{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2849/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2849","id":"gutenberg_2849","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2849","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Judaism","Judaism -- Apologetic works"],"text":"Produced by David Reed\n\n\n\n\n\nAGAINST APION.\n\n[1]\n\nBy Flavius Josephus\n\n\nTranslated by William Whiston\n\n\n\n\nBOOK 1.\n\n1. I Suppose that by my books of the Antiquity of the Jews, most\nexcellent Epaphroditus, [2] have made it evident to those who peruse\nthem, that our Jewish nation is of very great antiquity, and had a\ndistinct subsistence of its own originally; as also, I have therein\ndeclared how we came to inhabit this country wherein we now live. Those\nAntiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken\nout of our sacred books, but are translated by me into the Greek tongue.\nHowever, since I observe a considerable number of people giving ear to\nthe reproaches that are laid against us by those who bear ill-will to\nus, and will not believe what I have written concerning the antiquity of\nour nation, while they take it for a plain sign that our nation is of a\nlate date, because they are not so much as vouchsafed a bare mention by\nthe most famous historiographers among the Grecians. I therefore have\nthought myself under an obligation to write somewhat briefly about\nthese subjects, in order to convict those that reproach us of spite and\nvoluntary falsehood, and to correct the ignorance of others, and withal\nto instruct all those who are desirous of knowing the truth of what\ngreat antiquity we really are. As for the witnesses whom I shall produce\nfor the proof of what I say, they shall be such as are esteemed to be\nof the greatest reputation for truth, and the most skillful in the\nknowledge of all antiquity by the Greeks themselves. I will also show,\nthat those who have written so reproachfully and falsely about us are\nto be convicted by what they have written themselves to the contrary.\nI shall also endeavor to give an account of the reasons why it hath so\nhappened, that there have not been a great number of Greeks who have\nmade mention of our nation in their histories. I will, however, bring\nthose Grecians to light who have not omitted such our history, for the\nsake of those that either do not know them, or pretend not to know them\nalready.\n\n2. And now, in the first place, I cannot but greatly wonder at those\nmen, who suppose that we must attend to none but Grecians, when we are\ninquiring about the most ancient facts, and must inform ourselves of\ntheir truth from them only, while we must not believe ourselves nor\nother men; for I am convinced that the very reverse is the truth of the\ncase. I mean this,--if we will not be led by vain opinions, but will\nmake inquiry after truth from facts themselves; for they will find that\nalmost all which concerns the Greeks happened not long ago; nay, one may\nsay, is of yesterday only. I speak of the building of their cities, the\ninventions of their arts, and the description of their laws; and as for\ntheir care about the writing down of their histories, it is very near\nthe last thing they set about. However, they acknowledge themselves so\nfar, that they were the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, and the Phoenicians\n(for I will not now reckon ourselves among them) that have preserved the\nmemorials of the most ancient and most lasting traditions of mankind;\nfor almost all these nations inhabit such countries as are least subject\nto destruction from the world about them; and these also have taken\nespecial care to have nothing omitted of what was [remarkably] done\namong them; but their history was esteemed sacred, and put into public\ntables, as written by men of the greatest wisdom they had among\nthem. But as for the place where the Grecians inhabit, ten thousand\ndestructions have overtaken it, and blotted out the memory of former\nactions; so that they were ever beginning a new way of living, and\nsupposed that every one of them was the origin of their new state. It\nwas also late, and with difficulty, that they came to know the letters\nthey now use; for those who would advance their use of these letters\nto the greatest antiquity pretend that they learned them from the\nPhoenicians and from Cadmus; yet is nobody able to demonstrate that they\nhave any writing preserved from that time, neither in their temples, nor\nin any other public monuments. This appears, because the time when those\nlived who went to the Trojan war, so many years afterward, is in great\ndoubt, and great inquiry is made, whether the Greeks used their letters\nat that time; and the most prevailing opinion, and that nearest the\ntruth, is, that their present way of using those letters was unknown at\nthat time. However, there is not any writing which the Greeks agree to\nbe genuine among them ancienter than Homer's Poems, who must plainly he\nconfessed later than the siege of Troy; nay, the report goes, that\neven he did not leave his poems in writing, but that their memory was\npreserved in songs, and they were put together afterward, and that this\nis the reason of such a number of variations as are found in them. [3]\nAs for those who set themselves about writing their histories, I mean\nsuch as Cadmus of Miletus, and Acusilaus of Argos, and any others that\nmay be mentioned as succeeding Acusilaus, they lived but a little while\nbefore the Persian expedition into Greece. But then for those that first\nintroduced philosophy, and the consideration of things celestial and\ndivine among them, such as Pherceydes the Syrian, and Pythagoras, and\nThales, all with one consent agree, that they learned what they knew\nof the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and wrote but little And these are the\nthings which are supposed to be the oldest of all among the Greeks; and\nthey have much ado to believe that the writings ascribed to those men\nare genuine.\n\n3. How can it then be other than an absurd thing, for the Greeks to\nbe so proud, and to vaunt themselves to be the only people that are\nacquainted with antiquity, and that have delivered the true accounts\nof those early times after an accurate manner? Nay, who is there that\ncannot easily gather from the Greek writers themselves, that they knew\nbut little on any good foundation when they set to write, but rather\nwrote their histories from their own conjectures? Accordingly, they\nconfute one another in their own books to purpose, and are not ashamed.\nto give us the most contradictory accounts of the same things; and I\nshould spend my time to little purpose, if I should pretend to teach\nthe Greeks that which they know better than I already, what a great\ndisagreement there is between Hellanicus and Acusilaus about their\ngenealogies; in how many eases Acusilaus corrects Hesiod: or after what\nmanner Ephorus demonstrates Hellanicus to have told lies in the greatest\npart of his history; as does Timeus in like manner as to Ephorus, and\nthe succeeding writers do to Timeus, and all the later writers do to\nHerodotus nor could Timeus agree with Antiochus and Philistius, or\nwith Callias, about the Sicilian History, no more than do the several\nwriters of the Athide follow one another about the Athenian affairs; nor\ndo the historians the like, that wrote the Argolics, about the affairs\nof the Argives. And now what need I say any more about particular cities\nand smaller places, while in the most approved writers of the expedition\nof the Persians, and of the actions which were therein performed, there\nare so great differences? Nay, Thucydides himself is accused of some as\nwriting what is false, although he seems to have given us the exactest\nhistory of the affairs of his own time. [4]\n\n4. As for the occasions of so great disagreement of theirs, there may\nbe assigned many that are very probable, if any have a mind to make an\ninquiry about them; but I ascribe these contradictions chiefly to two\ncauses, which I will now mention, and still think what I shall mention\nin the first place to be the principal of all. For if we remember that\nin the beginning the Greeks had taken no care to have public records\nof their several transactions preserved, this must for certain\nhave afforded those that would afterward write about those ancient\ntransactions the opportunity of making mistakes, and the power of making\nlies also; for this original recording of such ancient transactions hath\nnot only been neglected by the other states of Greece, but even among\nthe Athenians themselves also, who pretend to be Aborigines, and to have\napplied themselves to learning, there are no such records extant; nay,\nthey say themselves that the laws of Draco concerning murders, which\nare now extant in writing, are the most ancient of their public records;\nwhich Draco yet lived but a little before the tyrant Pisistratus. [5]\nFor as to the Arcadians, who make such boasts of their antiquity, what\nneed I speak of them in particular, since it was still later before they\ngot their letters, and learned them, and that with difficulty also. [6]\n\n5. There must therefore naturally arise great differences among writers,\nwhen they had no original records to lay for their foundation, which\nmight at once inform those who had an inclination to learn, and\ncontradict those that would tell lies. However, we are to suppose a\nsecond occasion besides the former of these contradictions; it is\nthis: That those who were the most zealous to write history were not\nsolicitous for the discovery of truth, although it was very easy\nfor them always to make such a profession; but their business was to\ndemonstrate that they could write well, and make an impression upon\nmankind thereby; and in what manner of writing they thought they were\nable to exceed others, to that did they apply themselves, Some of them\nbetook themselves to the writing of fabulous narrations; some of them\nendeavored to please the cities or the kings, by writing in their\ncommendation; others of them fell to finding faults with transactions,\nor with the writers of such transactions, and thought to make a great\nfigure by so doing. And indeed these do what is of all things the most\ncontrary to true history; for it is the great character of true history\nthat all concerned therein both speak and write the same things; while\nthese men, by writing differently about the same things, think they\nshall be believed to write with the greatest regard to truth. We\ntherefore [who are Jews] must yield to the Grecian writers as to\nlanguage and eloquence of composition; but then we shall give them no\nsuch preference as to the verity of ancient history, and least of all as\nto that part which concerns the affairs of our own several countries.