the antiquities of the jews-1-第313节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


also　it　is　contrary　to　the　express　words　of　Josephus's　original
author；　1　Macc。　7：32；　who　says　that　Nicanor　lost　about　five
thousand　men；　and　fled　to　the　city　of　David。

（27）　This　account　of　the　miserable　death　of　Alcimus；　or　Jac…mus；
the　wicked　high　priest；　（the　first　that　was　not　of　the　family　of
the　high　priests；　and　made　by　a　vile　heathen；　Lysias；）　before　the
death　of　Judas；　and　of　Judas's　succession　to　him　as　high　priest；
both　here；　and　at　the　conclusion　of　this　book；　directly
contradicts　1　Macc。　9：54…57；　which　places　his　death　after　the
death　of　Judas；　and　says　not　a　syllable　of　the　high　priesthood　of
Judas。　How　well　the　Roman　histories　agree　to　this　account　of　the
conquests　and　powerful　condition　of　the　Romans　at　this　time；　see
the　notes　in　Havercamp's　edition；　only　that　the　number　of　the
senators　of　Rome　was　then　just　three　hundred　and　twenty；　is；　I
think；　only　known　from　1　Macc。　8：15。

（28）　This　subscription　is　wanting　1　Macc。　8：17；　29；　and　must　be
the　words　of　Josephus；　who　by　mistake　thought；　as　we　have　just
now　seen；　that　Judas　was　at　this　time　high　priest；　and
accordingly　then　reckoned　his　brother　Jonathan　to　be　the　general
of　the　army；　which　yet　he　seems　not　to　have　been　till　after　the
death　of　Judas。

（29）　That　this　copy　of　Josephus；　as　he　wrote　it；　had　here　not　one
thousand；　but　three　thousand；　with　1　Macc　9：5；　is　very　plain；
because　though　the　main　part　ran　away　at　first；　even　in　Josephus；
as　well　as　in　1　Macc。　9：6；　yet；　as　there；　so　here；　eight　hundred
are　said　to　have　remained　with　Judas；　which　would　be　absurd；　if
the　whole　number　had　been　no　more　than　one　thousand。

BOOK　13　FOOTNOTES

（1）　This　Alexander　Bala；　who　certainly　pretended　to　be　the　son　of
Antiochus　Epiphanes；　and　was　owned　for　such　by　the　Jews　and
Romans；　and　many　others；　and　yet　is　by　several　historians　deemed
to　be　a　counterfeit；　and　of　no　family　at　all；　is；　however；　by
Josephus　believed　to　have　been　the　real　son　of　that　Antiochus；
and　by　him　always　spoken　of　accordingly。　And　truly；　since　the
original　contemporary　and　authentic　author　of　the　First　Book　of
Maccabees　（10：1）　calls　him　by　his　father's　name；　Epiphanes；　and
says　he　was　the　son　of　Antiochus；　I　suppose　the　other　writers；
who　are　all　much　later；　are　not　to　be　followed　against　such
evidence；　though　perhaps　Epiphanes　might　have　him　by　a　woman　of
no　family。　The　king　of　Egypt　also；　Philometor；　soon　gave　him　his
daughter　in　marriage；　which　he　would　hardly　have　done；　had　he
believed　him　to　be　a　counterfeit；　and　of　so　very　mean　a　birth　as
the　later　historians　pretend。

（2）　Since　Jonathan　plainly　did　not　put　on　the　pontifical　robes
till　seven　or　eight　years　after　the　death　of　his　brother　Judas；
or　not　till　the　feast　of　tabernacles；　in　the　160th　of　the
Seleucidm；　1　Macc。　10；21；　Petitus's　emendation　seems　here　to
deserve　consideration；　who；　instead　of　〃after　four　years　since
the　death　of　his　brother　Judas；〃　would　have　us　read；　〃and
therefore　after　eight　years　since　the　death　of　his　brother
Judas。〃　This　would　tolerably　well　agree　with　the　date　of　the
Maccabees；　and　with　Josephus's　own　exact　chronology　at　the　end　of
the　twentieth　book　of　these　Antiquities；　which　the　present　text
cannot　be　made　to　do。

