Chapter 3: Antiquity --- The Early Church, the Rabbis, and Amos 7:1

Why the Early Church Matters

The earliest Christians --- those within 1-2 generations of the apostles --- read the same Scriptures, remembered the apostolic voice, and practiced their faith under persecution rather than political power. Their witness matters not for infallibility but for proximity.

For this study, the early church evidence is particularly important because:

The early church primarily used the Septuagint as their Old Testament. Greek-speaking Christians would have read “Gog the king” in Amos 7:1.
The patristic evidence reveals which text form was in circulation and how it was understood.
The Gog tradition in Revelation 20:8 shows the early church was familiar with apocalyptic Gog, making the LXX reading of Amos a natural connection point.

Important caution: Absence of a teaching in early church writings may mean it wasn’t apostolic teaching OR simply wasn’t their urgent concern. Arguments from silence require humility. Amos 7:1 is not one of the most frequently cited Old Testament passages in patristic literature.

The Septuagint’s Authority in the Early Church

Before examining specific patristic commentary, it is essential to understand the Septuagint’s status in the early church:

The LXX was the church’s Bible. From the apostles through the 4th century, the vast majority of Christians read the Old Testament in Greek. The LXX was not a secondary source --- it was the Scriptures.
New Testament authors quoted the LXX. As Chapter 2 noted, the NT writers predominantly cited the OT from the Septuagint. When James quoted Amos 9:11-12 at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), he used the LXX text --- and the apostolic decision rested on that reading.
The shift toward the Hebrew text came gradually, primarily through Jerome’s work on the Vulgate (c. 390-405 AD). Jerome championed the Hebraica veritas and translated his Old Testament from the Hebrew rather than the Greek. This was controversial in his own time --- Augustine famously objected, arguing that the LXX had been divinely inspired and should not be displaced.
For the first four centuries of Christianity, any Greek-speaking Christian reading Amos 7:1 would have read “Gog the king.” This is the text the church knew.

Patristic Commentary on Amos 7:1

Jerome (c. 347-420 AD) --- Commentariorum in Amos Prophetam Libri III

Jerome is the single most important patristic voice on this passage because he worked from both the Hebrew and the Greek. His commentary (c. 406 AD) is the only ancient text that explicitly addresses the MT/LXX variant and proposes how the divergence arose.

Jerome’s Vulgate reads: et ecce serotinus post tonsionem regis --- “and behold, the latter growth after the shearing of the king” --- following the MT. But in his commentary, Jerome directly engages the LXX’s “Gog the king”:

Videntur mihi LXX interpretes, verbum hebraicum gozi quod interpretatur tonsor, sive tonsura, intellexisse Gog, zai litteram vau arbitrantes, et bruchi innumerabilem multitudinem Gog genti saevissimae comparasse, quae terram Iudaeam vastatura describitur.

Translation: “It seems to me that the Seventy translators understood the Hebrew word gozi, which means ‘shearer’ or ‘shearing,’ as Gog, taking the letter zayin for a waw, and compared the innumerable multitude of locusts to Gog, that most savage nation which is described as about to devastate the land of Judea.”

Jerome proposes the zayin/waw graphic confusion theory --- the same text-critical explanation that modern scholars continue to discuss. He also notes:

Aquila rendered the phrase puzzlingly as post gazae regem (“after the king of Gaza”), which Jerome suspects is a scribal corruption of the original word gozi
The name Gog means tectum (“a roof/covering”), representing “a certain proud and arrogant strength” (superba quaedam et arrogans fortitudo)
The whole vision refers to Sennacherib king of Assyria and his army devastating like locusts

Jerome’s commentary is preserved in CCSL 76A (M. Adriaen, ed.) and PL 25, cols. 1044ff. An accessible English translation is available in Thomas P. Scheck, St. Jerome: Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets, vol. 2 (IVP Academic, Ancient Christian Texts series, 2016-2017).

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393-466 AD) --- Interpretatio in XII Prophetas Minores

Theodoret worked primarily from the LXX and represented the Antiochene exegetical tradition --- historical-literal, attentive to context. Reading “Gog the king” in his Greek text, Theodoret assigned a different invader to each figure in the vision:

Ἐπιγονὴν δὲ ἀκρίδων ἐκάλεσε τὸν Ἀσσύριον· βροῦχον δὲ τὸν Βαβυλώνιον· τὸ δὲ, εἷς Γὼγ βασιλεὺς, τὸ τῆς στρατιᾶς μέγεθος παραδηλοῖ.