\n\n6. As to the care of writing down the records from the earliest\nantiquity among the Egyptians and Babylonians; that the priests were\nintrusted therewith, and employed a philosophical concern about it; that\nthey were the Chaldean priests that did so among the Babylonians; and\nthat the Phoenicians, who were mingled among the Greeks, did especially\nmake use of their letters, both for the common affairs of life, and for\nthe delivering down the history of common transactions, I think I may\nomit any proof, because all men allow it so to be. But now as to our\nforefathers, that they took no less care about writing such records,\n[for I will not say they took greater care than the others I spoke of,]\nand that they committed that matter to their high priests and to their\nprophets, and that these records have been written all along down to our\nown times with the utmost accuracy; nay, if it be not too bold for me\nto say it, our history will be so written hereafter;--I shall endeavor\nbriefly to inform you.\n\n7. For our forefathers did not only appoint the best of these priests,\nand those that attended upon the Divine worship, for that design from\nthe beginning, but made provision that the stock of the priests should\ncontinue unmixed and pure; for he who is partaker of the priesthood must\npropagate of a wife of the same nation, without having any regard to\nmoney, or any other dignities; but he is to make a scrutiny, and take\nhis wife's genealogy from the ancient tables, and procure many witnesses\nto it. [7] And this is our practice not only in Judea, but wheresoever\nany body of men of our nation do live; and even there an exact catalogue\nof our priests' marriages is kept; I mean at Egypt and at Babylon, or\nin any other place of the rest of the habitable earth, whithersoever our\npriests are scattered; for they send to Jerusalem the ancient names of\ntheir parents in writing, as well as those of their remoter ancestors,\nand signify who are the witnesses also. But if any war falls out,\nsuch as have fallen out a great many of them already, when Antiochus\nEpiphanes made an invasion upon our country, as also when Pompey the\nGreat and Quintilius Varus did so also, and principally in the wars that\nhave happened in our own times, those priests that survive them\ncompose new tables of genealogy out of the old records, and examine the\ncircumstances of the women that remain; for still they do not admit of\nthose that have been captives, as suspecting that they had conversation\nwith some foreigners. But what is the strongest argument of our exact\nmanagement in this matter is what I am now going to say, that we have\nthe names of our high priests from father to son set down in our records\nfor the interval of two thousand years; and if any of these have been\ntransgressors of these rules, they are prohibited to present themselves\nat the altar, or to be partakers of any other of our purifications; and\nthis is justly, or rather necessarily done, because every one is\nnot permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any\ndisagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have\nwritten the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned\nthem of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath\nhappened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.\n\n8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us,\ndisagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,]\nbut only twenty-two books, [8] which contain the records of all the past\ntimes; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong\nto Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of\nmankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three\nthousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the\nreign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the\nprophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times\nin thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and\nprecepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath\nbeen written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been\nesteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers,\nbecause there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that\ntime; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own\nnation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already\npassed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them,\nto take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is\nbecome natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to\nesteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them,\nand, if occasion be willingly to die for them. For it is no new thing\nfor our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to\nbe seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that\nthey may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records\nthat contain them; whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who\nwould undergo the least harm on that account, no, nor in case all the\nwritings that are among them were to be destroyed; for they take them to\nbe such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those\nthat write them; and they have justly the same opinion of the ancient\nwriters, since they see some of the present generation bold enough to\nwrite about such affairs, wherein they were not present, nor had concern\nenough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them;\nexamples of which may be had in this late war of ours, where some\npersons have written histories, and published them, without having been\nin the places concerned, or having been near them when the actions were\ndone; but these men put a few things together by hearsay, and insolently\nabuse the world, and call these writings by the name of Histories.\n\n9. As for myself, I have composed a true history of that whole war, and\nof all the particulars that occurred therein, as having been concerned\nin all its transactions; for I acted as general of those among us that\nare named Galileans, as long as it was possible for us to make any\nopposition. I was then seized on by the Romans, and became a captive.\nVespasian also and Titus had me kept under a guard, and forced me to\nattend them continually. At the first I was put into bonds, but was\nset at liberty afterward, and sent to accompany Titus when he came\nfrom Alexandria to the siege of Jerusalem; during which time there was\nnothing done which escaped my knowledge; for what happened in the\nRoman camp I saw, and wrote down carefully; and what informations the\ndeserters brought [out of the city], I was the only man that understood\nthem. Afterward I got leisure at Rome; and when all my materials were\nprepared for that work, I made use of some persons to assist me in\nlearning the Greek tongue, and by these means I composed the history\nof those transactions. And I was so well assured of the truth of what\nI related, that I first of all appealed to those that had the supreme\ncommand in that war, Vespasian and Titus, as witnesses for me, for to\nthem I presented those books first of all, and after them to many of the\nRomans who had been in the war. I also sold them to many of our own men\nwho understood the Greek philosophy; among whom were Julius Archelaus,\nHerod [king of Chalcis], a person of great gravity, and king Agrippa\nhimself, a person that deserved the greatest admiration. Now all these\nmen bore their testimony to me, that I had the strictest regard to\ntruth; who yet would not have dissembled the matter, nor been silent, if\nI, out of ignorance, or out of favor to any side, either had given false\ncolors to actions, or omitted any of them.\n\n10. There have been indeed some bad men, who have attempted to\ncalumniate my history, and took it to be a kind of scholastic\nperformance for the exercise of young men. A strange sort of accusation\nand calumny this! since every one that undertakes to deliver the history\nof actions truly ought to know them accurately himself in the first\nplace, as either having been concerned in them himself, or been informed\nof them by such as knew them. Now both these methods of knowledge I may\nvery properly pretend to in the composition of both my works; for, as I\nsaid, I have translated the Antiquities out of our sacred books; which I\neasily could do, since I was a priest by my birth, and have studied that\nphilosophy which is contained in those writings: and for the History\nof the War, I wrote it as having been an actor myself in many of its\ntransactions, an eye-witness in the greatest part of the rest, and was\nnot unacquainted with any thing whatsoever that was either said or\ndone in it. How impudent then must those deserve to be esteemed that\nundertake to contradict me about the true state of those affairs!\nwho, although they pretend to have made use of both the emperors' own\nmemoirs, yet could not they he acquainted with our affairs who fought\nagainst them.\n\n11. This digression I have been obliged to make out of necessity, as\nbeing desirous to expose the vanity of those that profess to write\nhistories; and I suppose I have sufficiently declared that this custom\nof transmitting down the histories of ancient times hath been better\npreserved by those nations which are called Barbarians, than by the\nGreeks themselves. I am now willing, in the next place, to say a few\nthings to those that endeavor to prove that our constitution is but of\nlate time, for this reason, as they pretend, that the Greek writers have\nsaid nothing about us; after which I shall produce testimonies for our\nantiquity out of the writings of foreigners; I shall also demonstrate\nthat such as cast reproaches upon our nation do it very unjustly.