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