Charles Ellicott Commentary Amos 5:26

"Yea, ye have borne the tabernacle of your king and the shrine of your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves." — Amos 5:26 (ASV)

EXCURSUS B ( Amos 5:26 ).

Three obscure points make this verse one of the most difficult in the Old Testament.

1. Regarding tense: The interpretation preferred in the commentary on the text—viewing the time as future—was decided on grounds of grammatical usage only. However, most commentators have rendered the verb as a past tense, “But ye bore the tabernacle,” etc., referring to the time of the desert wanderings. This view is upheld by Hitzig, Kuenen, Keil, Henderson, and also by R. S. Poole. It is also supported by the Septuagint.

2. The word Sikkûth, rendered tabernacle, or tent, in the English Version and by the Septuagint, is derived from a root meaning both to interweave and to cover—an etymology that confirms this rendering. Ewald’s conjecture that it means “stake,” inferred from the Aramaic Sekkitho, is to be rejected. The concept of Moloch being carried in a tent can be illustrated by the Egyptian monuments of Rameses XII. Birch (Egypt, S. P. C. K., p. 149), refers to a tablet found in the southwest corner of Karnak: “The picture of the tablet represents Rameses holding a censer, and worshipping the ark of the god [Khons], which, partly covered with curtains, is placed in a boat... Figures of priests, a sphinx, and standards are in the boat, while twelve priests carry it on their shoulders.”

3. Both Moloch and Chiun were evidently star-deities. R. S. Poole attempts to connect Chiun with Semitic deities worshipped in Egypt (see the article “Remphan,” Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible). The name Chiun appears as Remphan in the quotation of this passage in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:43).

   Both Remphan and Chiun were held by Mr. Poole to be the corresponding male and female deities of Asiatic type, Renpu and Ken. However, the form Remphan can be clearly shown to have arisen from textual corruption, originating, perhaps, in some false analogy. In the New Testament passage, the best manuscripts read Rephan, and this reading has been adopted in the Revised Version. It also occurs in nearly the same form in the Septuagint, from which Stephen was freely quoting. In the Septuagint, the original order of the clauses has been transposed, and it is certainly safer to adhere to the Hebrew text .

   Rêphan arose from the Hebrew text by the change of a single character. Instances of such interchange are not uncommon in the Old Testament. Yet the form Rephan, though corrupt, is invaluable, as it indicates the true reading of the Hebrew word.

   The word for Chiun was read by the Masoretes as Kiyyûn (according to Ewald, “pedestal” [?]). However, the Septuagint indicate, and much confirmatory testimony establishes, that the word should be read as Kêvan. This Kêvan, like the Ammonitish Moloch, represented the star-deity Saturn.

   Thus, Kaivono is the form of the word in the Peshito. This view is supported by Aben Ezra and Kimchi, who cite Kivan as the name for the star Saturn in Persian and Arabic. This star (see quotations in Henderson’s Commentary) was believed to exert a malignant influence. Schrader (Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, p. 443) compares the name Ka-ai-vanu, the Assyrian name for that planet.