\n\n12. As for ourselves, therefore, we neither inhabit a maritime country,\nnor do we delight in merchandise, nor in such a mixture with other men\nas arises from it; but the cities we dwell in are remote from the sea,\nand having a fruitful country for our habitation, we take pains in\ncultivating that only. Our principal care of all is this, to educate our\nchildren well; and we think it to be the most necessary business of\nour whole life to observe the laws that have been given us, and to\nkeep those rules of piety that have been delivered down to us. Since,\ntherefore, besides what we have already taken notice of, we have had a\npeculiar way of living of our own, there was no occasion offered us in\nancient ages for intermixing among the Greeks, as they had for mixing\namong the Egyptians, by their intercourse of exporting and importing\ntheir several goods; as they also mixed with the Phoenicians, who\nlived by the sea-side, by means of their love of lucre in trade and\nmerchandise. Nor did our forefathers betake themselves, as did some\nothers, to robbery; nor did they, in order to gain more wealth, fall\ninto foreign wars, although our country contained many ten thousands of\nmen of courage sufficient for that purpose. For this reason it was that\nthe Phoenicians themselves came soon by trading and navigation to be\nknown to the Grecians, and by their means the Egyptians became known\nto the Grecians also, as did all those people whence the Phoenicians in\nlong voyages over the seas carried wares to the Grecians. The Medes also\nand the Persians, when they were lords of Asia, became well known to\nthem; and this was especially true of the Persians, who led their armies\nas far as the other continent [Europe]. The Thracians were also known to\nthem by the nearness of their countries, and the Scythians by the\nmeans of those that sailed to Pontus; for it was so in general that all\nmaritime nations, and those that inhabited near the eastern or western\nseas, became most known to those that were desirous to be writers; but\nsuch as had their habitations further from the sea were for the most\npart unknown to them which things appear to have happened as to Europe\nalso, where the city of Rome, that hath this long time been possessed\nof so much power, and hath performed such great actions in war, is yet\nnever mentioned by Herodotus, nor by Thucydides, nor by any one of their\ncontemporaries; and it was very late, and with great difficulty, that\nthe Romans became known to the Greeks. Nay, those that were reckoned the\nmost exact historians [and Ephorus for one] were so very ignorant of the\nGauls and the Spaniards, that he supposed the Spaniards, who inhabit so\ngreat a part of the western regions of the earth, to be no more than one\ncity. Those historians also have ventured to describe such customs as\nwere made use of by them, which they never had either done or said; and\nthe reason why these writers did not know the truth of their affairs was\nthis, that they had not any commerce together; but the reason why they\nwrote such falsities was this, that they had a mind to appear to know\nthings which others had not known. How can it then be any wonder, if our\nnation was no more known to many of the Greeks, nor had given them any\noccasion to mention them in their writings, while they were so remote\nfrom the sea, and had a conduct of life so peculiar to themselves?\n\n13. Let us now put the case, therefore, that we made use of this\nargument concerning the Grecians, in order to prove that their nation\nwas not ancient, because nothing is said of them in our records: would\nnot they laugh at us all, and probably give the same reasons for our\nsilence that I have now alleged, and would produce their neighbor\nnations as witnesses to their own antiquity? Now the very same\nthing will I endeavor to do; for I will bring the Egyptians and the\nPhoenicians as my principal witnesses, because nobody can complain Of\ntheir testimony as false, on account that they are known to have borne\nthe greatest ill-will towards us; I mean this as to the Egyptians in\ngeneral all of them, while of the Phoenicians it is known the Tyrians\nhave been most of all in the same ill disposition towards us: yet do\nI confess that I cannot say the same of the Chaldeans, since our first\nleaders and ancestors were derived from them; and they do make mention\nof us Jews in their records, on account of the kindred there is between\nus. Now when I shall have made my assertions good, so far as concerns\nthe others, I will demonstrate that some of the Greek writers have made\nmention of us Jews also, that those who envy us may not have even this\npretense for contradicting what I have said about our nation.\n\n14. I shall begin with the writings of the Egyptians; not indeed of\nthose that have written in the Egyptian language, which it is impossible\nfor me to do. But Manetho was a man who was by birth an Egyptian, yet\nhad he made himself master of the Greek learning, as is very evident;\nfor he wrote the history of his own country in the Greek tongue, by\ntranslating it, as he saith himself, out of their sacred records;\nhe also finds great fault with Herodotus for his ignorance and false\nrelations of Egyptian affairs. Now this Manetho, in the second book of\nhis Egyptian History, writes concerning us in the following manner. I\nwill set down his very words, as if I were to bring the very man himself\ninto a court for a witness: \"There was a king of ours whose name was\nTimaus. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse\nto us, and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth\nout of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition\ninto our country, and with ease subdued it by force, yet without\nour hazarding a battle with them. So when they had gotten those that\ngoverned us under their power, they afterwards burnt down our cities,\nand demolished the temples of the gods, and used all the inhabitants\nafter a most barbarous manner; nay, some they slew, and led their\nchildren and their wives into slavery. At length they made one of\nthemselves king, whose name was Salatis; he also lived at Memphis, and\nmade both the upper and lower regions pay tribute, and left garrisons\nin places that were the most proper for them. He chiefly aimed to secure\nthe eastern parts, as fore-seeing that the Assyrians, who had then the\ngreatest power, would be desirous of that kingdom, and invade them; and\nas he found in the Saite Nomos, [Sethroite,] a city very proper for this\npurpose, and which lay upon the Bubastic channel, but with regard to a\ncertain theologic notion was called Avaris, this he rebuilt, and made\nvery strong by the walls he built about it, and by a most numerous\ngarrison of two hundred and forty thousand armed men whom he put into\nit to keep it. Thither Salatis came in summer time, partly to gather his\ncorn, and pay his soldiers their wages, and partly to exercise his\narmed men, and thereby to terrify foreigners. When this man had reigned\nthirteen years, after him reigned another, whose name was Beon, for\nforty-four years; after him reigned another, called Apachnas, thirty-six\nyears and seven months; after him Apophis reigned sixty-one years, and\nthen Janins fifty years and one month; after all these reigned Assis\nforty-nine years and two months. And these six were the first rulers\namong them, who were all along making war with the Egyptians, and were\nvery desirous gradually to destroy them to the very roots. This whole\nnation was styled Hycsos, that is, Shepherd-kings: for the first\nsyllable Hyc, according to the sacred dialect, denotes a king, as is Sos\na shepherd; but this according to the ordinary dialect; and of these is\ncompounded Hycsos: but some say that these people were Arabians.\" Now\nin another copy it is said that this word does not denote Kings, but,\non the contrary, denotes Captive Shepherds, and this on account of the\nparticle Hyc; for that Hyc, with the aspiration, in the Egyptian tongue\nagain denotes Shepherds, and that expressly also; and this to me seems\nthe more probable opinion, and more agreeable to ancient history. [But\nManetho goes on]: \"These people, whom we have before named kings,\nand called shepherds also, and their descendants,\" as he says, \"kept\npossession of Egypt five hundred and eleven years.\" After these, he\nsays, \"That the kings of Thebais and the other parts of Egypt made an\ninsurrection against the shepherds, and that there a terrible and long\nwar was made between them.\" He says further, \"That under a king, whose\nname was Alisphragmuthosis, the shepherds were subdued by him, and were\nindeed driven out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a place\nthat contained ten thousand acres; this place was named Avaris.\" Manetho\nsays, \"That the shepherds built a wall round all this place, which was a\nlarge and a strong wall, and this in order to keep all their possessions\nand their prey within a place of strength, but that Thummosis the son\nof Alisphragmuthosis made an attempt to take them by force and by siege,\nwith four hundred and eighty thousand men to lie rotund about them, but\nthat, upon his despair of taking the place by that siege, they came to a\ncomposition with them, that they should leave Egypt, and go, without any\nharm to be done to them, whithersoever they would; and that, after\nthis composition was made, they went away with their whole families and\neffects, not fewer in number than two hundred and forty thousand, and\ntook their journey from Egypt, through the wilderness, for Syria; but\nthat as they were in fear of the Assyrians, who had then the dominion\nover Asia, they built a city in that country which is now called Judea,\nand that large enough to contain this great number of men, and called\nit Jerusalem.\" [9] Now Manetho, in another book of his, says, \"That\nthis nation, thus called Shepherds, were also called Captives, in their\nsacred books.