alian Pe

17 But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which Jerusalem. ed, 4746, God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multialgar Era, plied in Egypt,

:4747.

3 or 34.

18 Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.

19 The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.

20 In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father's house three months: 21 And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son.

22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.

23 And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.

24 And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian :

25 For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.

26 And the next day he shewed himself unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?

27 But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over

us?

28 Wilt thou kill me,, as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday?

apyvpiov, which he (Jacob) had bought for a sum of money of
the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem. Markland supposes,
that putting a comma at ápyvpíov, and πapà being interpreted
from, may solve the difficulty, and would read-" And were
carried over to Sychem and AFTERWARDS FROM among the
descendants of Emmor the father, or son of Sychem, they were
laid in the sepulchre which Abraham had bought for a sum of
money." This reconciles St. Stephen's account with that
which Josephus (Antiq. ii. 8.) relates of the Patriarchs, viz.
that they were buried in Hebron, being carried out of Egypt,
where they died, first to Sychem, and from Sychem to Hebron,
to the sepulchre which Abraham had bought. It scarce needs
proof that apà with a Gen. expresses motion from, as άæedń-
μnoas kap nuwv, peregre a nobis profectus es, Lucian Hermot.
p. 528. and ñλov паρà тоυ Tarрòç, John xvi. 28. The lan-
guage hints that the translation of the Patriarchs from Sychem
to Hebron was made after the time of Emmor, under some of
his descendants, rapà rwv viov 'Eupop. Sychem, the person
here spoken of, might perhaps have his name from the city near
which bis father lived; but is mentioned here only incidentally,
having nothing at all to do with the narration.-See Gen. xlix.
29, &c. For the other illustrations of this passage, see Bowyer's
Crit. Conjectures, p. 345, &c. and Elsley, vol. iii. p. 232.

Julian Pe

riod, 4746,

or 4747. Vulgar Era, 33 or 34.

29 Then fled Moses at this saying; and was a stranger Jerusalem. in the land of Madian, where he begat two sons.

30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sina an angel of the Lord, in a flame of fire in a bush.

31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,

32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.

33 Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet for the place where thou standest is holy ground.

34 I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver m. the And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.

35 This Moses, whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer, by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

36 He brought them out, after that he had shewn wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years.

37 This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye

hear.

38 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sina, and with our fathers; who received the lively oracles to give

unto us :

39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hands turned back again into Egypt,

40 Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what has become of him.

41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.

42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven: as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?

43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to

Pe- worship them": and I will carry you away beyond Ba- Jerusalem. 4746, bylon.

47.

ar Era, 34.

7 St. Stephen here alludes to a passage in the book of Amos, chap. v. 26. which is rendered with some variation in the Septuagint. The words of the original in our Hebrew Bibles are

הזבחים ומנחה הגשתם לי במדבר ארבעים שני בית ישראל: ונשאתם את סכות מלככם ואת כיון צלמיכם כוכב אלהיכם אשר עשיתם לכם:

They are thus translated-Have ye offered unto me sacrifices, and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? 26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch, and Chiun your images, the star of your God, which ye made for yourselves.

By the Septuagint—Μὴ σφάγια καὶ θυσιάς προσηνέγκατέ μοι οἶκος Ἰσραὴλ τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ; καὶ ἀναλάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τῶ Μολόχ, καὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῷ θεῷ ὑμων Ραιφᾶν, τῆς τύπες αὐτῶν, οὓς ἐποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς.

The quotation in the Acts is evidently from the Septuagint, from the original in which it does not materially differ. The words οἶκος Ισραὴλ in the Acts, are placed after ἐν τῇ ἐρήμω, and in the Septuagint after poonveyμaré pot. In the Septua gint we read 'Paipay, and in Acts Peupáv. In the Septuagint the remainder of the clause is read Ραίφαν, τοὺς τύπους αὐτῶν οὓς ἐποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς· καὶ μετοικιῶ ὑμᾶς ἐπέκεινα Δαμασκού. In the ActsῬεμφὼν τοὺς τύπους, οὓς ἐποιήσατε προσκυνεῖν αὐτοῖς· καὶ μετοικιῶ ὑμᾶς ἐπέκεινα Βαβυλῶνος.

