A Commentary on the New Testament
from the Talmud and Hebraica
John Lightfoot
(1602-1675)
Chorographical Notes
-
Chapter 1: Of the
places mentioned in
Luke 3.
-
Chapter 2: Sarepta.
-
Chapter 3: Nain,
Luke 7:11.
-
Chapter 4: Emmaus,
Luke 24.
Before we make any particular
inquiries into the countries mentioned
Luke 3:1, it will not be amiss to dip into history a little more
generally.
"Augustus Caesar received Herod's
sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, upon their arrival at Rome, with all
the kindness imaginable, granting a power to Herod to establish the
kingdom in which of his sons he pleased: yea, and moreover, gave him
the region of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Abranitis." We find Perea
(peculiarly so called) not mentioned 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, were both Perea
and Galilee. "Perea and Galilee were both under Antipas."
Why Josephus should not mention Perea,
when he is speaking of the father's 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 remark.
The same Josephus tells us this of
the tetrarchy of Philip: "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, "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 Batanea,
nor Gaulonitis, nor Auranitis; but, instead of them, Iturea. There is
a chronological difficulty in these words of Josephus, which is not
easily solved; but this is not the business of this treatise.
It is hard to say whether this
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. Strabo also speaks of this Zenodorus,
telling us, that "there were few robberies committed now; the
robbers of Zenodorus' party being cut off."
But if the name should be writ in the
mother tongue, Beth Zenun, it might signify a place or
region of cold; and so denote some country adjacent to the
snows of Lebanon; or some part of the mountain of snow [Hermon];
I rather believe.
I. Although the whole Transjordanine
country might justly enough be called Perea, for this very
reason, because it was on the other side Jordan; yet, generally
speaking, the country is distinguished, and that is peculiarly called
Perea, which was the kingdom of Sehon, the dwelling afterward of the
Reubenites, and part of the tribes of Gad.
Hence that of Ptolemy, that "from the
east of the river Jordan," there are only these cities reckoned up by
him: Cosmos. Livias. Callirrhoe (of old, Lasha.) Gazorus.
Epicaerus.
Other places that were beyond Jordan
he mentions under other districts; as, some under Coelosyria, others
under Batanea.
That which we are now inquiring
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 incline 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
Matthew 4:15, "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
properly so called, on this side Jordan?
2. Judas, who moved the sedition
against the Roman tax, is, by Gamaliel, called 'Judas of Galilee,'
Acts 5:37,--who yet, by Josephus, is called, "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 government of Pilate; the third, Iturea and Trachonitis,
under Philip; the fourth will be Galilee on this side, and Perea
beyond Jordan. Whereas, therefore, St. Luke, in the division 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 commonly-received thing.
2. In
Luke 7:11, 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, he 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 included it in
the mention of Galilee,
Luke 3:1.
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 6:21. Now, that supper was kept in the palace Herodium, which
was in the very extreme parts of Perea towards 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 of Geliloth of
Jordan,
Joshua 22:11, when the passage was concerning Perea: whence that
country might well take its name of Galilee.
As to the tetrarchies of Herod and
Philip, this, I suppose, we may determine without 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. Whilst 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
ourselves, because there is no difficulty concerning it.
The Transjordanine country, if I
mistake not, from greatest antiquity, is divided in that story,
Genesis 14:5: "Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him,
smote the Rephaims in Ashtaroth-karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and
the Emims in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in mount Seir."
These two things we may apprehend
from this passage: 1. That the country of Bashan 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 Ashtaroth, Karnaim is added in a distinguishing limited
sense:
Deuteronomy 1:4, "Og, the king of Bashan, which dwelt at Ashtaroth
in Edrei."
Of the place itself, the Jewish
doctors thus: "At twenty cubits, a 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 tabernacle so also?"
Gloss: "Ashtaroth-karnaim were two great mountains, with a valley
between; 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 Aphinith Karnaiah, instead of "Ashtaroth-karnaim,"
especially when it retains the word Ashtaroth elsewhere, is not easy
to say, unless it should have some relation to boughs; as a
place thick and shady with boughs. But such is the confusion of the
guttural letters in the Samaritan language, that we can determine
nothing positively.
