us; and, since the word is plural in
form, Venus in her double capacity;--sometimes an evening, sometimes a
morning star. The sun and the moon and _Mazz[=a]l[=o]th_ would then set
forth the three brightest luminaries, whilst the general congress of
stars would be represented by the "host of heaven." But though Venus is
sometimes the brightest of the planets, she is essentially of the same
order as Jupiter or Mars, and is not of the same order as the sun and
moon, with whom, on this supposition, she is singled out to be ranked.
Moreover, if I[vs]tar or Ashtoreth were intended in this passage, it
does not appear why she should not be expressly named as such;
especially as Baal, so often coupled with her, is named. The "triad of
stars," too, had originally quite a different meaning, as will be seen
later.

Moreover, the parallelism between Job ix. and Job xxxviii. is destroyed
by this rendering, since the planet Venus could not be described as "the
chambers of the south." These are therefore referred by Professor
Schiaparelli to the glorious mass of stars in the far south, shining in
the constellations that set forth the Deluge story,--the Ship, and the
Centaur, much the most brilliant region of the whole sky.

Another interpretation of _Mazzaroth_ is given by Dr. Cheyne, on grounds
that refute Professor Schiaparelli's suggestion, but it is itself open
to objection from an astronomical point of view. He writes--

"_Mazzaroth_ is probably not to be identified with _Mazzaloth_
(2 Kings xxiii. 5) in spite of the authority of the Sept. and
the Targum. . . . _Mazzaroth_ = Ass. _Mazarati_; _Mazzaloth_
(i.e. the zodiacal signs) seems to be the plural of
_Mazz[=a]la_ = Ass. _Manzaltu_, station."[254:1]

Dr. Cheyne therefore renders the passage thus--

"Dost thou bring forth the moon's watches at their season,
And the Bear and her offspring--dost thou guide them?
Knowest thou the laws of heaven?
Dost thou determine its influence upon the earth?"

_Mazzaloth_ are therefore "the zodiacal signs," but _Mazzaroth_ "the
watches or stations of the moon, which marked the progress of the
month;"[254:2] or, in other words, the lunar zodiac.

But the lunar and the solar zodiac are only different ways of dividing
the same belt of stars. Consequently when, as in the passage before us,
reference is made to the actual belt of stars as a whole, there is no
difference between the two. So that