Vitringa (a) would account for the difference between the Hebrew and the Septuagint by supposing that the copyists of the inspired writings frequently placed the poetical parts of the Old Testament in the proper order of their clauses; which he considers to have been not only metrical, but frequently rhythmical. Many instances might be found to support this opinion, and to prove its probability. Vitringa arranges the second Psalm on this plan. The 145th I remember having seen elsewhere disposed in a similar manner. He concludes that the verses in the Hebrew of Amos were arranged in their poetic order, and that the Septuagint translators read these clauses not in their right order from right to left, but from the higher line to the lower, and thus caused the variation in question. He would thus arrange both the original and the translation.

Οὓς ἐποιήσατε προσκυνεῖν αὐτοῖς καὶ τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ Θεῦ ἡμῶν.
The Hebrew word (Chiun) in Amos, is rendered by the
Septuagint 'Papãv (Raiphan,) and in the Acts 'Peμpãv (or Ram-
phan). Various hypotheses have been proposed, to account for
this difference. Some have imagined that the Hebrew letter,
from the transcriber having omitted to insert the lower part of
it, has been changed into, consequently the word with the
points was read Rephan.

Pfeiffer (b) has discussed the subject, and collected from vari-
ous authorities much information. I learn from him that Dru-
sius, with Justin and Theodoret, agree with the opinion already
given, and think that the word 'Pepav is a corruption of xεpāv,
which was so written by the error of the transcribers, who mis-
took for, and read (Amos v. 26.) ? for 1.

Grotius would read Remphan, and Petit Rephan; both consider it as a name of Saturn.

Pfeiffer quotes also Kircher, T. 1. Edip. Egypt. Synt. 4. c. 22. p. 387. who considers that 'Papav was the Coptic name of Saturn.

Julian Pe- 44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the Jerusale riod, 4746, wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses,

or 4747.

Vulgar Æra, 33 or 3.

Dr. Hales proposes the following translation:

Did ye offer unto me (alone) sacrifices and oblations, pure and undivided in the wilderness,

For forty years, O house of Israel? (Nay verily)

But ye (then) carried in procession the shrine of (the Sun),
Your king, and of the dog-star, your God.

Your images, which ye made for yourselves to worship, and
ye do so still.

Wherefore I will carry you away beyond Damascus, (nay
even) beyond Babylon.-Amos v. 21-27. Acts vii. 42, 43.

Dr. Hales (c) endeavours to prove that Chiun was the dog-
star;
and that the Hebrew words 12, m, ought to be read as
one compound word, corresponding with the Greek Aspwos
kuwν, or Aspокvvoc, the dog-star: whence he supposes that the
Greek kvwv is derived from "Chiun." He then wishes to shew
that Chiun and Remphan, or Raiphan, or Rephan, were the

same.

Archbishop Newcome (d) thinks, that the order of the words in the Septuagint is preferable to that in the Hebrew. Their collocation in the Hebrew, he observes, is unnatural, and points out a mistake in the copies. He would render the passage -Nay, but ye bare the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun, your images, the star of your God, which ye made to yourselves. Newcome mentions a MS. 612, which places the words thus: Chiun, your god, the star [of] your images. He interprets the word Chiun, after Spencer (e), as a name of Saturn, and remarks the reading of Ρεμφαν in ὁ and of Ρεμφεν, Ραϊφαν, Ραφαν, Ρεφφαν, Ρέφα, Acts vii. 43. where the Mss. vary, may be accounted for two ways; r may have been read

, there being a similarity in the two initial letters: or Rephan, the Egyptian name for Saturn, may have been used by translators who lived in Egypt, as an equivalent term to Chiun.