“He called the Assyrian a ‘brood of locusts’; the Babylonian a ‘locust-larva’; and the phrase ‘one Gog the king’ indicates the greatness of the army. For just as Gog, the king of the Scythian nations, will gather the greatest multitude against Jerusalem, so the Assyrians and Babylonians will come with a great army.”

Theodoret’s commentary is in PG 81, cols. 1701-1704. Greek text from Documenta Catholica Omnia (TLG 4089.025). English: Robert C. Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Prophets Vol 3 (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006).

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444 AD) --- Commentarii in XII Prophetas Minores

Cyril represented the Alexandrian exegetical tradition --- more allegorical and spiritual than Theodoret’s approach. Working from the LXX, Cyril read “Gog the king” and provided the most detailed surviving patristic interpretation of the locust-Gog connection.

Cyril explains that God used locust imagery because Amos was a shepherd --- God signifies the calamities of war through images the prophet would understand:

ὡς ἐν εἴδει γὰρ ἀκρίδος κατασημαίνει τὸν Ἀσσύριον, ὡς ἐν ἀμετρήτῳ πληθύι· μονονουχὶ κατεσθίοντα καὶ δαπανῶντα τὴν γῆν… ἀλλ’ ἦν, φησὶ, καὶ βροῦχος εἷς· ἦν δὲ δὴ οὗτος καὶ Γὼγ ὁ βασιλεύς.

“For in the form of a locust he signifies the Assyrian, as in countless multitude --- all but devouring and consuming the land… But there was, he says, also one locust-larva; and this was indeed Gog the king.”

Cyril then explicitly identifies Gog as Sennacherib, citing 2 Kings 19:35 and quoting Ezekiel 38:17 and 39:1-5 at length as proof texts:

Πολυπραγμονοῦντες δὲ ἀναγκαίως, τίς δὴ ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ Γὼγ… οἰόμεθα δὲ εἶναι τὸν Σενναχηρὶμ

“Inquiring necessarily into who Gog is… we think he is Sennacherib.”

His summary statement crystallizes the identification: “Τὸν Γὼγ ἤγουν τὸν Ἀσσύριον ὡς ἀκρίδα καὶ βροῦχον τεθέαται” --- “He has seen Gog, that is the Assyrian, as locust and locust-larva.”

Cyril’s commentary is preserved in P.E. Pusey’s critical edition (Oxford, 1868), vol. 1, pp. 496-500 (= PG 71). The Greek text is available via the First1KGreek project. English translation: Robert C. Hill, St. Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, FC 115, 116, 124 (CUA Press, 2007-2012). Volume 2 covers Amos. TLG 4090.001.

Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428 AD) --- Commentarius in XII Prophetas Minores

Theodore was the most rigorously historical-literal of the Antiochene exegetes. His commentary on the Minor Prophets is his only complete surviving Greek work. Theodore’s treatment of Gog is unique: he identifies him as the king of the Scythians who served as an auxiliary to the main invaders, not the primary aggressor.

The Latin parallel column preserves the argument most cleanly: “Jam nemo miretur quod Gogum regem inseruerit: etenim et antea Assyriis, et Babyloniis postea, multi de Scythicis quoque populis auxiliares belli erant, quorum rex erat Gog… facit mentionem non tanquam belli ducis, sed tanquam regnatoribus suppetias ferentis.” --- “Let no one wonder that he inserted Gog the king: for both before with the Assyrians, and afterward with the Babylonians, many of the Scythian peoples were auxiliaries in the war, whose king was Gog… [the prophet] mentions him not as the leader of the war, but as one bringing aid to the rulers.”

PG 66, cols. 125-128. Critical edition: H.N. Sprenger, Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarius in XII Prophetas (1977). English: Robert C. Hill, FC 108 (CUA Press, 2004). TLG 4135.007.

Origen and the Hexapla (c. 185-254 AD)

Origen’s Hexapla (c. 240 AD) presented the Old Testament in six parallel columns: (1) Hebrew, (2) Hebrew transliterated into Greek, (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the LXX with Origen’s critical marks, (6) Theodotion. The original was approximately 6,000 pages, likely never copied in full, and was destroyed with the library at Caesarea Maritima (probably in the 7th century).