That the Zuzims inhabited Perea, as
it is distinguished from the country of Bashan, may be evident from
the progress of the conqueror; for whereas it is plain that the
Rephaims dwelt in Bashan, and the Emims in the country of Moab,
Deuteronomy 2:10,11, 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 "the Zuzims in
Ham," would render it, "the Zuzims with them." So the
Greek, Vulgar, &c.: as if the Zuzims were amongst the Rephaims, when
they were distinguished both in nation and dwelling.
When the Israelites went out of Egypt
into that land, the whole Transjordanine region was divided into these
two seigniories,--the kingdom of Sehon, and the kingdom 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 subdivided, that Batanea, or Bashan, was only a part of
it, the rest going under the name of Trachonitis, Auranitis, and, if
you will, Gaulonitis too; for we meet with that distinction also in
Josephus. To give, therefore, all these countries at this time their
proper bounds and limits, if it does not exceed all human 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.
Argob, mentioned
Deuteronomy 3:14, is, by the Targumists, called Trachona.
And so Jonath.
1 Kings 4:13: the Samaritan hath it, Rigobaah, which seems
akin to Regab, amongst the Talmudists.
"Tekoah hath the preeminence for oil:
Abba Saul saith, The next to that is Regab beyond Jordan."
Gul. Tyrius would derive the name
from dragons. For so he: "It [Trachonitis] seems to have taken
its name from dragons. Those hidden passages and windings underground,
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 thing to be
inquired 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 inquiry is, partly upon the account of Auranitis,
which we are to speak of presently, and partly those words in
Josephus, "Batanea was bounded with Trachonitis." How so? Either that
Batanea lay between Perea and Trachonitis, extending itself from the
west towards the east, or between Trachonitis and Galilee, strictly so
called, extending itself in length from the south towards the north:
which last I presume most probable; and so we place Trachonitis in the
extreme parts of the Transjordanine country towards the east. And both
which, upon these reasons taken together:
1. The Gemarists, describing the
circumference of the land from the north, do mention "Tarnegola [or
Gabara] the upper, which is above Caesarea [Philippi], and Trachona,
which extends to Bozrah": 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: and so it
supposes the country extending itself from the north towards the
south.
2. "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. "The country of Gamala, and
Gaulanitis, and Batanea, and Trachonitis." But were not Gamalitica
itself and Gaulonitis within Batanea? Right: but by this distinction
he divides between that Batanea that was nearer Galilee, and that that
was farther off. That country that lay nearest, from those noted towns
of Gaulan and Gamala, he calls Gaulonitis and Gamalitica; and that
which was farther off, he calls by its own name of Batanea; and what
lies still beyond that, Trachonitis.
There was a time when all that whole
country, which now is distinguished 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 Samaritans, into
Batnin and Matnin,--any one, indifferently skilled in the Syrian
tongue, will easily discern.
That Auranitis took its denomination
from Hauran, hardly any one will question, especially that observes
Ezekiel 47:16, to be rendered by the Greek interpreters, "which
are upon the borders of Auranitis."
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.
"Where did they hold up those lights?
From mount Olivet to Sartaba. And from Sartaba to Gryphena. And
from Gryphena to Hauran. 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 queries, "What is Beth-Baltin?
Rabh saith, It is Biram. What is the captivity? Rabh Joseph saith, It
is Pombeditha." Gloss: "The sense of it is this: That Biram 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 Babylonish 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 therefore 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 Havar, which signifies white; or
from the Hebrew word Hor, a cave. It may well enough
agree either way, the hill being white with snow, and hollow
with the subterranean passages that were there.
However, it is plain enough, from the
place in Ezekiel before quoted, that Hauran was situated in the very
extreme parts of the land towards the north, and from thence the
country, as it had its situation there, so had its name Auranitis. Gul.
Tyrius (by what authority I cannot tell) placeth it near the sea of
Gennesaret: "The country of Auranitis being suddenly run through,
which is by the sea of Tiberias," &c.
And that the river Orontes [springing
between Libanus and Antilibanus near Heliopolis, as Pliny hath it]
took its name from Hauran, the word itself seems to assure us.
