this place, he might do it more safe∣ly and unblameably in a story so well known.

I. It was very commonly and without any kind of doubt receiv'd amongst them that the bones of the Twelve Patriarchs, as well as those of Jacob, were carry'd out of Egypt into Canaan t 1.2. It is written I will go down with thee into Egypt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and even in going up I will make thee to go up, Gen. XLVI. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What are we taught by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even in going up? He saith I will make thee to go up, and I will make all the other Tribes to go up too: teaching thereby 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that every Tribe should carry up the bones of the Patriarch of his Tribe with it. Take notice by the way that the Seventy render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto the end.

u 1.3 The bones of all the Patriarchs were carry'd out of Egypt and buried in the land of Canaan, as it is written, And ye shall carry up my bones with you, Gen. L. 25. w 1.4

II. Thus far therefore Stephen speaks with the consent of that Nation, viz. that the bones of the Patriarchs were conveighed out of Egypt into Canaan. But what can we say as to their being bury'd in Sychem? Doubtless he spake according to the common re∣ceived opinion amongst them in this thing also; though I cannot but say that a•••• Jewish writers, as far as I have met with, are wholly silent in it. Nay Josephus himself will have them buried in Hebron, and that before the Israelites came out of Egypt x 1.5.

The Talmudists speak very much of Joseph's being bury'd in Sychem, and amongst other things say this, That they stole him from Sychem, and restor'd him to sychem again y 1.6. But as to the burying of the other Patriarchs there, they have not one word. Benjamin also in his Itinerary, speaking of Sychem mentions the Sepulcher of Joseph, and none but that. And so do the Cippi Hebrai••i, as the Learned Hottinger translates them, From Sechem at the distance of a Sabbath-days journey, lyes a village call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Belata, where Joseph the just of blessed memory lyes buried.

I conceive the reason why the Jews are so silent in this matter, may be because they fear it would be a reproach to themselves, and too great an honour for the Samaritans, that the Patriarchs bones should lye amongst them. As to Joseph's being buried there, there could be no denial of that, because the Scripture speaks it in express terms, that he was buried in Sichem; but it is very grievous for them to acknowledg that all the other heads of the Nation and Tribes should lye there where the apostacy of the Ten Tribes first began; and after their expulsion the odious Nation of the Samaritans were seated; and for this very reason one might argue that Stephen would never have mention'd such a thing if it could have been contradicted by them. The Masters of the Traditions indeed do tacitly yield that the eleven Patriarchs were not buried in Hebron, when they admit but four couples there, viz. Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah a 1.7. And if so, where were they buried? If we do but consider how the great charge and care of publick affairs was committed to Joshua, who was of the stock and lineage of Joseph, and from that very relation had a particular concern with Sichem, pro∣bability it self would argue (were there no other proof for it) that he would have as strict a care of the Patriarchs now deal as his Progenitor Joseph had had of them while they were yet alive.

Whence I cannot but wonder that the Samaritans dwelling in Sichem, having in their Letters sent lately into England made mention of the Sepulchers of Joseph, Eleazar, Phinehas, the Seventy Elders, Eldad and Medad, that are with them to this day, should say nothing of the Sepulchers of the eleven Patriarchs. But so long as all the other Tribes are in mean esteem amongst them, and the Tribe of Ephraim, i. e. (if I may so speak) the Samaritan Tribe being of greatest account, it is the less wonder if they are not so very sollicitous, at least do not boast so much of the heads of the other Tribes.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And laid in the Sepulcher that Abraham bought for a summ of money, of the Sons of Emmor, the father of Sichem.

This passage is not a little obscure: not very unlike that in Gen. L. 5. saith Joseph, My father made me swear, saying, lo I die. In my grave 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which I have digged for me, or, which I have purchas'd for my self, there shalt thou bury me. I will not contend about the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whether it should be render'd, I have digged, as the Greek, Jonathan's

Targum, &c. have render'd it; or whether it should be, I have bought, as Onkelos; the Syriack and the Talmudists. Be it the one or the other, seeing the discourse is plainly about the cave of Maepelah, how can we say either this or that is true? I little question the for∣mer sense; for when Abraham had bought the Cave, and digged a Sepulcher in it for him∣self and Sarah; reason will tell us that Isaac did the same for himself and Rebecca; and Jacob for himself and Leah, for they both dwelt in Hebron as well as Abraham. But if we will admit of the latter sense (which the Rabbins tenaciously adhere to) there is no less a difficulty occurs than what is now before us. They indeed remove it by this blessed comment, viz. that when Jacob purchased the birthright from Esau, he did by a peculiar writing and deed of contract include this Cave within the bargain, as his own propriety. We may read the whole figment in Sotah, and the Targum of Jonathan in the places above quoted.

But to take this matter in hand a little more seriously.

I. It had been enough for Stephen to have made mention of the burial of Jacob and the Patriarchs without any addition about the purchase of the burying place, if he had not a design to hint something peculiar, in the mention he makes of it. Nor did it make for his cause at all to tell over a bare story, which they all knew, if there were not something included in it, that made for his defence. He had said before, ver. 5. concerning Abraham, that God had not given him any inheritance in the promised land, no not so much as to set his foot on; and here he tells them, that even Jacob and the Patriarchs had no place where they should be buried, but what they themselves bought for a sum of money:

And will you, O ye persecutors upon the meer promise of the land made to your Fa∣thers, be so confident as to perswade your selves it will be your abiding place for ever, and that howsoever you behave your selves toward God, you cannot be remov'd from it?