（3）　Take　Grotius's　note　here：　〃The　Jews；〃　says　he；　〃were　wont　to
present　crowns　to　the　kings　＇of　Syria＇；　afterwards　that　gold
which　was　paid　instead　of　those　crowns；　or　which　was　expended　in
making　them；　was　called　the　crown　gold　and　crown　tax。〃　On　1　Macc。
10：29。

（4）　Since　the　rest　of　the　historians　now　extant　give　this
Demetrius　thirteen　years；　and　Josephus　only　eleven　years；　Dean
Prideaux　does　not　amiss　in　ascribing　to　him　the　mean　number
twelve。

（5）　It　seems　to　me　contrary　to　the　opinion　of　Josephus；　and　of
the　moderns；　both　Jews　and　Christians；　that　this　prophecy　of
Isaiah；　19：19；　etc。；　〃In　that　day　there　shall　be　an　altar　to　the
Lord　in　the　midst　of　the　land　of　Egypt；〃　etc。；　directly　foretold
the　building　of　this　temple　of　Onias　in　Egypt；　and　was　a
sufficient　warrant　to　the　Jews　for　building　it；　and　for
worshipping　the　true　God。　the　God　of　Israel；　therein。　See
Authent。　Rec。　11。　p。　755。　That　God　seems　to　have　soon　better
accepted　of　the　sacrifices　and　prayers　here　offered　him　than
those　at　Jerusalem；　see　the　note　on　ch。　10。　sect。　7。　And　truly
the　marks　of　Jewish　corruption　or　interpolation　in　this　text；　in
order　to　discourage　their　people　from　approving　of　the　Worship　of
God　here；　are　very　strong；　and　highly　deserve　our　consideration
and　correction。　The　foregoing　verse　in　Isaiah　runs　thus　in　our
common　copies；　〃In　that　day　shall　five　cities　in　the　land　of
Egypt　speak　the　language　of　Canaan；〃　＇the　Hebrew　language；　shall
be　full　of　Jews；　whose　sacred　books　were　in　Hebrew；＇　〃and　swear
to　the　Lord　of　hosts；　one〃　＇or　the　first＇　〃shall　be　called；　The
City　of　Destruction；〃　Isaiah　19：18。　A　strange…name；　〃City　of
Destruction；〃　upon　so　joyful　occasion；　and　a　name　never　heard　of
in　the　land　of　Egypt；　or　perhaps　in　any　other　nation。　The　old
reading　was　evidently　the　City　of　the　Sun；　or　Heliopolis；　and
Unkelos；　in　effect；　and　Symmachus；　with　the　Arabic　version；
entirely　confess　that　to　be　the　true　reading。　The　Septuagint
also；　though　they　have　the　text　disguised　in　the　common　copies；
and　call　it　Asedek；　the　City　of　Righteousness；　yet　in　two　or
three　other　copies　the　Hebrew　word　itself　for　the　Sun；　Achares；
or　Thares；　is　preserved。　And　since　Onias　insists　with　the　king
and　queen；　that　Isaiah's　prophecy　contained　many　other
predictions　relating　to　this　place　besides　the　words　by　him
recited；　it　is　highly　probable　that　these　were　especially　meant
by　him；　and　that　one　main　reason　why　he　applied　this　prediction
to　himself；　and　to　his　prefecture　of　Heliopolis；　which　Dean
Prideaux　well　proves　was　in　that　part　of　Egypt；　and　why　he　chose
to　build　in　that　prefecture　of　Heliopolis；　though　otherwise　an
improper　place；　was　this；　that　the　same　authority　that　he　had　for
building　this　temple　in　Egypt；　the　very　same　he　had　for　building
it　in　his　own　prefecture　of　Heliopolis　also；　which　he　desired　to
do；　and　which　he　did　accordingly。　Dean　Prideaux　has　much　ado　to
avoid　seeing　this　corruption　of　the　Hebrew；　but　it　being　in
support　of　his　own　opinion　about　this　temple；　he　durst　not　see
it；　and　indeed　he　reasons　here　in　the　most　injudicious　manner
possible。　See　him　at　the　year　149。