\" And this account of his is the truth; for feeding of\nsheep was the employment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages\n[10] and as they led such a wandering life in feeding sheep, they\nwere called Shepherds. Nor was it without reason that they were called\nCaptives by the Egyptians, since one of our ancestors, Joseph, told the\nking of Egypt that he was a captive, and afterward sent for his brethren\ninto Egypt by the king's permission. But as for these matters, I shall\nmake a more exact inquiry about them elsewhere. [11]\n\n15. But now I shall produce the Egyptians as witnesses to the antiquity\nof our nation. I shall therefore here bring in Manetho again, and what\nhe writes as to the order of the times in this case; and thus he speaks:\n\"When this people or shepherds were gone out of Egypt to Jerusalem,\nTethtoosis the king of Egypt, who drove them out, reigned afterward\ntwenty-five years and four months, and then died; after him his son\nChebron took the kingdom for thirteen years; after whom came Amenophis,\nfor twenty years and seven months; then came his sister Amesses, for\ntwenty-one years and nine months; after her came Mephres, for twelve\nyears and nine months; after him was Mephramuthosis, for twenty-five\nyears and ten months; after him was Thmosis, for nine years and eight\nmonths; after him came Amenophis, for thirty years and ten months;\nafter him came Orus, for thirty-six years and five months; then came his\ndaughter Acenchres, for twelve years and one month; then was her brother\nRathotis, for nine years; then was Acencheres, for twelve years and five\nmonths; then came another Acencheres, for twelve years and three months;\nafter him Armais, for four years and one month; after him was Ramesses,\nfor one year and four months; after him came Armesses Miammoun, for\nsixty-six years and two months; after him Amenophis, for nineteen years\nand six months; after him came Sethosis, and Ramesses, who had an army\nof horse, and a naval force. This king appointed his brother, Armais,\nto be his deputy over Egypt.\" [In another copy it stood thus: \"After\nhim came Sethosis, and Ramesses, two brethren, the former of whom had a\nnaval force, and in a hostile manner destroyed those that met him\nupon the sea; but as he slew Ramesses in no long time afterward, so he\nappointed another of his brethren to be his deputy over Egypt.] He\nalso gave him all the other authority of a king, but with these only\ninjunctions, that he should not wear the diadem, nor be injurious to the\nqueen, the mother of his children, and that he should not meddle with\nthe other concubines of the king; while he made an expedition against\nCyprus, and Phoenicia, and besides against the Assyrians and the Medes.\nHe then subdued them all, some by his arms, some without fighting, and\nsome by the terror of his great army; and being puffed up by the great\nsuccesses he had had, he went on still the more boldly, and overthrew\nthe cities and countries that lay in the eastern parts. But after some\nconsiderable time, Armais, who was left in Egypt, did all those very\nthings, by way of opposition, which his brother had forbid him to do,\nwithout fear; for he used violence to the queen, and continued to make\nuse of the rest of the concubines, without sparing any of them; nay, at\nthe persuasion of his friends he put on the diadem, and set up to oppose\nhis brother. But then he who was set over the priests of Egypt wrote\nletters to Sethosis, and informed him of all that had happened, and\nhow his brother had set up to oppose him: he therefore returned back to\nPelusium immediately, and recovered his kingdom again. The country also\nwas called from his name Egypt; for Manetho says, that Sethosis was\nhimself called Egyptus, as was his brother Armais called Danaus.\"\n\n16. This is Manetho's account. And evident it is from the number of\nyears by him set down belonging to this interval, if they be summed up\ntogether, that these shepherds, as they are here called, who were\nno other than our forefathers, were delivered out of Egypt, and came\nthence, and inhabited this country, three hundred and ninety-three years\nbefore Danaus came to Argos; although the Argives look upon him [12] as\ntheir most ancient king Manetho, therefore, hears this testimony to two\npoints of the greatest consequence to our purpose, and those from the\nEgyptian records themselves. In the first place, that we came out of\nanother country into Egypt; and that withal our deliverance out of it\nwas so ancient in time as to have preceded the siege of Troy almost a\nthousand years; but then, as to those things which Manetbo adds, not\nfrom the Egyptian records, but, as he confesses himself, from some\nstories of an uncertain original, I will disprove them hereafter\nparticularly, and shall demonstrate that they are no better than\nincredible fables.\n\n17. I will now, therefore, pass from these records, and come to those\nthat belong to the Phoenicians, and concern our nation, and shall\nproduce attestations to what I have said out of them. There are then\nrecords among the Tyrians that take in the history of many years,\nand these are public writings, and are kept with great exactness, and\ninclude accounts of the facts done among them, and such as concern their\ntransactions with other nations also, those I mean which were worth\nremembering. Therein it was recorded that the temple was built by king\nSolomon at Jerusalem, one hundred forty-three years and eight months\nbefore the Tyrians built Carthage; and in their annals the building of\nour temple is related; for Hirom, the king of Tyre, was the friend of\nSolomon our king, and had such friendship transmitted down to him\nfrom his forefathers. He thereupon was ambitious to contribute to the\nsplendor of this edifice of Solomon, and made him a present of one\nhundred and twenty talents of gold. He also cut down the most excellent\ntimber out of that mountain which is called Libanus, and sent it to\nhim for adorning its roof. Solomon also not only made him many other\npresents, by way of requital, but gave him a country in Galilee\nalso, that was called Chabulon. [13] But there was another passion, a\nphilosophic inclination of theirs, which cemented the friendship that\nwas betwixt them; for they sent mutual problems to one another, with\na desire to have them unriddled by each other; wherein Solomon was\nsuperior to Hirom, as he was wiser than he in other respects: and many\nof the epistles that passed between them are still preserved among the\nTyrians. Now, that this may not depend on my bare word, I will produce\nfor a witness Dius, one that is believed to have written the Phoenician\nHistory after an accurate manner. This Dius, therefore, writes thus, in\nhis Histories of the Phoenicians: \"Upon the death of Abibalus, his son\nHirom took the kingdom. This king raised banks at the eastern parts\nof the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter\nOlympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by\nraising a causeway between them, and adorned that temple with donations\nof gold. He moreover went up to Libanus, and had timber cut down for the\nbuilding of temples. They say further, that Solomon, when he was king\nof Jerusalem, sent problems to Hirom to be solved, and desired he would\nsend others back for him to solve, and that he who could not solve the\nproblems proposed to him should pay money to him that solved them. And\nwhen Hirom had agreed to the proposals, but was not able to solve the\nproblems, he was obliged to pay a great deal of money, as a penalty\nfor the same. As also they relate, that one OEabdemon, a man of Tyre, did\nsolve the problems, and propose others which Solomon could not solve,\nupon which he was obliged to repay a great deal of money to Hirom.\"\nThese things are attested to by Dius, and confirm what we have said upon\nthe same subjects before.\n\n18. And now I shall add Menander the Ephesian, as an additional witness.\nThis Menander wrote the Acts that were done both by the Greeks and\nBarbarians, under every one of the Tyrian kings, and had taken much\npains to learn their history out of their own records. Now when he was\nwriting about those kings that had reigned at Tyre, he came to Hirom,\nand says thus: \"Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took the\nkingdom; he lived fifty-three years, and reigned thirty-four. He raised\na bank on that called the Broad Place, and dedicated that golden pillar\nwhich is in Jupiter's temple; he also went and cut down timber from the\nmountain called Libanus, and got timber Of cedar for the roofs of\nthe temples. He also pulled down the old temples, and built new ones;\nbesides this, he consecrated the temples of Hercules and of Astarte. He\nfirst built Hercules's temple in the month Peritus, and that of Astarte\nwhen he made his expedition against the Tityans, who would not pay him\ntheir tribute; and when he had subdued them to himself, he returned\nhome. Under this king there was a younger son of Abdemon, who mastered\nthe problems which Solomon king of Jerusalem had recommended to be\nsolved.\" Now the time from this king to the building of Carthage is\nthus calculated: \"Upon the death of Hirom, Baleazarus his son took the\nkingdom; he lived forty-three years, and reigned seven years: after him\nsucceeded his son Abdastartus; he lived twenty-nine years, and reigned\nnine years. Now four sons of his nurse plotted against him and slew him,\nthe eldest of whom reigned twelve years: after them came Astartus,\nthe son of Deleastartus; he lived fifty-four years, and reigned twelve\nyears: after him came his brother Aserymus; he lived fifty-four years,\nand reigned nine years: he was slain by his brother Pheles, who took the\nkingdom and reigned but eight months, though he lived fifty years: he\nwas slain by Ithobalus, the priest of Astarte, who reigned thirty-two\nyears, and lived sixty-eight years: he was succeeded by his son\nBadezorus, who lived forty-five years, and reigned six years: he was\nsucceeded by Matgenus his son; he lived thirty-two years, and reigned\nnine years: Pygmalion succeeded him; he lived fifty-six years, and\nreigned forty-seven years. Now in the seventh year of his reign, his\nsister fled away from him, and built the city Carthage in Libya.\" So\nthe whole time from the reign of Hirom, till the building of Carthage,\namounts to the sum of one hundred fifty-five years and eight months.\nSince then the temple was built at Jerusalem in the twelfth year of the\nreign of Hirom, there were from the building of the temple, until the\nbuilding of Carthage, one hundred forty-three years and eight months.\nWherefore, what occasion is there for alleging any more testimonies out\nof the Phoenician histories [on the behalf of our nation], since what\nI have said is so thoroughly confirmed already? and to be sure our\nancestors came into this country long before the building of the temple;\nfor it was not till we had gotten possession of the whole land by war\nthat we built our temple. And this is the point that I have clearly\nproved out of our sacred writings in my Antiquities.