For Amos 7:1, the LXX column would have shown “Gog the king” --- and Origen would have marked it with an obelus (÷), his standard sign indicating material in the LXX with no corresponding Hebrew. This is significant: Origen himself recognized the divergence and flagged it for readers. According to Jerome, Aquila rendered the phrase puzzlingly as post gazae regem (“after the king of Gaza”), apparently transliterating the Hebrew gizzey rather than translating it. Jerome suspected textual corruption.

No physical fragment of the original Hexapla survives. The modern reconstruction relies on three types of evidence: (1) the Syro-Hexapla, a Syriac translation of the LXX column made by Bishop Paul of Tella in 616-617 AD, which preserves Origen’s critical marks; (2) Hexaplaric marginalia in Greek manuscripts, most importantly Codex Marchalianus (Q, 6th century), which contains extensive marginal readings from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion for the Prophets; and (3) patristic citations from fathers like Jerome who had direct access to the Hexapla.

The fragments are collected in Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875), vol. 2, available at archive.org. For a fuller discussion of the reconstruction and what it shows for Amos 7:1, see Appendix B.

The East-West Divide

A significant pattern emerges from the patristic evidence:

Greek-speaking Eastern fathers (Theodoret, Cyril, Theodore) read “Gog the king” from the LXX and produced substantive commentary on it. Origen’s Hexapla placed the readings side by side, though no surviving Origenian commentary on this specific verse is extant.
Latin-speaking Western fathers --- most importantly Jerome --- read “the king’s mowings” from the Hebrew/Vulgate tradition. Jerome’s commentary is the only patristic text that explicitly addresses the variant and proposes how it arose.

This means the patristic evidence does not settle the textual question but rather mirrors it: the Greek-reading East and the Hebrew-reading West literally read different texts. The church lived with both readings for centuries.

Rabbinic Sources

Targum Jonathan on Amos (c. 1st-2nd century AD)

כְּדֵין אֲחְזְיַנִי יְיָ אֱלֹהִים וְהָא בִּרְיַת גוֹבֵי בַּאֲוַל צִמוּחַ לָקִישׁ וְהָא צִמוּחַ דַעֲדַק בָּתַר דְאִתְגְזִיזַת שִׁחֲתָא דְמַלְכָּא

Translation: “Thus the Lord God showed me, and behold a creation of locusts at the beginning of the sprouting of the latter growth, and behold the sprouting of the tender [grass] after the young corn of the king was mowed.”

The Targum follows the MT, rendering gizzey hammelek as d’itg’zizat shichata d’malka --- “after the young corn of the king was mowed.” The “king’s mowings” is understood as the royal tax on the first cutting of hay. The Targum does not read “Gog” here, which is notable because the Gog tradition was well known in Jewish interpretive circles --- the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch read “Gog” instead of “Agag” in Numbers 24:7, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan references “the armies of Gog” in Numbers 24:17.

The standard English translation with notes is Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible series, vol. 14; Liturgical Press, 1989).

Rashi (1040-1105 AD)

וְהִנֵּה לֶקֶשׁ הָיָה צוֹמֵחַ אַחַר גִּזֵּי הַמֶּלֶךְ אַחַר שֶׁגָּזְזוּ תְּבוּאַת הַמֶּלֶךְ עַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה בְּקָנֶה הָיוּ גּוֹזְזִין אוֹתָהּ שַׁחַת לְהַאֲכִיל לַבְּהֵמוֹת. וְכֵן תִּרְגֵּם יוֹנָתָן: דְּאִתְגְּזִיזַת שִׁיחֲתָא דְמַלְכָּא, וּלְשׁוֹן מִשְׁנָה הִיא: קוֹצֵר לְשַׁחַת וּמַאֲכִיל לַבְּהֵמָה:

Translation: “was growing after the king’s mowings --- after they mowed the king’s grains. Before it would shoot up in its stalk, they would mow it [as] young corn to feed the cattle, and so did Jonathan render it: [After] the king’s young corn was mown. This is a mishnaic expression (Menachoth 10:8): ‘One may cut young corn and feed the cattle.’”

Rashi follows a straightforward peshat reading: the king’s portion is the first cutting (mowed as young corn for cattle feed), and the laqesh is the regrowth the people depend on. He cites both Targum Jonathan and the Mishnah (Menachoth 10:8) as support.