Although some, quoted by Eustathius, do apprehend it to be a Latin
name. As if 'Orontes' were the same with 'Orientalis,' 'the Eastern.'
Orontes was of old called Typhon, as Strabo tells us.
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 merely, as far as
I can learn), that "the country is in the tribe of Nephthali, at the
foot of mount Libanus." Perhaps he hath followed Borchard, who himself
writes only upon the credit of Jacobus de Vitriaco: "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 Galilee; but everywhere
it is all one and the same country." Thus he confusedly enough.
Pliny places some nation or other,
called by the name of the Itureans, in Cyrrhestica of Syria: "Next
that is Cyrrhestica, the Irneates, the Gindareni, the Gabeni, two
tetrarchies, which are called Granii Comatitae, the Emisenes, the
Hylatae, a nation of the Itureans, and those of them also called the
Betarreni, the Mariamitani," &c.
[Strabo] "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.
The Itureans and Arabs hold all the mountainous places, a very
mischievous sort of people, all of them."
[Eupolemus] "David made war with the
Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Itureans, the Nabathites,
and Nabdites." He had said before, "That he had subdued the Syrians
dwelling by Euphrates and Comagene, the Assyrians and Phoenicians that
were in Galadene."
[Gul. Tyr.] "Taking the way by the
sea of Galilee, we entered Phoenice, and, leaving Paneas, which is
Caesarea Philippi, on the right hand, we came to Iturea."
"The king passing through the country
of Sidon, and going up some hilly places which lay between ours and
the enemy's borders, he came to a place every way accommodated 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 we find this
Iturea? Had Philip any part of his tetrarchy within Cyrrhestica, or
Chalcis of Syria? And yet, if you believe either Pliny or Strabo,
there were the Itureans. I suspect there is something couched 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 Hittur, which
signifies wealth; or from crowning, especially when the
country itself is crowned with so much plenty. It is a notion familiar
enough amongst the Talmudic authors.
Indeed, if I could believe that
Iturea were the same with Decapolis, then I would suppose the word
ten might have been altered by the change of Shin into Thau,
according to the Syriac 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 Samech.
May it not, therefore, be derived
from Chitture, diggings, because of the caves and hollows
underground? So that the Iturei might signify the same with
Troglodytae, "those that dwell in caverns and holes." And so the
Troglodytes, which were on the north of Israel, are distinguished from
those 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, Josephus, Tyrius, and others, do abundantly
testify.
"There are, beyond Damascus, two
mountains called Trachones." Afterward; "Towards 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 Zedekiah's, wherever it was, that was eighteen
miles' space; at least, if those things be true which are related
concerning it.
There was a cave beyond Jordan, about
sixteen miles from Tiberias, that was three stories high; had a lower,
a middle, and an upper dining room. Which, indeed, was fortified, and
held a garrison of soldiers in it.
So that we may, not without reason,
conjecture the Iturea of which we now speak might be so called from
Chitture, such kind of diggings under ground: and that
Pliny and Strabo, when they talk of the "nation of the Itureans in
Cyrrhestica 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
evangelists, 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 Trachonitis": 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 ought to be
taken notice of: "Caesar invest Agrippa with the tetrarchy that Philip
had, and Batanea, adding moreover Trachonitis with Abella." Where it
is observable, that there is mention of the tetrarchy of Philip,
distinct from Batanea and Trachonitis. And what is that? certainly
Auranitis in Josephus, and perhaps Iturea in St. Luke.
Josephus, in the words before quoted,
speaking of Abella, adds this passage; "that had been the tetrarchy of
Lysanias." So also Ptolemy; "Abila, that bore the name of Lysanias":
and he reckons this up among the cities of Coelosyria, under these
degrees: Heliopolis 68.40 33.40; Abila 68.45 33.20.
It is not without cause distinguished
by its relation to Lysanias, because in one place or another there
were several Abilas or Abellas: for the Hebrew word Abel goes
into that pronunciation in the Greek: and there were many places of
that name.