\n\n19. I will now relate what hath been written concerning us in the\nChaldean histories, which records have a great agreement with our books\nin oilier things also. Berosus shall be witness to what I say: he was\nby birth a Chaldean, well known by the learned, on account of his\npublication of the Chaldean books of astronomy and philosophy among the\nGreeks. This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records\nof that nation, gives us a history of the deluge of waters that then\nhappened, and of the destruction of mankind thereby, and agrees with\nMoses's narration thereof. He also gives us an account of that ark\nwherein Noah, the origin of our race, was preserved, when it was brought\nto the highest part of the Armenian mountains; after which he gives us\na catalogue of the posterity of Noah, and adds the years of their\nchronology, and at length comes down to Nabolassar, who was king of\nBabylon, and of the Chaldeans. And when he was relating the acts of\nthis king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against\nEgypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed\nthat they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them\nall, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed\nour people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them\nto Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the\ninterval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia. He\nthen says, \"That this Babylonian king conquered Egypt, and Syria, and\nPhoenicia, and Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all that had\nreigned before him in Babylon and Chaldea.\" A little after which Berosus\nsubjoins what follows in his History of Ancient Times. I will set down\nBerosus's own accounts, which are these: \"When Nabolassar, father of\nNabuchodonosor, heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and\nover the parts of Celesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, he was\nnot able to bear it any longer; but committing certain parts of his army\nto his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then but young, he sent him against\nthe rebel: Nabuchodonosor joined battle with him, and conquered him, and\nreduced the country under his dominion again. Now it so fell out that\nhis father Nabolassar fell into a distemper at this time, and died in\nthe city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-nine years. But as he\nunderstood, in a little time, that his father Nabolassar was dead, he\nset the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed\nthe captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians,\nand of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they\nmight conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the\nrest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a\nfew with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he\nfound the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that\nthe principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him.\nAccordingly, he now entirely obtained all his father's dominions. He\nthen came, and ordered the captives to be placed as colonies in the most\nproper places of Babylonia; but for himself, he adorned the temple of\nBelus, and the other temples, after an elegant manner, out of the\nspoils he had taken in this war. He also rebuilt the old city, and added\nanother to it on the outside, and so far restored Babylon, that none who\nshould besiege it afterwards might have it in their power to divert\nthe river, so as to facilitate an entrance into it; and this he did by\nbuilding three walls about the inner city, and three about the outer.\nSome of these walls he built of burnt brick and bitumen, and some of\nbrick only. So when he had thus fortified the city with walls, after an\nexcellent manner, and had adorned the gates magnificently, he added a\nnew palace to that which his father had dwelt in, and this close by it\nalso, and that more eminent in its height, and in its great splendor. It\nwould perhaps require too long a narration, if any one were to describe\nit. However, as prodigiously large and as magnificent as it was, it was\nfinished in fifteen days. Now in this palace he erected very high walks,\nsupported by stone pillars, and by planting what was called a pensile\nparadise, and replenishing it with all sorts of trees, he rendered the\nprospect an exact resemblance of a mountainous country. This he did to\nplease his queen, because she had been brought up in Media, and was fond\nof a mountainous situation.\"\n\n20. This is what Berosus relates concerning the forementioned king, as\nhe relates many other things about him also in the third book of his\nChaldean History; wherein he complains of the Grecian writers for\nsupposing, without any foundation, that Babylon was built by Semiramis,\n[14] queen of Assyria, and for her false pretense to those wonderful\nedifices thereto buildings at Babylon, do no way contradict those\nancient and relating, as if they were her own workmanship; as indeed\nin these affairs the Chaldean History cannot but be the most credible.\nMoreover, we meet with a confirmation of what Berosus says in the\narchives of the Phoenicians, concerning this king Nabuchodonosor, that\nhe conquered all Syria and Phoenicia; in which case Philostratus agrees\nwith the others in that history which he composed, where he mentions\nthe siege of Tyre; as does Megasthenes also, in the fourth book of his\nIndian History, wherein he pretends to prove that the forementioned\nking of the Babylonians was superior to Hercules in strength and the\ngreatness of his exploits; for he says that he conquered a great part\nof Libya, and conquered Iberia also. Now as to what I have said before\nabout the temple at Jerusalem, that it was fought against by the\nBabylonians, and burnt by them, but was opened again when Cyrus had\ntaken the kingdom of Asia, shall now be demonstrated from what Berosus\nadds further upon that head; for thus he says in his third book:\n\"Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall,\nfell sick, and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three\nyears; whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom. He governed\npublic affairs after an illegal and impure manner, and had a plot laid\nagainst him by Neriglissoor, his sister's husband, and was slain by him\nwhen he had reigned but two years. After he was slain, Neriglissoor,\nthe person who plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and\nreigned four years; his son Laborosoarchod obtained the kingdom, though\nhe was but a child, and kept it nine mouths; but by reason of the very\nill temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world, a plot was laid\nagainst him also by his friends, and he was tormented to death. After\nhis death, the conspirators got together, and by common consent put\nthe crown upon the head of Nabonnedus, a man of Babylon, and one who\nbelonged to that insurrection. In his reign it was that the walls of the\ncity of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen; but\nwhen he was come to the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus came out of\nPersia with a great army; and having already conquered all the rest of\nAsia, he came hastily to Babylonia. When Nabonnedus perceived he was\ncoming to attack him, he met him with his forces, and joining battle\nwith him was beaten, and fled away with a few of his troops with him,\nand was shut up within the city Borsippus. Hereupon Cyrus took Babylon,\nand gave order that the outer walls of the city should be demolished,\nbecause the city had proved very troublesome to him, and cost him a\ngreat deal of pains to take it. He then marched away to Borsippus, to\nbesiege Nabonnedus; but as Nabonnedus did not sustain the siege, but\ndelivered himself into his hands, he was at first kindly used by Cyrus,\nwho gave him Carmania, as a place for him to inhabit in, but sent him\nout of Babylonia. Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in\nthat country, and there died.\"\n\n21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in\nthem it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of\nhis reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of\nobscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of\nCyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second\nyear of Darius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it\nwill not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than\nenough on this occasion. In them we have this enumeration of the times\nof their several kings: \"Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years\nin the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years;\nafter him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the\nson of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months;\nAbbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons\nof Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one\nyear; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who\nreigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who\nreigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia.\" So\nthat the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for\nin the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege\nTyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of\nHirom. So that the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians agree with our\nwritings about this temple; and the testimonies here produced are an\nindisputable and undeniable attestation to the antiquity of our nation.\nAnd I suppose that what I have already said may be sufficient to such as\nare not very contentious.\n\n22. But now it is proper to satisfy the inquiry of those that disbelieve\nthe records of barbarians, and think none but Greeks to be worthy of\ncredit, and to produce many of these very Greeks who were acquainted\nwith our nation, and to set before them such as upon occasion have made\nmention of us in their own writings. Pythagoras, therefore, of Samos,\nlived in very ancient times, and was esteemed a person superior to all\nphilosophers in wisdom and piety towards God. Now it is plain that\nhe did not only know our doctrines, but was in very great measure a\nfollower and admirer of them. There is not indeed extant any writing\nthat is owned for his [15] but many there are who have written his\nhistory, of whom Hermippus is the most celebrated, who was a person very\ninquisitive into all sorts of history. Now this Hermippus, in his first\nbook concerning Pythagoras, speaks thus: \"That Pythagoras, upon the\ndeath of one of his associates, whose name was Calliphon, a Crotonlate\nby birth, affirmed that this man's soul conversed with him both night\nand day, and enjoined him not to pass over a place where an ass had\nfallen down; as also not to drink of such waters as caused thirst again;\nand to abstain from all sorts of reproaches.