Ibn Ezra (1089-c. 1164 AD)

הלקש --- העשב העולה ברדת המלקוש והנה לקש נגזז לצורך בהמות המלך, קודם עלות הקנה.

Translation: “The latter growth (laqesh) --- the vegetation that comes up when the late rain (malqosh) falls; and behold, the laqesh was mowed for the king’s cattle, before the stalk grew up.”

Ibn Ezra’s main contribution on this verse is a grammatical debate about yotzer (“forming” vs. “gathering”), citing Rabbi Moses Ibn Chiquitilla. He confirms the laqesh was mowed for the king’s animals. He does not comment on gizzey specifically, nor does he engage the LXX variant.

Radak / David Kimhi (1160-1235 AD)

והנה לקש. הלקש הזה היה עולה אחר גזי המלך כלומר אחר שהיה נגזז העשב למאכל בהמות המלך אחר כן היה צומח העשב והוא נקרא לקש והנה הארבה היה אוכלו

Translation: “This laqesh was growing after the king’s mowings --- that is, after the grass was mowed as food for the king’s cattle, afterward the grass would grow again and this is called laqesh, and the locusts were eating it.”

Radak confirms the agricultural reading: the king’s right to the first cutting for his cattle, the regrowth consumed by the locusts. Like Rashi and Ibn Ezra, Radak follows the MT without engaging the LXX variant. Medieval Jewish commentators generally did not interact with LXX readings.

Talmudic and Midrashic References

Babylonian Talmud, Makkot 24a is the key passage connecting Amos’s intercession with Moses. The Talmud presents Amos as one of four prophets who revoked decrees of Moses: “Moses said: ‘And Israel dwells in safety, the fountain of Jacob alone’ (Deut 33:28). Amos came and revoked it, as it is stated: ‘Lord God, cease, I beseech You; how shall Jacob stand, as he is small?’ (Amos 7:5), and immediately afterward: ‘The Lord regretted this; it too shall not be, says the Lord God’ (Amos 7:6).” The Talmud cites Amos 7:5 (the fire vision) rather than 7:2 (the locust vision), though the intercessory pattern is identical.
Leviticus Rabbah 10:2 records a divine dialogue responding to Amos’s intercession: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Amos, you said ‘Cease, I pray’? By your life, ‘The LORD relented concerning this.’” This section also discusses Amos’s prophetic worthiness.

Patterns and Observations

The LXX reading shaped Eastern Christian interpretation. For the first four centuries, Greek-speaking Christians understood Amos 7:1 as referencing Gog --- an apocalyptic figure, not an agricultural detail. This colored their reading of the entire vision cycle.
Jerome’s preference for the Hebrew marked a turning point in Western exegesis. After the Vulgate, Western readers knew only “the king’s mowings.” The Gog reading was largely forgotten in the Latin West.
Rabbinic tradition universally follows the MT. No major Jewish commentator engages the LXX variant. The agricultural reading is the only reading in the Jewish exegetical tradition.
The Targum’s silence on Gog is notable. The Gog tradition was well known in Jewish interpretive circles --- the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch read “Gog” in Numbers 24:7, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan references “the armies of Gog” in Numbers 24:17 --- yet the Targum does not read Gog in Amos 7:1, suggesting the Hebrew Vorlage available to the Targumists read gizzey, not Gog.
The church lived with both readings. For centuries, Eastern and Western Christians read different texts of Amos 7:1. This did not create a doctrinal crisis because the theological core --- God’s judgment, prophetic intercession, divine mercy --- is identical in both readings.

Summary

The Antiquity evidence adds important context but does not settle the textual question:

The early church’s LXX contained “Gog the king,” and Greek-speaking fathers commented on this reading as authoritative Scripture.
Jerome and the Western tradition followed the Hebrew “king’s mowings” and eventually this became the dominant reading through the Vulgate.
Rabbinic tradition universally supports the MT reading.
The Targum’s failure to introduce Gog (despite doing so elsewhere) suggests the MT reading was firmly established in the Jewish Hebrew tradition.

The most important observation may be the simplest: the church has lived with textual plurality on this verse from its earliest days. The Eastern church read “Gog the king”; the Western church read “the king’s mowings.” Both traditions produced faithful commentary, and neither reading damaged the theological integrity of the text. This precedent of charitable coexistence with textual ambiguity is itself a witness worth preserving.