(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 Josephus to contradict himself in his three several accounts of the notions of the Pharisees, this here, and that earlier one, which is the largest, Of the War B.
II.ch.8.sect.14, and that later, Antiq.B.XVIII.ch.1.
sect.3, as if he sometimes said they introduced an absolute fatality, and denied all freedom of human actions, is almost wholly groundless if he ever, as the very learned Casaubon here truly observes, asserting, that the Pharisees were between the Essens and Sadducees, and did so far ascribe all to fate or Divine Providence as was consistent with the freedom of human actions.However, their perplexed way of talking about fate, or Providence, as overruling all things, made it commonly thought they were willing to excuse their sins by ascribing them to fate, as in the Apostolical Constitutions, B.VI.ch.6.Perhaps under the same general name some difference of opinions in this point might be propagated, as is very common in all parties, especially in points of metaphysical subtilty.However, our Josephus, who in his heart was a great admirer of the piety of the Essens, was yet in practice a Pharisee, as he himself informs us, in his own Life, sect.2.And his account of this doctrine of the Pharisees is for certain agreeable to his own opinion, who ever both fully allowed the freedom of human actions, and yet strongly believed the powerful interposition of Divine Providence.See concerning this matter a remarkable clause, Antiq.B.XVI.ch.11.sect.7.
(12) This king, who was of the famous race of Arsaces, is bethused to call them; but by the elder author of the First Maccahere, and 1 Macc.14:2, called by the family name Arsaces;was, the king of the Persians and Medes, according to the land but Appion says his proper name was Phraates.He is language of the Eastern nations.See Authent.Rec.Part II.also called by Josephus the king of the Parthians, as the Greeks p.1108.
(13) There is some error in the copies here, when no more than four years are ascribed to the high priesthood of Jonathan.We know by Josephus's last Jewish chronology, Antiq.B.XX.ch.10., that there was an interval of seven years between the death of Alcimus, or Jacimus, the last high priest, and the real high priesthood of Jonathan, to whom yet those seven years seem here to be ascribed, as a part of them were to Judas before, Antiq.B.
XII.ch.10.sect.6.Now since, besides these seven years interregnum in the pontificate, we are told, Antiq.B.XX.ch.
10., that Jonathan's real high priesthood lasted seven years more, these two seven years will make up fourteen years, which Isuppose was Josephus's own number in this place, instead of the four in our present copies.
(14) These one hundred and seventy years of the Assyrians mean no more, as Josephus explains himself here, than from the sara of Seleucus, which as it is known to have began on the 312th year before the Christian sara, from its spring in the First Book of Maccabees, and from its autumn in the Second Book of Maccabees, so did it not begin at Babylon till the next spring, on the 311th year.See Prid.at the year 312.And it is truly observed by Dr.