II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That Abraham bought for a sum of money. Thus far is no difficulty when the discourse is of the burial of Jacob in the Cave of Macpelah, but the knot is in the following words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Sons of Em∣mor, the father of Sichem. That the Text is not interpolated (as Beza and Heinsius would have it) appears from the universal consent both of the Copies and the Translations. For those that would have it interpolated, cannot shew one Copy, reading it otherwise, and all the Versions follow this reading, in the very words wherein the difficulty most lyeth. The Syriack indeed refer the words to Jacob only, rendring it in the singular number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he was carried and laid, &c. but yet owns the following words in the Sepulcher that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the Sons of Hemor, where all the difficulty lyes. So also as to that clause, other Versions have it.

Now as to what is objected, let us take it in the words of Bereshith rabba b 1.8. R. Judan bar Simon saith, This is one of the three places, (viz. the Cave Jacob bought, Gen. XXXIII. 19.) concerning which the Nations of the world cannot reproach Israel, saying, that they took it by force and rapine: The places are these, the Cave of Macpelah, the house of the Sanctuary, and the Sepulcher of Joseph. The Cave of Macpelah, as it is written, And Abraham hearkened to Ephron, and weighed to Ephron, &c. Gen. XXIII. 16. The house of the Sanctuary, accor∣ding as it is said, so David gave to Ornan for the place, &c. 1 Chron. XXI. 25. And the Sepulcher of Joseph, as it is said, He (Jacob) bought a parcel of a field, &c. Gen. XXXIII. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jacob bought Shechem; or that parcel of it; therefore Abraham did not. But,

I. Let us take a little view of that passage, Gen. XII. 6. Abraham passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the high Oak: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the plain of Moreh. Vulg. Usque ad convallem illustrem, to the famous valley. Targ. Hieros. & Samarit to the vale of vision, &c. But our enquiry is for the place, rather than the Etymology. Deut. XI. 29, 30. Thou shalt put the blessing upon mount Gerizzim, and the curse upon mount Ebal. Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the Sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, who dwell in the Champaign, over against Gilgal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 besides the plains of Moreh.

Let us take the Talmudick Comments upon this place, c 1.9 When the Israelites had passed over Jordan they came to mount Gerizzim and mount Ebal, which are in the Country of Samaria, neer Sichem, which is besides the plain of Moreh. According as it is said, Are they not on the other side Jordan, &c. And it is said elsewhere, Abraham passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, to the plain of Moreh. What is the plain of Moreh there? Gen. XII. 6. it is Si∣chem. And so the plain of Moreh is Sichem here also. Deut. XI. 30. d 1.10 R. Eliezer ben Jose saith, In this thing have I accused the Samaritan Books of falsisying; and I said unto them, ye have falsisied your Law, and gained nothing by it; for you say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the plain of Moreh which is Sichem. For we confess that the plain of Moreh is Sichem. The Samaritan Text in Deut. XI. 30. hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the plain of Moreh near Sichem; but no such thing in Gen. XII. 6. is added.

If the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Sepulchre, did not lay some obstacle in the way, I should easily conceive that Stephen had his eye as intent (if not more) upon this place, as upon the Cave of Macpelah. It is not said that Abraham bought this place, much less that he bought it for a burying place; but however, that he did buy it (though not under that notion of a burying place) seems probable, because this was the first place in which he pitcht his Tent, and built an Altar; all which he would hardly have done upon another mans ground. It is said of Jacob that he bought a parcel of ground where he had spread his Tent, Gen. XXXIII. 19. And why should we not think that Abraham did the same, only it is not expressly said so of him as it is of Jacob.

It might be no improper question here upon what conditions Abraham, Isaac and Jacob fed their Cattel, and maintained their Families in the land of Canaan. Whether the pla∣ces and fields they occupied were common, and had no proper owner? Whether Abraham not far from Sichem in the plain of Moreh, in the disposal of himself and his flocks, intru∣ded upon an others possession, or whether it was all champaign without any Lord? It is probable it was neither one nor the other; and therefore some third thing must be found out, viz. that either they might purchase those lands, or take them of the owners upon an agreed rent. It is said of Abraham that he planted a Grove in Beersheba, Gen. XXI. 33. How came he to any right in that piece of land? Had that place no Lord, no Prince, no owner till he came? If it had any Lord or owner (which is most probable) then it is easie apprehending how Abraham might come by the possession of it, viz. by some sum of mo∣ney, though there is no mention made of it.

However, whether Abraham bought the plain of Moreh or no, it is very evident from the words of the Protomartyr, that the Patriarchs were buried in that place, where he in his very first entry upon that land had made his abode, where he had received the first promise of the land by vision, and where he erected his first Altar; and I cannot believe but that either St. Stephen, or St. Luke would in this their short way of speaking, revive the memory of some such thing; viz. that the Patriarchs were buried in that very same place where Abraham had made his first abode, where he had received the first promise of the land; yet that they did not possess that land any otherwise than in their graves.

Notes

• s 1.1

  Gloss in Ze∣vachin, fol. 2. 1.
• t 1.2

  Hierosol. So∣tah, fol. 17. 3.
• u 1.3

  Gloss in Bava kama, fol. 92. 1.
• w 1.4

  See also Beresh. rabba, fol. 115. 3. Gloss in Mac∣coth. 11. 2. R. Sol. in Exod. 13. 19.
• x 1.5

  Antiq. lib. 2. cap. 4.
• y 1.6

  Sotah, fol. 13. 2.
• a 1.7

  Sotah, fol. 13. 1.
• b 1.8

  Fol. 89. 1••
• c 1.9

  Sotah, fol. 32. 1.
• d 1.10

  Ibid. fol. 33. 2.