Abel-shittim, where the Israelites
pitched their tents immediately after they had passed the river
Jordan, in Josephus is called Abila, "distant from Jordan
threescore furlongs": which he also mentions with Julias in Perea.
There is also Abel-meholah, and Abel-beth-maachah, &c.
Near this sound comes Abelas of
the Cilicians. The very word Abilene is in Vajicra Rabba;
"The Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away. (Job
1:15) R. Abin Bar Cahna saith, They came out of Caphar Karinus,
and they went through all Abilene, and came to Migdol Zabaiah,
and there died."
Amongst all the cities and countries
that bear the name of Abel, the most celebrated is that in
2 Samuel 20, 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 interpreters: "They were wont to speak in old time,
saying, They shall surely ask counsel at Abel; and so they ended the
matter."
The Greek version hath more perplexed
it. The Latin 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 Kings 15:20: and if we do by the words understand their
neighbourhood to one another, I see nothing else that can be picked
out of them.
However, both the Roman and
Alexandrian editions 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 be but rightly applied, namely, to Sheba and his party
speaking; "When Sheba and his followers came hither, they at first
certainly said thus, That they would ask Abel of its peace, or on
whose side it was, and so they made the matter entire," or made
a show of their own integrity. 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
interpretation 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, while they only pretended
to inquire 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."
Sarepta, in the story of Elijah,
1 Kings 17, is written in Hebrew Tzarephath, and with the
same letters in Obadiah verse 20: and therefore it may be reasonably
inquired, whether it be one and the same place. Indeed, there would
hardly be any doubt in it, but that the Jews ordinarily by
Tzarephath understand France; and by 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 1:9, 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 verse
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 Zarephath, who
would seek Zarephath in France, and not in some neighbouring place,
according to all the rest of the places there 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
distinguished from the rest of the nations in the land of Canaan; viz.
the Phoenicians,
Joshua 5:1. And by the 'kings of the Hittites,' mentioned
1 Kings 10:29 and
2 Kings 7:6, I would likewise suppose the Phoenician kings.
The Italian interpreter for Sepharad
retains Zarphath...
The Greek hath Ephratha, with
which the Arabian interpreter agrees. But the Syriac with the
Targumist, Spain. The Vulgar, Bosphorus, confusedly. And
yet Nobilius hath this passage: "St. Jerome tells us, the other
interpreters agreed with the Hebrew word Sepharad, which he rendered
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 Phoenicians, shall possess the land of the Canaanites, it is
probable he means, by the captivity in Sepharad, those captives in
Edom who shall possess the cities of the south. The Zarphathani, or
Sareptani were of the north, the Sepharadani of the south, amongst the
Erembi. "Whom you may rightly call the Troglodyte Arabs," saith
Strabo; that is, probably, the Horims in mount Seir; for I suspect
Horim, by ill use, might form itself 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 according to the vulgar construction of
Edom, which they had received amongst themselves.
Pliny: "From Tyre is Sarepta and
Ornithon, certain towns so called: Sidon where glass is made, and from
whence sprang the Boeotian Thebes."
Borchard: "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 ruins do still say it was once a brave town."
Some would have Zarephath signify as
much as a place of melting; from boiling and melting metals,
but especially glass.
"Between Acon and Tyre there is a
shore all spread over with little hillocks of sand; that bears a
glassy sand: the glass indeed is not cast here, but being carried
to Sidon, there it is made fusile," &c.
In the Alexandrian copy Ijon
is Nain,
1 Kings 15:20: in the Roman it is Ain. So Hazar-enan,
Numbers 34:9, in the Roman copy is Arsenain; in the
Alexandrian, Asernain. Neither of them agrees with our Nain:
for it is very absurd to conceive that our Saviour ever was at
Hazar-enan, the utmost borders of the land towards 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 extremest borders of the land on that side.
As to our Nain, Borchard saith thus;
"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 widow's son from death, as
we read
Luke 7." So also Breidenbach: so some tables as to the situation
of Hermon and Tabor, near the situation of Nain near Hermon.
I am well enough satisfied that they
should place Nain 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,
Joshua 19:22, 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
Psalm 89:12, "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 countryman Biddulph, and another
acquaintance 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 countryman tells us, "It is a hill not very
steep, nor very high, nor very large; but a round beautiful hill," &c.
