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. XLIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

And ye took up, &c.

THE word in Amos is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which if we might render with R. Sol. in the future tense, And ye shall bear your Idols with you into captivity, as burdens laid upon your shoulders, it would take off a little of the difficulty that otherwise seems to lye in this pas∣sage (for it might be very reasonably questioned, whether the Israelites ever did this in the wilderness) but then this is directly contrary both to the Greek Version in that Pro∣phet, and now to the Holy Ghost in this place, and to the very scope of the Proto-martyr in quoting it. For he speaketh of God as giving up the people to worship the host of heaven, and straightways suggests that they first desisted from serving God, and then ad∣dicted themselves to the worshipping of Idols. But the question is, whether the discourse in this place is concerned in the Idolatry they committed in the wilderness, or that in after-times. That it doth not point at the Idolatry in the wilderness, these following ar∣guments seem to confirm.

I. Because there is no mention of any Idolatry committed in the wilderness after the Golden Calf, besides that with Baal-Peor. And it is hardly imaginable that Moloch and Baal-Peor were the same, and that Moloch and Remphan were not two different Idols. Nor is it probable at all that the Sacred Historian would have past over such a piece of wickedness without any taking notice either of the fault or punishment; especially when as every where else the History of their Idolatry is related so very accurately. But not to multiply arguments,

II. If Stephen refer this Idolatry of the Israelites to the times after those in the wilder∣ness, and in that sense interprets the Prophet, he speaks the same thing that was common∣ly known and received amongst the Jews, viz. that the punishment of that sin of the Gol∣den Calf descended and was derived to following generations. l 1.1 R. Oshaiah saith, that to the times of Jeroboam the children of Israel suckt of one Calf, (the Gloss is, viz. that Calf they made in the wilderness) but from that time forward they suckt of two, and of a third too. (The Gloss is, those two of Jeroboam's, and the third of the wilderness.) R. Isaac saith, there is not any instance of vengeance that comes upon the world, wherein there is not a twenty fourth part of a pound of the first Calf. According as it is said, In the day that I visit I will visit their sin upon them. Exod. XXXII. R. Chaninah saith, after twenty four generations (the Gloss hath it in the Reign of King Zedekiah) this verse was accomplisht, as it is said, He cried in mine ears with a loud voice, the visitations of the City draw near, every man having his destroying weapon in his hand, Ezek. IX. 1.

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

The Tabernacle of Moloch.

The Prophet Amos hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lat. Interlin. Et portastis Siccuth Regem vestrum, i. e. Ye carried Siccuth your King. So R. Sol. and Kimchi, Siccuth is the name of an Idol. For my part I am at a stand in this matter, as also in what words the Chaldee Paraphrast hath rendred this clause. For in the Books publisht amongst us, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when as the Aruch citing the Targumist in this place saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Siccuth Malchechem with the Targumist is Succuth Pethachrechon. Ob∣serve Pethachrechon, not Pathcumarchon. And that it was so originally written in the Targumist, I do very much suspect, however Kimchi owns only the other reading. For,

1. It is not easie, I may say not possible to give 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that propriety in this place that it bears in Ezek. XIII. 18. and Chap. XVI. 16.

2. Whereas the same Paraphrast renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Isa. VIII. 21. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Zephan. I. 5. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is the more probable that he may render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which word it should seem he useth for some Idol, or heathen God, because when he would express a King taken in its proper sense, he always retains the usual word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If therefore according to the Copy quoted by the Aruch, it should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then the Chaldee Version falls in with the Greek, and shews that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be ren∣dered your Moloch; so that Moloch signifie an Idol, and Succuth not an Idol, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the tabernacle of Moloch, which seems the more likely from the agreement of the two clauses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Tabernacle of Moloch, and Star of Remphan.

But who or what kind of God this Moloch should be, I will not spend much time to find out, this having been the business of so many Pens already, only this I cannot but ob∣serve, that both Moloch and Remphan were certain figures that represented some of the Coelestial Luminaries, because he saith, He gave them up to worship the host of Heaven, &c. And that it is generally supposed that by Moloch was represented the Sun, partly because of the Kingly name, and partly upon the account of the fiery form and shape of the Idol, and the fiery rites of its worship. It is also called Baal, Jer. XXXII. 35. They built the high places of Baal to offer their sons to Motoch. Which whether it be the same Idol that Ahab brought in upon Israel, might not be unworthy our considering. There may be some colour and hint of that bloody worship in what the Priests of Baal did to themselves, 1 King. XVIII. 28. They cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets till the blood gushed out upon them.

