[1] The former part of this second book is written against the calumnies
of Apion, and then, more briefly, against the like calumnies of
Apollonius Molo. But after that, Josephus leaves off any more particular
reply to those adversaries of the Jews, and gives us a large and
excellent description and vindication of that theocracy which was
settled for the Jewish nation by Moses, their great legislator.
[2] Called by Tiberius Cymbalum Mundi, The drum of the world.
[3] This seems to have been the first dial that had been made in Egypt,
and was a little before the time that Ahaz made his [first] dial in
Judea, and about anno 755, in the first year of the seventh olympiad, as
we shall see presently. See 2 Kings 20:11; Isaiah 38:8.
[4] The burial-place for dead bodies, as I suppose.
[5] Here begins a great defect in the Greek copy; but the old Latin
version fully supplies that defect.
[6] What error is here generally believed to have been committed by our
Josephus in ascribing a deliverance of the Jews to the reign of Ptolemy
Physco, the seventh of those Ptolemus, which has been universally
supposed to have happened under Ptolemy Philopater, the fourth of them,
is no better than a gross error of the moderns, and not of Josephus, as
I have fully proved in the Authentic. Rec. Part I. p. 200-201, whither I
refer the inquisitive reader.
[7] Sister's son, and adopted son.
[8] Called more properly Molo, or Apollonius Molo, as hereafter; for
Apollonins, the son of Molo, was another person, as Strabo informs us,
lib. xiv.
[9] Furones in the Latin, which what animal it denotes does not now
appear.
[10] It is great pity that these six pagan authors, here mentioned to
have described the famous profanation of the Jewish temple by Antiochus
Epiphanes, should be all lost; I mean so far of their writings as
contained that description; though it is plain Josephus perused them all
as extant in his time.
[11] It is remarkable that Josephus here, and, I think, no where else,
reckons up four distinct courts of the temple; that of the Gentiles,
that of the women of Israel, that of the men of Israel, and that of the
priests; as also that the court of the women admitted of the men, [I
suppose only of the husbands of those wives that were therein,] while
the court of the men did not admit any women into it at all.
[12] Judea, in the Greek, by a gross mistake of the transcribers.
[13] Seven in the Greek, by a like gross mistake of the transcribers.
See of the War, B. V. ch. 5. sect. 4.
[14] Two hundred in the Greek, contrary to the twenty in the War, B.
VII. ch, 5. sect. 3.
[15] This notorious disgrace belonging peculiarly to the people of
Egypt, ever since the times of the old prophets of the Jews, noted
both sect. 4 already, and here, may be confirmed by the testimony of
Isidorus, an Egyptian of Pelusium, Epist. lib. i. Ep. 489. And this is a
remarkable completion of the ancient prediction of God by Ezekiel 29:14,
15, "that the Egyptians should be a base kingdom, the basest of the
kingdoms," and that, "it should not exalt itself any more above the
nations."
[16] The truth of which still further appears by the present observation
of Josephus, that these Egyptians had never, in all the past ages since
Sesostris, had one day of liberty, no, not so much as to have been free
from despotic power under any of the monarchies to that day. And all
this has been found equally true in the latter ages, under the Romans,
Saracens, Mamelukes, and Turks, from the days of Josephus till the
present ago also.
[17] This language, that Moses, "persuaded himself" that what he did was
according to God's will, can mean no more, by Josephus's own constant
notions elsewhere, than that he was "firmly persuaded," that he had
"fully satisfied himself" that so it was, viz. by the many revelations
he had received from God, and the numerous miracles God had enabled him
to work, as he both in these very two books against Apion, and in his
Antiquities, most clearly and frequently assures us. This is further
evident from several passages lower, where he affirms that Moses was no
impostor nor deceiver, and where he assures that Moses's constitution of
government was no other than a theocracy; and where he says they are to
hope for deliverance out of their distresses by prayer to God, and that
withal it was owing in part to this prophetic spirit of Moses that the
Jews expected a resurrection from the dead. See almost as strange a use
of the like words, "to persuade God," Antiq. B. VI. ch. 5. sect. 6.
[18] That is, Moses really was, what the heathen legislators pretended
to be, under a Divine direction; nor does it yet appear that these
pretensions to a supernatural conduct, either in these legislators or
oracles, were mere delusions of men without any demoniacal impressions,
nor that Josephus took them so to be; as the ancientest and contemporary
authors did still believe them to be supernatural.