On the contrary, "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 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 a great distance from Sychar.
The Darshanim [expositors]
upon Bereshith Rabba speak of a certain place called Naim, upon
this occasion: "Issachar is a bony [or strong] ass,
Genesis 49:14. 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,
the valley of Pislan, and the valley of Jezreel. And he saw
that rest was good, this is Tinaam: and the land that it was
pleasant, this is Naim."
We have here, by the way, a taste of
those allegorical and far-fetched ways of expounding the Scriptures,
wherein these egregious commentators do so much please and value
themselves. However, we are thus far beholding to them, that they have
given us to understand that there was a Nain in the tribe of Issachar,
called so from the pleasantness of its situation (as indeed
Tinaam bears the same derivation), which we have some reason to
judge was the same Nain with ours in the evangelist, and that in
Josephus.
"It was usual for the Galileans,
coming up to the holy city to the feasts, to take their journey
through the Samaritans country, And then their way lay through a town
called Nais." I confess the Greek expressions are something perplexed;
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 circumstances. "There was another
fight betwixt the Galileans and Samaritans; For 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 this 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 Issachar. 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.
There is a great inclination in me to
believe that Naim is the same with Engannim, mentioned
Joshua 19:21, 21:29. For, 1. Both of them were within the tribe of
Issachar; Engannim, as the Holy Scriptures, and Nain, as the Jewish
doctors tell us; and why we should not take their word in such a thing
as this, I know no reason. 2. Both of them signify pleasantness:
Naim, in the very etymon, implies pleasantness: and Engannim,
a fountain of gardens. 3. The Engannim, mentioned
Joshua 21:29, in
1 Chronicles 6:73, is Anem. Now if you transpose the
letters, it will be Naim. 4. Let me add that Engannim (if there
be any credit to those guides that commonly shew these places to
travellers) lies directly in the way going from Galilee to Jerusalem;
and so, as is very evident, was our Naim. Of this place, thus our
countryman Biddulph: "a town, commonly called Jenine, of old Engannim:
exceedingly pleasant, abounding with waters and gardens, and
delightsome walks."
Why the Seventy should render
Engannim by a fountain of letters,
Joshua 21:29, 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 Chronicle 12:32; 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;
sophists [skillful] in new moons, 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, Enhaddah, and Bethpazes, rendered,
"Remmas, and Jeon, and Tomman, and Aemarec,
and Bersaphes,"
Joshua 19:21.
We have spoken something already
concerning Emmaus in our
Chorographical Century, chapter 45; let us add some few things in
this place.
I. It was distant from Jerusalem, as
appears both from our evangelist and Josephus, about threescore
furlongs. By account of common furlongs, seven miles 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? "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, thirty furlongs."
Our Josephus plainly hath it, "A town called Emmaus, distant from
Jerusalem threescore furlongs"...
III. Josephus commonly renders
Chammath of Tiberias (a place so called from the hot baths) by
Ammaus; but whether our Emmaus ought to have this derivation, 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.
"Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai had five
disciples, who, while he lived, sat always with him; but when he died,
they retired to Jabneh. But R. Eliezer Ben Erech betook himself to his
wife at Emmaus, a place of pleasant waters and pleasant dwelling."
There is something in this little story that might not be unworthy our
inquiry, as to the scholastical history of the Jews; viz. where Rabban
Jochanan 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.
"They came to Nicopolis: now
Nicopolis is a city in Palestine. 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 comfortable
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, chapter 20; wherein
the waters at Emmaus are celebrated not only for their plenty and
pleasantness, but as they were wonderfully wholesome 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), and calls it Emma. The Romans, having sacked
Jerusalem, and gained an entire victory over the Jews, from the event
of that war, gave this town the name of Nicopolis. 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 medicinal spring, wherein not only men that are
sick, being washed, 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 washed his feet in it, the waters have
ever since retained a healing quality and virtue 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 evangelist's time, Emmaus
was but a little village, when as, not long before it, it had been
burnt and destroyed by Varus. Nor is it more strange, that its ancient
name Emmaus should change into Nicopolis, when the place itself became
a Roman colony.