\" After which he adds thus:\n\"This he did and said in imitation of the doctrines of the Jews and\nThracians, which he transferred into his own philosophy.\" For it is very\ntruly affirmed of this Pythagoras, that he took a great many of the laws\nof the Jews into his own philosophy. Nor was our nation unknown of\nold to several of the Grecian cities, and indeed was thought worthy\nof imitation by some of them. This is declared by Theophrastus, in his\nwritings concerning laws; for he says that \"the laws of the Tyrians\nforbid men to swear foreign oaths.\" Among which he enumerates some\nothers, and particularly that called Corban: which oath can only be\nfound among the Jews, and declares what a man may call \"A thing devoted\nto God.\" Nor indeed was Herodotus of Halicarnassus unacquainted with our\nnation, but mentions it after a way of his own, when he saith thus, in\nthe second book concerning the Colchians. His words are these: \"The only\npeople who were circumcised in their privy members originally, were the\nColchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians; but the Phoenicians and\nthose Syrians that are in Palestine confess that they learned it from\nthe Egyptians. And for those Syrians who live about the rivers Thermodon\nand Parthenius, and their neighbors the Macrones, they say they have\nlately learned it from the Colchians; for these are the only people that\nare circumcised among mankind, and appear to have done the very same\nthing with the Egyptians. But as for the Egyptians and Ethiopians\nthemselves, I am not able to say which of them received it from the\nother.\" This therefore is what Herodotus says, that \"the Syrians that\nare in Palestine are circumcised.\" But there are no inhabitants of\nPalestine that are circumcised excepting the Jews; and therefore it must\nbe his knowledge of them that enabled him to speak so much concerning\nthem. Cherilus also, a still ancienter writer, and a poet, [16] makes\nmention of our nation, and informs us that it came to the assistance of\nking Xerxes, in his expedition against Greece. For in his enumeration of\nall those nations, he last of all inserts ours among the rest, when he\nsays, \"At the last there passed over a people, wonderful to be beheld;\nfor they spake the Phoenician tongue with their mouths; they dwelt in\nthe Solymean mountains, near a broad lake: their heads were sooty;\nthey had round rasures on them; their heads and faces were like nasty\nhorse-heads also, that had been hardened in the smoke.\" I think,\ntherefore, that it is evident to every body that Cherilus means us,\nbecause the Solymean mountains are in our country, wherein we inhabit,\nas is also the lake called Asphaltitis; for this is a broader and\nlarger lake than any other that is in Syria: and thus does Cherilus make\nmention of us. But now that not only the lowest sort of the Grecians,\nbut those that are had in the greatest admiration for their philosophic\nimprovements among them, did not only know the Jews, but when they\nlighted upon any of them, admired them also, it is easy for any one to\nknow. For Clearchus, who was the scholar of Aristotle, and inferior\nto no one of the Peripatetics whomsoever, in his first book concerning\nsleep, says that \"Aristotle his master related what follows of a Jew,\"\nand sets down Aristotle's own discourse with him. The account is this,\nas written down by him: \"Now, for a great part of what this Jew said, it\nwould be too long to recite it; but what includes in it both wonder and\nphilosophy it may not be amiss to discourse of. Now, that I may be plain\nwith thee, Hyperochides, I shall herein seem to thee to relate wonders,\nand what will resemble dreams themselves. Hereupon Hyperochides answered\nmodestly, and said, For that very reason it is that all of us are very\ndesirous of hearing what thou art going to say. Then replied Aristotle,\nFor this cause it will be the best way to imitate that rule of the\nRhetoricians, which requires us first to give an account of the man,\nand of what nation he was, that so we may not contradict our master's\ndirections. Then said Hyperochides, Go on, if it so pleases thee.\nThis man then, [answered Aristotle,] was by birth a Jew, and came from\nCelesyria; these Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are\nnamed by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their\nname from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for\nthe name of their city, it is a very awkward one, for they call it\nJerusalem. Now this man, when he was hospitably treated by a great many,\ncame down from the upper country to the places near the sea, and became\na Grecian, not only in his language, but in his soul also; insomuch that\nwhen we ourselves happened to be in Asia about the same places whither\nhe came, he conversed with us, and with other philosophical persons, and\nmade a trial of our skill in philosophy; and as he had lived with many\nlearned men, he communicated to us more information than he received\nfrom us.\" This is Aristotle's account of the matter, as given us by\nClearchus; which Aristotle discoursed also particularly of the great\nand wonderful fortitude of this Jew in his diet, and continent way of\nliving, as those that please may learn more about him from Clearchus's\nbook itself; for I avoid setting down any more than is sufficient for\nmy purpose. Now Clearchus said this by way of digression, for his main\ndesign was of another nature. But for Hecateus of Abdera, who was both a\nphilosopher, and one very useful ill an active life, he was contemporary\nwith king Alexander in his youth, and afterward was with Ptolemy, the\nson of Lagus; he did not write about the Jewish affairs by the by only,\nbut composed an entire book concerning the Jews themselves; out of\nwhich book I am willing to run over a few things, of which I have been\ntreating by way of epitome. And, in the first place, I will demonstrate\nthe time when this Hecateus lived; for he mentions the fight that\nwas between Ptolemy and Demetrius about Gaza, which was fought in the\neleventh year after the death of Alexander, and in the hundred and\nseventeenth olympiad, as Castor says in his history. For when he had set\ndown this olympiad, he says further, that \"in this olympiad Ptolemy, the\nson of Lagus, beat in battle Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, who was\nnamed Poliorcetes, at Gaza.\" Now, it is agreed by all, that Alexander\ndied in the hundred and fourteenth olympiad; it is therefore evident\nthat our nation flourished in his time, and in the time of Alexander.\nAgain, Hecateus says to the same purpose, as follows: \"Ptolemy got\npossession of the places in Syria after that battle at Gaza; and many,\nwhen they heard of Ptolemy's moderation and humanity, went along with\nhim to Egypt, and were willing to assist him in his affairs; one of whom\n[Hecateus says] was Hezekiah [17] the high priest of the Jews; a man of\nabout sixty-six years of age, and in great dignity among his own people.\nHe was a very sensible man, and could speak very movingly, and was very\nskillful in the management of affairs, if any other man ever were so;\nalthough, as he says, all the priests of the Jews took tithes of the\nproducts of the earth, and managed public affairs, and were in number\nnot above fifteen hundred at the most.\" Hecateus mentions this Hezekiah\na second time, and says, that \"as he was possessed of so great a\ndignity, and was become familiar with us, so did he take certain of\nthose that were with him, and explained to them all the circumstances\nof their people; for he had all their habitations and polity down in\nwriting.\" Moreover, Hecateus declares again, \"what regard we have for\nour laws, and that we resolve to endure any thing rather than transgress\nthem, because we think it right for us to do so.\" Whereupon he adds,\nthat \"although they are in a bad reputation among their neighbors,\nand among all those that come to them, and have been often treated\ninjuriously by the kings and governors of Persia, yet can they not\nbe dissuaded from acting what they think best; but that when they are\nstripped on this account, and have torments inflicted upon them, and\nthey are brought to the most terrible kinds of death, they meet them\nafter an extraordinary manner, beyond all other people, and will not\nrenounce the religion of their forefathers.\" Hecateus also produces\ndemonstrations not a few of this their resolute tenaciousness of their\nlaws, when he speaks thus: \"Alexander was once at Babylon, and had an\nintention to rebuild the temple of Belus that was fallen to decay, and\nin order thereto, he commanded all his soldiers in general to bring\nearth thither. But the Jews, and they only, would not comply with that\ncommand; nay, they underwent stripes and great losses of what they had\non this account, till the king forgave them, and permitted them to live\nin quiet.\" He adds further, that \"when the Macedonians came to them\ninto that country, and demolished the [old] temples and the altars, they\nassisted them in demolishing them all [18] but [for not assisting them\nin rebuilding them] they either underwent losses, or sometimes obtained\nforgiveness.\" He adds further, that \"these men deserve to be admired on\nthat account.\" He also speaks of the mighty populousness of our nation,\nand says that \"the Persians formerly carried away many ten thousands of\nour people to Babylon, as also that not a few ten thousands were removed\nafter Alexander's death into Egypt and Phoenicia, by reason of the\nsedition that was arisen in Syria.\" The same person takes notice in his\nhistory, how large the country is which we inhabit, as well as of its\nexcellent character, and says, that \"the land in which the Jews inhabit\ncontains three millions of arourae, [19] and is generally of a most\nexcellent and most fruitful soil; nor is Judea of lesser dimensions.