[19] This whole very large passage is corrected by Dr. Hudson from
Eusebius's citation of it, Prep. Evangel. viii. 8, which is here not a
little different from the present MSS. of Josephus.
[20] This expression itself, that "Moses ordained the Jewish government
to be a theocracy," may be illustrated by that parallel expression in
the Antiquities, B. III. ch. 8. sect. 9, that "Moses left it to God to
be present at his sacrifices when he pleased; and when he pleased, to
be absent." Both ways of speaking sound harsh in the ears of Jews and
Christians, as do several others which Josephus uses to the heathens;
but still they were not very improper in him, when he all along thought
fit to accommodate himself, both in his Antiquities, and in these his
books against Apion, all written for the use of the Greeks and Romans,
to their notions and language, and this as far as ever truth would give
him leave. Though it be very observable withal, that he never uses such
expressions in his books of the War, written originally for the Jews
beyond Euphrates, and in their language, in all these cases. However,
Josephus directly supposes the Jewish settlement, under Moses, to be a
Divine settlement, and indeed no other than a real theocracy.
[21] These excellent accounts of the Divine attributes, and that God
is not to be at all known in his essence, as also some other clear
expressions about the resurrection of the dead, and the state of
departed souls, etc., in this late work of Josephus, look more like the
exalted notions of the Essens, or rather Ebionite Christians, than those
of a mere Jew or Pharisee. The following large accounts also of the laws
of Moses, seem to me to show a regard to the higher interpretations and
improvements of Moses's laws, derived from Jesus Christ, than to the
bare letter of them in the Old Testament, whence alone Josephus took
them when he wrote his Antiquities; nor, as I think, can some of these
laws, though generally excellent in their kind, be properly now found
either in the copies of the Jewish Pentateuch, or in Philo, or in
Josephus himself, before he became a Nazarene or Ebionite Christian; nor
even all of them among the laws of catholic Christianity themselves. I
desire, therefore, the learned reader to consider, whether some of these
improvements or interpretations might not be peculiar to the Essens
among the Jews, or rather to the Nazarenes or Ebionites among the
Christians, though we have indeed but imperfect accounts of those
Nazarenes or Ebionite Christians transmitted down to us at this day.
[22] We may here observe how known a thing it was among the Jews and
heathens, in this and many other instances, that sacrifices were still
accompanied with prayers; whence most probably came those phrases of
"the sacrifice of prayer, the sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of
thanksgiving." However, those ancient forms used at sacrifices are now
generally lost, to the no small damage of true religion. It is here also
exceeding remarkable, that although the temple at Jerusalem was built
as the only place where the whole nation of the Jews were to offer their
sacrifices, yet is there no mention of the "sacrifices" themselves, but
of "prayers" only, in Solomon's long and famous form of devotion at its
dedication, 1 Kings 8.; 2 Chronicles 6. See also many passages cited in
the Apostolical Constitutions, VII. 37, and Of the War, above, B. VII.
ch. 5. sect. 6.
[23] This text is no where in our present copies of the Old Testament.
[24] It may not be amiss to set down here a very remarkable testimony
of the great philosopher Cicero, as to the preference of "laws to
philosophy:--I will," says he, "boldly declare my opinion, though the
whole world be offended at it. I prefer this little book of the Twelve
Tables alone to all the volumes of the philosophers. I find it to be not
only of more weight,' but also much more useful."--Oratore.
[25] we have observed our times of rest, and sorts of food allowed us
[during our distresses].
[26] See what those novel oaths were in Dr. Hudson's note, viz. to
swear by an oak, by a goat, and by a dog, as also by a gander, as say
Philostratus and others. This swearing strange oaths was also forbidden
by the Tyrians, B. I. sect. 22, as Spanheim here notes.
[27] Why Josephus here should blame some heathen legislators, when they
allowed so easy a composition for simple fornication, as an obligation
to marry the virgin that was corrupted, is hard to say, seeing he had
himself truly informed us that it was a law of the Jews, Antiq. B.
IV. ch. 8. sect. 23, as it is the law of Christianity also: see Horeb
Covenant, p. 61. I am almost ready to suspect that, for, we should here
read, and that corrupting wedlock, or other men's wives, is the crime
for which these heathens wickedly allowed this composition in money.
[28] Or "for corrupting other men's wives the same allowance."