Ptolemy 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 Talmud: "From Beth-horon to
Emmaus it is hilly. From Emmaus to Lydda it is champaign; and from
Lydda to the sea is valley."
If you would hear Ptolemy more
largely, thus he writes: Jamnia 65. 40. 31. 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. xii.
cap. 11. and
1 Maccabees 4: Judas Maccabeus engages with Gorgias near Emmaus:
the Gorgians fly, and the Maccabeans pursue "as far as Gadaron (Gezer)
to the plains of Idumea, Azotus, and Jamnia."
I therefore recite this passage,
that it may appear that Emmaus lay towards Galilee, although from
Jerusalem it inclined also westward. For whereas, concerning the
latitude of Galilee extending itself 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. Tyrius makes me think it might; who,
describing the encampings and journeyings of the crusade army, tells
us, "Leaving the maritime towns, Antipatris and Joppa on the right,
they passed through Eleutheria, 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 towards
Galilee.
To what tribe Emmaus belonged would
be something hard to determine, because of the situation of Beth-horon,
which was in Ephraim,
Joshua 16; but that the Talmudists do clearly enough say, it was
not in the Samaritan country.
"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, the natives 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 joined in marriage with the priests,
or that Samaritan men should be permitted to play on the instruments
in the Temple. Emmaus, therefore, must be placed in the tribe of
Benjamin, which what it was called before is not easy to guess.
I conceive there is mention made of
this place in Siphra: "R. Akibah said; I asked Rabban Gamaliel and R.
Joshua 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 Jabneh; so that, by considering the situation of
Jabneh, 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; "Cassius disfranchized four cities, the
greatest of which was Gophna and Emmaus; and next to these was Lydda
and Thamna."
Under the disposition of the duke of
Palestine amongst the rest, was "Ala Antala of the dromedaries of
Admatha"; where Pancirole notes, that Admatha in St. Jerome, in his
Hebrew 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
or the 'Baths of Tiberias,' and Emmaus was much celebrated for famous
waters; I cannot forget the 'waters of Nephtoah,' or the 'Fountain of
Etam,' from whence water was conveyed by pipes into the Temple. This
was in the same quarter from Jerusalem with our Emmaus: so that our
Emmaus may as well be derived from Ammath, a channel of waters,
as well as the other from 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 Sigevert's Chronicle, in the reigns of
Theodosius and Valentinianus: "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 ate when the
other did not, the one slept when the other was awake. Sometime they
slept both together; they played 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, If any one should have two heads, 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 portion: 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 mention of, it is disputed
in Sotah, fol. 17. 1; where "Rabh asserts that there were two Timnaths,
one in Judea, and the other that of Samson." We all know of a third of
that name, Joshua's Timnath, viz. Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim,
where Joshua was buried,
Joshua 24:30. Here give the Rabbins a little play, and let them
trifle by transposing the names of Serah and Cheres, and
from thence ground a fiction, that the image of the sun was fixed upon
the sepulchre of Joshua, 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 Seventy add, "There they put into the
monument with him the stone-knives, with which he circumcised the
children of Israel in Gilgal, 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 slipped out since? Do they not rather savour
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 "on the
north side of the hill Gaash," "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 consider that
obscure passage which hath so much vexed interpreters, in
Judges 7:3; "Proclaim now in the ears of the people, saying,
Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart 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
allege towards the untying this knot, viz. that it should be taken
thus, "Whoever be of mount Gilead, let them return." The Targumist to
this sense; "Whosoever is fearful, let him return, and let choice
be made out of mount Gilead; i.e. 'Let the Gileadites be chosen.'"
But whether his meaning was that the Gileadites 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 inquire.
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
31).
We read of something not unlike it
set up by Joshua near Shechem, in testimony of the covenant betwixt
the people and God,
Joshua 24:26. Now, therefore, who can doubt but that Joshua 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
lineage of Joseph, could justlier inherit that part of the country
than Joshua?
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 Sychem? whence the foot of the hill, and the hill
itself 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 battle 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 more proper sense wherein this
mount Gilead can be taken, 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.