\"\nThe same man describe our city Jerusalem also itself as of a most\nexcellent structure, and very large, and inhabited from the most ancient\ntimes. He also discourses of the multitude of men in it, and of the\nconstruction of our temple, after the following manner: \"There are many\nstrong places and villages [says he] in the country of Judea; but one\nstrong city there is, about fifty furlongs in circumference, which is\ninhabited by a hundred and twenty thousand men, or thereabouts; they\ncall it Jerusalem. There is about the middle of the city a wall of\nstone, whose length is five hundred feet, and the breadth a hundred\ncubits, with double cloisters; wherein there is a square altar, not made\nof hewn stone, but composed of white stones gathered together, having\neach side twenty cubits long, and its altitude ten cubits. Hard by it\nis a large edifice, wherein there is an altar and a candlestick, both\nof gold, and in weight two talents: upon these there is a light that is\nnever extinguished, either by night or by day. There is no image, nor\nany thing, nor any donations therein; nothing at all is there planted,\nneither grove, nor any thing of that sort. The priests abide therein\nboth nights and days, performing certain purifications, and drinking\nnot the least drop of wine while they are in the temple.\" Moreover, he\nattests that we Jews went as auxiliaries along with king Alexander,\nand after him with his successors. I will add further what he says he\nlearned when he was himself with the same army, concerning the actions\nof a man that was a Jew. His words are these: \"As I was myself going to\nthe Red Sea, there followed us a man, whose name was Mosollam; he was\none of the Jewish horsemen who conducted us; he was a person of great\ncourage, of a strong body, and by all allowed to be the most skillful\narcher that was either among the Greeks or barbarians. Now this man, as\npeople were in great numbers passing along the road, and a certain\naugur was observing an augury by a bird, and requiring them all to stand\nstill, inquired what they staid for. Hereupon the augur showed him the\nbird from whence he took his augury, and told him that if the bird staid\nwhere he was, they ought all to stand still; but that if he got up, and\nflew onward, they must go forward; but that if he flew backward, they\nmust retire again. Mosollam made no reply, but drew his bow, and shot at\nthe bird, and hit him, and killed him; and as the augur and some others\nwere very angry, and wished imprecations upon him, he answered them\nthus: Why are you so mad as to take this most unhappy bird into your\nhands? for how can this bird give us any true information concerning our\nmarch, who could not foresee how to save himself? for had he been able\nto foreknow what was future, he would not have come to this place, but\nwould have been afraid lest Mosollam the Jew should shoot at him, and\nkill him.\" But of Hecateus's testimonies we have said enough; for as to\nsuch as desire to know more of them, they may easily obtain them from\nhis book itself. However, I shall not think it too much for me to name\nAgatharchides, as having made mention of us Jews, though in way of\nderision at our simplicity, as he supposes it to be; for when he was\ndiscoursing of the affairs of Stratonice, \"how she came out of Macedonia\ninto Syria, and left her husband Demetrius, while yet Seleueus would not\nmarry her as she expected, but during the time of his raising an army at\nBabylon, stirred up a sedition about Antioch; and how, after that, the\nking came back, and upon his taking of Antioch, she fled to Seleucia,\nand had it in her power to sail away immediately yet did she comply with\na dream which forbade her so to do, and so was caught and put to\ndeath.\" When Agatharehides had premised this story, and had jested upon\nStratonice for her superstition, he gives a like example of what was\nreported concerning us, and writes thus: \"There are a people called\nJews, and dwell in a city the strongest of all other cities, which the\ninhabitants call Jerusalem, and are accustomed to rest on every seventh\nday [20] on which times they make no use of their arms, nor meddle with\nhusbandry, nor take care of any affairs of life, but spread out their\nhands in their holy places, and pray till the evening. Now it came to\npass, that when Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, came into this city with his\narmy, that these men, in observing this mad custom of theirs, instead of\nguarding the city, suffered their country to submit itself to a bitter\nlord; and their law was openly proved to have commanded a foolish\npractice. [21] This accident taught all other men but the Jews to\ndisregard such dreams as these were, and not to follow the like idle\nsuggestions delivered as a law, when, in such uncertainty of human\nreasonings, they are at a loss what they should do.\" Now this our\nprocedure seems a ridiculous thing to Agatharehides, but will appear to\nsuch as consider it without prejudice a great thing, and what deserved\na great many encomiums; I mean, when certain men constantly prefer the\nobservation of their laws, and their religion towards God, before the\npreservation of themselves and their country.\n\n23. Now that some writers have omitted to mention our nation, not\nbecause they knew nothing of us, but because they envied us, or for some\nother unjustifiable reasons, I think I can demonstrate by particular\ninstances; for Hieronymus, who wrote the History of Alexander's\nSuccessors, lived at the same time with Hecateus, and was a friend of\nking Antigonus, and president of Syria. Now it is plain that Hecateus\nwrote an entire book concerning us, while Hieronymus never mentions us\nin his history, although he was bred up very near to the places where we\nlive. Thus different from one another are the inclinations of men;\nwhile the one thought we deserved to be carefully remembered, as some\nill-disposed passion blinded the other's mind so entirely, that he could\nnot discern the truth. And now certainly the foregoing records of the\nEgyptians, and Chaldeans, and Phoenicians, together with so many of\nthe Greek writers, will be sufficient for the demonstration of our\nantiquity. Moreover, besides those forementioned, Theophilus, and\nTheodotus, and Mnaseas, and Aristophanes, and Hermogenes, Euhemerus\nalso, and Conon, and Zopyrion, and perhaps many others, [for I have not\nlighted upon all the Greek books,] have made distinct mention of us. It\nis true, many of the men before mentioned have made great mistakes about\nthe true accounts of our nation in the earliest times, because they had\nnot perused our sacred books; yet have they all of them afforded their\ntestimony to our antiquity, concerning which I am now treating. However,\nDemetrius Phalereus, and the elder Philo, with Eupolemus, have not\ngreatly missed the truth about our affairs; whose lesser mistakes\nought therefore to be forgiven them; for it was not in their power to\nunderstand our writings with the utmost accuracy.\n\n24. One particular there is still remaining behind of what I at first\nproposed to speak to, and that is, to demonstrate that those calumnies\nand reproaches which some have thrown upon our nation, are lies, and to\nmake use of those writers' own testimonies against themselves; and that\nin general this self-contradiction hath happened to many other authors\nby reason of their ill-will to some people, I conclude, is not unknown\nto such as have read histories with sufficient care; for some of them\nhave endeavored to disgrace the nobility of certain nations, and of some\nof the most glorious cities, and have cast reproaches upon certain\nforms of government. Thus hath Theopompus abused the city of Athens,\nPolycrates that of Lacedemon, as hath he hat wrote the Tripoliticus\n[for he is not Theopompus, as is supposed by some] done by the city of\nThebes. Timeils also hath greatly abused the foregoing people and others\nalso; and this ill-treatment they use chiefly when they have a contest\nwith men of the greatest reputation; some out of envy and malice, and\nothers as supposing that by this foolish talking of theirs they may be\nthought worthy of being remembered themselves; and indeed they do by no\nmeans fail of their hopes, with regard to the foolish part of mankind,\nbut men of sober judgment still condemn them of great malignity.\n\n25. Now the Egyptians were the first that cast reproaches upon us;\nin order to please which nation, some others undertook to pervert the\ntruth, while they would neither own that our forefathers came into Egypt\nfrom another country, as the fact was, nor give a true account of our\ndeparture thence. And indeed the Egyptians took many occasions to hate\nus and envy us: in the first place, because our ancestors had had the\ndominion over their country? and when they were delivered from them, and\ngone to their own country again, they lived there in prosperity. In the\nnext place, the difference of our religion from theirs hath occasioned\ngreat enmity between us, while our way of Divine worship did as much\nexceed that which their laws appointed, as does the nature of God\nexceed that of brute beasts; for so far they all agree through the whole\ncountry, to esteem such animals as gods, although they differ one\nfrom another in the peculiar worship they severally pay to them. And\ncertainly men they are entirely of vain and foolish minds, who have\nthus accustomed themselves from the beginning to have such bad notions\nconcerning their gods, and could not think of imitating that decent\nform of Divine worship which we made use of, though, when they saw our\ninstitutions approved of by many others, they could not but envy us on\nthat account; for some of them have proceeded to that degree of folly\nand meanness in their conduct, as not to scruple to contradict their own\nancient records, nay, to contradict themselves also in their writings,\nand yet were so blinded by their passions as not to discern it.\n\n26. And now I will turn my discourse to one of their principal writers,\nwhom I have a little before made use of as a witness to our antiquity; I\nmean Manetho. [22] He promised to interpret the Egyptian history out of\ntheir sacred writings, and premised this: that \"our people had come into\nEgypt, many ten thousands in number, and subdued its inhabitants;\"\nand when he had further confessed that \"we went out of that country\nafterward, and settled in that country which is now called Judea, and\nthere built Jerusalem and its temple.