Selden supposes this god Chiun might have been represented as a star with certain symbols of distinction (ƒ). Lightfoot (g) has also a long criticism upon this word. Before his time the word Paipav had been generally interpreted as if derived from the Hebrew 57, a giant. Lightfoot would rather derive it from 7 or 97, weak and weakness; after giving his reasons for so doing, (see Lightfoot, vol. viii. p. 434.) he proceeds, by saying, be it therefore that Moloch is the sun, or Remphan and Chiun should be Saturn, we read of the introduction of Moloch into the land of Israel, but of Chiyun not at all, only in the prophet Amos, and here in the mention of Remphan. When I read that in 1 Kings xii. 30. "That all the people went to worship the calf in Dan;" and observe farther, that Dan was called Panias, I begin to think that av, Phan, in Paigav, Rephan, and 'Pɛμpav, Remphan, may have some relation with that name; and that Dan is mentioned rather than Bethel, because the idolatry, or calf of that place, continued longer than that of Bethel. Mr. Faber (h), the last author who has treated on these subjects, states, we are told by Aben Ezra, that Saturn or Cronos was styled by the Arabs and Persians Chivan; which is palpably the same as the Chiun of Amos. But Chiun, or Chivan, seems to be only the Buddhic title Saca, or Sacya, in a more simple shape: for since the Chinese distinguish their god Po, or Buddha, by the name of Che-Kya, or the Great Kya, writing the Indian appellation Sacya in two words,

Julian Pe- that he should make it according to the fashion that he had Jerusalem

riod, 4746,
or 4747.
Valgar Æra,
33 or 34.

seen.

instead of one: it is probable that Sacya is a compound term,
denoting the illustrious Cya, or Chiun.

Such are the various hypotheses of these learned men to re-
concile the apparent discrepancy between the Hebrew, the
Septuagint, and St. Luke. The conclusion to which we may
most safely come, seems to be, that Rephan, Remphan, and
Chiyun, were all well known names given to the same idol-
deity; it was consequently a matter of indifference which St.
Stephen mentioned in his address. There is no greater varia-
tion between his account, that of the Septuagint, and the He-
brew, than there would be between three writers who severally
asserted that the Duke of Wellington, the Prince of Waterloo,
and the Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo, gained the battle of Waterloo.
It is almost impossible to believe that the people of Israel,
while their God was among them, leading them through the
wilderness, could have fallen down to images of idols, unless
they had believed in some common principles, which alike pre-
vailed both among themselves and the idolaters. It is well
known, to every reader of Scripture and primitive history, that
there were many doctrines, rites, observances, and ceremonies,
regarded with equal veneration by the Jews and Pagans. It
appears, from the testimony of antiquity and the researches of
Bochart, Gale, Stillingfleet, Bryant, and Faber, that the lead-
ing doctrines of all the ancient religions were the same; and
the several rites thus common to all, are to be traced to that
period when mankind were few in number, and the primitive
religion consequently but little corrupted. Among the observ-
ances which appear to have been thus common to the earliest
inhabitants of the earth, were the general adoption of moveable
arks, and of the cherubic emblems. These were preserved by
the idolaters, who added to them in proportion as their innova-
tions multiplied upon the patriarchal religion, till at last they
resorted to rites, which are described at large by various authors.
The worship of the golden calf was the first act of idolatry on
the part of the Israelites; this they would perhaps have justi
fied to themselves, on the plea that the calf to which they
bowed down was only the representation of their own cheru-
bim. Probably the next act of idolatry was this here men-
tioned by St. Stephen. Moloch, or Renphan, or Chiun, (for
they are all the same personage,) was the compound idol, ori-
ginally designed to represent the great Father, or Noah, which
was afterwards made the emblem of the sun, the god of Tsa-
baism. Without professedly forsaking the worship of Jehovah,
the Israelities hoped to unite another God with him, and by so
doing gave his glory to another. This was the beginning of
their idolatry, and turning to worship the host of heaven; and
was the cause of their not offering those sacrifices which their
law required.

Mr. Faber has endeavoured to prove that the star of Rem-
phan, or Moloch, was the diluvian star of the Persic Mithras,
or Tashhter, Astarte, Typhon, and Dardanus. He attempts,
in his learned and most interesting work on the origin of that
idolatry, to shew that " in the theology of the Gentiles all those
deities, whose history traces them, in their human capacity, to
the great Father, or Noah, were venerated in their celestial
character as the sun. The compound word Remphan, or
Ram-phan, may either (he observes) signify the lofty Phanes,
or may possibly be the name of the Indo-Scythic Rama, united
with that of Phanes, or Pan." This deity is rightly judged, by