Moloch (as the Jews describe him) was an Image of brass, having the face of a Calf, his hands open, like one ready to receive something brought him from another. And so Diodorus Siculus describes Saturn of Carthage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They had an Image of Saturn made of brass, stretching out his hands, extended towards the earth, so that a child being put into them was thrown and rould in a great gulph of fire q 1.2. There we have also this passage out of Philo concerning the History of the Phoenicians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Sa∣turn therefore whom the Phoenicians call Israel, having governed that Country after his death, was made the Star called Saturn. Of his wife Anobret he had one only begotten Son, whom therefore they call Jeoud, that being the term for an only begotten Son amongst the Phoenicians to this day. Upon the breaking in of a very destructive war upon the Country, he takes his Son, and having decently adorned him, and prepared an Altar for him, sacrificed him on it. This Israel by name was Abraham by the character, from whom whether they derived by direful imi∣tation this horrid usage of sacrificing to Moloch, is no place at present to dispute; the que∣stion rather might be, whether the Israelites did act any such thing themselves in the wil∣derness; whether with the Tabernacle of the Lord they also erected a Tabernacle to Moloch too; whether having slighted the way of sacrificing beasts they instituted the of∣fering up of their own children. Which how unlikely it was that Moses should either suf∣fer it to be done, or having been done, should pass it by in silence, and make no mention at all of it, any one may judg. I shall conclude with that passage in Porphyrius quoted by the same Eusebius, worth our taking notice of: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That these sacrifices of men were abolisht almost every where: Pallas tells us, who wrote excellently well concerning the mysteries of Mithra, under Adrian the Emperour.

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

And the Star of your God Remphan.

In Amos it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun; in the Seventy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan. I would not in this place heap up what learned men have said in this matter; upon these two hinges the whole dif∣ficulty turns: First, to reconcile the Septuagint with the Prophet Amos, and then to re∣concile St. Stephen, or St. Luke with the Septuagint.

I. Forasmuch as the Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan in the Septuagint, I would not look for any thing Gigantick in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, but something rather weak and infirm. Any one knows that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie weak and weakness; and from thence perhaps the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, may take its original, and not from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Giant. And so the same thing might be done by the Interpreters in this name, that had been done by the Jews in the name of Beelzebul, viz. invented the name for meer contempt and re∣proach. The naked and native signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun, is firm, upright, stable; and therefore is rendered by some in that place Basis, or foundation; a name indeed most un∣fit for an Idol, which is a lye, vanity, nothing; this the Septuagint being apprehensive of, might translate it by a word perfectly contrary, but more agreeable to the thing it self; viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, that is in Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 weakness, infirmity. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, does not denote Saturn in the Coptick language, as Kircher tells us.

II. But how 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, should be changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there have been various, and those not impertinent conjectures. The Syriack and Arabick retain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which as to the sense we have mentioned sound properly enough to Eastern ears. And what if St. Luke or our Martyr, that they also (as much as might be) might sound the same thing in the ears of the Greeks should pronounce it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Remphan, where the sound of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies wandring, or tottering, might be included.

Be it therefore that Molech is the Sun, and Remphan or Chijun should be Saturn; we read of the Introduction of Molech into the land of Israel, but of Chijun not at all, only in the Prophet Amos, and here in the mention of Remphan.

When I read that in 1 King. XII. 30. That all the people went to worship the Calf in Dan. And observe further that Dan was called Panias, I begin to think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Phan, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Remphan, may have some relation with that name; and that Dan is mentioned rather than Bethel, because the Idolatry, or Calf of that place con∣tinued longer than that of Bethel.

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

I will carry you beyond Babylon.

But the Hebrew words of Amos are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Damascus, so the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, beyond Damascus.

I. Nothing was more usual in the Schools and Pulpits of the Jews, than for the Reader or Preacher to vary and invert the Text of the Scripture, to adapt and accommodate it to his own sense. Hundreds of times we meet with this phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Talmudick Writers, and the Jewish Expositors, don't read this or that word so, but so, or so. Where forsaking the proper and genuine reading, they put another in the stead, that may better fall in with the matter they are upon. Not that they reject or vilifie the original Text, but to bring what they alledg more ingenuously to their own purpose. I have known this done in some words wherein they keep indeed to the same letters, but make the variation by the change of vowels. Which shews in the mean time that this was neither any strange thing amongst them, nor accounted any crime, but received rather with applause, to ali••nate the words of the Hebrew Text from their native and original reading, to deduce something either true in it self, or at least smooth and ingenious. And if Stephen here af∣ter the usage of the Schools, quoting this passage of the Prophet Amos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be∣yond Damascus, had magisterially said as they were wont to do, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 don't read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Damascus, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Babylon, it would have gone down well enough with his auditory, both by reason of the usual custom of the Nation, and principally be∣cause what he said was true. For,

II. Let us consult another place in the same Prophet, Amos IV. 3. And ye shall go out at the breaches one against another, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and ye shall cast them into the palace. Where the Targum and Syriack, They shall carry them beyond the mountains of Armenia. And the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Unto the mount Romman. R. Sol. upon the place tells us, that Jonathan paraphraseth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beyond the mountains of Horman, they are the mountains of darkness. m 1.3 Alexander King of Macedon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 went to the King of Cazia behind the mountains of darkness. Let me add one passage more. n 1.4 Israel went into three Captivities, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one was within the river Sanbation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the other was to D••phne of An∣tioch. The other where the clouds did descend upon them and covered them o 1.5.

Notes

• l 1.1

  Sanhedr. fol. 102. 1.
• q 1.2

  Apud Euseb. Prepar. Evang. lib 4. cap. 16.
• m 1.3

  Beresh. rab. fol. 35. 4.
• n 1.4

  Hieros. San••e•• fol. 29. 3.
• o 1.5

  Vid. & ••emid. rabba, fol. 268. 1.