（6）　A　very　unfair　disputation　this！　while　the　Jewish　disputant；
knowing　that　he　could　not　properly　prove　out　of　the　Pentateuch；
that　〃the　place　which　the　Lord　their　God　shall　choose　to　place
his　name　there；〃　so　often　referred　to　in　the　Book　of　Deuteronomy；
was　Jerusalem　any　more　than　Gerizzim；　that　being　not　determined
till　the　days　of　David；　Antiq。　B。　VII。　ch。　13。　sect。　4；　proves
only；　what　the　Samaritans　did　not　deny；　that　the　temple　at
Jerusalem　was　much　more　ancient；　and　much　more　celebrated　and
honored；　than　that　at　Gerizzim；　which　was　nothing　to　the　present
purpose。　The　whole　evidence；　by　the　very　oaths　of　both　parties；
being；　we　see；　obliged　to　be　confined　to　the　law　of　Moses；　or　to
the　Pentateuch　alone。　However；　worldly　policy　and　interest　and
the　multitude　prevailing；　the　court　gave　sentence；　as　usual；　on
the　stronger　side。　and　poor　Sabbeus　and　Theodosius；　the　Samaritan
disputants；　were　martyred；　and　this；　so　far　as　appears；　without
any　direct　hearing　at　all；　which　is　like　the　usual　practice　of
such　political　courts　about　matters　of　religion。　Our　copies　say
that　the　body　of　the　Jews　were　in　a　great　concern　about　those　men
（in　the　plural）　who　were　to　dispute　for　their　temple　at
Jerusalem；　whereas　it　seems　here　they　had　but　one　disputant；
Andronicus　by　name。　Perhaps　more　were　prepared　to　speak　on　the
Jews'　side；　but　the　firstraying　answered　to　his　name；　and
overcome　the　Samaritans；　there　was　necessity　for　any　other
defender　of　the　Jerusalem　temple。

（7）　Of　the　several　Apollonius　about　these　ages；　see　Dean　Prideaux
at　the　year　148。　This　Apollonius　Daus　was；　by　his　account；　the
son　of　that　Apollonius　who　had　been　made　governor　of　Celesyria
and　Phoenicia　by　Seleueus　Philopater；　and　was　himself　a　confidant
of　his　son　Demetrius　the　father；　and　restored　to　his　father's
government　by　him；　but　afterwards　revolted　from　him　to　Alexander；
but　not　to　Demetrius　the　son；　as　he　supposes。

（8）　Dr。　Hudson　here　observes；　that　the　Phoenicians　and　Romans
used　to　reward　such　as　had　deserved　well　of　them；　by　presenting
to　them　a　golden　button。　See　ch。　5。　sect。　4。

（9）　This　name；　Demetrius　Nicator；　or　Demetrius　the　conqueror；　is
so　written　on　his　coins　still　extant；　as　Hudson　and　Spanheim
inform　us；　the　latter　of　whom　gives　us　here　the　entire
inscription；　〃King　Demetrius　the　God；　Philadelphus；　Nicator。〃

（10）　This　clause　is　otherwise　rendered　in　the　First　Book　of
Maccabees；　12：9；　〃For　that　we　have　the　holy　books　of　Scripture　in
our　bands　to　comfort　us。〃　The　Hebrew　original　being　lost；　we
cannot　certainly　judge　which　was　the　truest　version　only　the
coherence　favors　Josephus。　But　if　this　were　the　Jews'　meaning；
that　they　were　satisfied　out　of　their　Bible　that　the　Jews　and
Lacedemonians　were　of　kin；　that　part　of　their　Bible　is　now　lost；
for　we　find　no　such　assertion　in　our　present　copies。

（11）　Those　that　suppose　Jos