\" Now thus far he followed his\nancient records; but after this he permits himself, in order to appear\nto have written what rumors and reports passed abroad about the Jews,\nand introduces incredible narrations, as if he would have the Egyptian\nmultitude, that had the leprosy and other distempers, to have been mixed\nwith us, as he says they were, and that they were condemned to fly out\nof Egypt together; for he mentions Amenophis, a fictitious king's name,\nthough on that account he durst not set down the number of years of\nhis reign, which yet he had accurately done as to the other kings he\nmentions; he then ascribes certain fabulous stories to this king,\nas having in a manner forgotten how he had already related that the\ndeparture of the shepherds for Jerusalem had been five hundred and\neighteen years before; for Tethmosis was king when they went away.\nNow, from his days, the reigns of the intermediate kings, according to\nManethe, amounted to three hundred and ninety-three years, as he says\nhimself, till the two brothers Sethos and Hermeus; the one of whom,\nSethos, was called by that other name of Egyptus, and the other,\nHermeus, by that of Danaus. He also says that Sethos east the other out\nof Egypt, and reigned fifty-nine years, as did his eldest son Rhampses\nreign after him sixty-six years. When Manethe therefore had acknowledged\nthat our forefathers were gone out of Egypt so many years ago, he\nintroduces his fictitious king Amenophis, and says thus: \"This king\nwas desirous to become a spectator of the gods, as had Orus, one of\nhis predecessors in that kingdom, desired the same before him; he also\ncommunicated that his desire to his namesake Amenophis, who was the son\nof Papis, and one that seemed to partake of a divine nature, both as\nto wisdom and the knowledge of futurities.\" Manethe adds, \"how this\nnamesake of his told him that he might see the gods, if he would clear\nthe whole country of the lepers and of the other impure people; that the\nking was pleased with this injunction, and got together all that had any\ndefect in their bodies out of Egypt; and that their number was eighty\nthousand; whom he sent to those quarries which are on the east side of\nthe Nile, that they might work in them, and might be separated from the\nrest of the Egyptians.\" He says further, that \"there were some of the\nlearned priests that were polluted with the leprosy; but that still this\nAmenophis, the wise man and the prophet, was afraid that the gods would\nbe angry at him and at the king, if there should appear to have been\nviolence offered them; who also added this further, [out of his sagacity\nabout futurities,] that certain people would come to the assistance of\nthese polluted wretches, and would conquer Egypt, and keep it in their\npossession thirteen years; that, however, he durst not tell the king\nof these things, but that he left a writing behind him about all those\nmatters, and then slew himself, which made the king disconsolate.\" After\nwhich he writes thus verbatim: \"After those that were sent to work in\nthe quarries had continued in that miserable state for a long while, the\nking was desired that he would set apart the city Avaris, which was then\nleft desolate of the shepherds, for their habitation and protection;\nwhich desire he granted them. Now this city, according to the ancient\ntheology, was Typho's city. But when these men were gotten into it, and\nfound the place fit for a revolt, they appointed themselves a ruler out\nof the priests of Hellopolis, whose name was Osarsiph, and they took\ntheir oaths that they would be obedient to him in all things. He then,\nin the first place, made this law for them, That they should neither\nworship the Egyptian gods, nor should abstain from any one of those\nsacred animals which they have in the highest esteem, but kill and\ndestroy them all; that they should join themselves to nobody but to\nthose that were of this confederacy. When he had made such laws as\nthese, and many more such as were mainly opposite to the customs of the\nEgyptians, [23] he gave order that they should use the multitude of the\nhands they had in building walls about their City, and make themselves\nready for a war with king Amenophis, while he did himself take into his\nfriendship the other priests, and those that were polluted with them,\nand sent ambassadors to those shepherds who had been driven out of the\nland by Tefilmosis to the city called Jerusalem; whereby he informed\nthem of his own affairs, and of the state of those others that had been\ntreated after such an ignominious manner, and desired that they would\ncome with one consent to his assistance in this war against Egypt. He\nalso promised that he would, in the first place, bring them back\nto their ancient city and country Avaris, and provide a plentiful\nmaintenance for their multitude; that he would protect them and fight\nfor them as occasion should require, and would easily reduce the\ncountry under their dominion. These shepherds were all very glad of this\nmessage, and came away with alacrity all together, being in number two\nhundred thousand men; and in a little time they came to Avaris. And now\nAmenophis the king of Egypt, upon his being informed of their invasion,\nwas in great confusion, as calling to mind what Amenophis, the son\nof Papis, had foretold him; and, in the first place, he assembled the\nmultitude of the Egyptians, and took counsel with their leaders, and\nsent for their sacred animals to him, especially for those that were\nprincipally worshipped in their temples, and gave a particular charge to\nthe priests distinctly, that they should hide the images of their gods\nwith the utmost care he also sent his son Sethos, who was also named\nRamesses, from his father Rhampses, being but five years old, to a\nfriend of his. He then passed on with the rest of the Egyptians, being\nthree hundred thousand of the most warlike of them, against the enemy,\nwho met them. Yet did he not join battle with them; but thinking\nthat would be to fight against the gods, he returned back and came to\nMemphis, where he took Apis and the other sacred animals which he had\nsent for to him, and presently marched into Ethiopia, together with\nhis whole army and multitude of Egyptians; for the king of Ethiopia was\nunder an obligation to him, on which account he received him, and took\ncare of all the multitude that was with him, while the country supplied\nall that was necessary for the food of the men. He also allotted cities\nand villages for this exile, that was to be from its beginning during\nthose fatally determined thirteen years. Moreover, he pitched a camp for\nhis Ethiopian army, as a guard to king Amenophis, upon the borders of\nEgypt. And this was the state of things in Ethiopia. But for the people\nof Jerusalem, when they came down together with the polluted Egyptians,\nthey treated the men in such a barbarous manner, that those who saw how\nthey subdued the forementioned country, and the horrid wickedness they\nwere guilty of, thought it a most dreadful thing; for they did not only\nset the cities and villages on fire but were not satisfied till they had\nbeen guilty of sacrilege, and destroyed the images of the gods, and used\nthem in roasting those sacred animals that used to be worshipped, and\nforced the priests and prophets to be the executioners and murderers of\nthose animals, and then ejected them naked out of the country. It was\nalso reported that the priest, who ordained their polity and their laws,\nwas by birth of Hellopolls, and his name Osarsiph, from Osyris, who was\nthe god of Hellopolls; but that when he was gone over to these people,\nhis name was changed, and he was called Moses.\"\n\n27. This is what the Egyptians relate about the Jews, with much more,\nwhich I omit for the sake of brevity. But still Manetho goes on, that\n\"after this, Amenophis returned back from Ethiopia with a great army,\nas did his son Ahampses with another army also, and that both of them\njoined battle with the shepherds and the polluted people, and beat them,\nand slew a great many of them, and pursued them to the bounds of\nSyria.\" These and the like accounts are written by Manetho. But I will\ndemonstrate that he trifles, and tells arrant lies, after I have made a\ndistinction which will relate to what I am going to say about him;\nfor this Manetho had granted and confessed that this nation was not\noriginally Egyptian, but that they had come from another country, and\nsubdued Egypt, and then went away again out of it. But that those\nEgyptians who were thus diseased in their bodies were not mingled with\nus afterward, and that Moses who brought the people out was not one of\nthat company, but lived many generations earlier, I shall endeavor to\ndemonstrate from Manetho's own accounts themselves.\n\n28. Now, for the first occasion of this fiction, Manetho supposes what\nis no better than a ridiculous thing; for he says that, \"King Amenophis\ndesired to see the gods.\" What gods, I pray, did he desire to see? If\nhe meant the gods whom their laws ordained to be worshipped, the ox, the\ngoat, the crocodile, and the baboon, he saw them already; but for the\nheavenly gods, how could he see them, and what should occasion this his\ndesire? To be sure? it was because another king before him had already\nseen them. He had then been informed what sort of gods they were, and\nafter what manner they had been seen, insomuch that he did not stand in\nneed of any new artifice for obtaining this sight. However, the prophet\nby whose means the king thought to compass his design was a wise man.\nIf so, how came he not to know that such his desire was impossible to\nbe accomplished? for the event did not succeed. And what pretense could\nthere be to suppose that the gods would not be seen by reason of the\npeople's maims in their bodies, or leprosy? for the gods are not angry\nat the imperfection of bodies, but at wicked practices; and as to eighty\nthousand lepers, and those in an ill state also, how is it possible to\nhave them gathered together in one day? nay, how came the king not to\ncomply with the prophet? for his injunction was, that those that were\nmaimed should be expelled out of Egypt, while the king only sent them\nto work in the quarries, as if he were rather in want of laborers, than\nintended to purge his country. He says further, that, \"this prophet slew\nhimself, as foreseeing the anger of the gods, and those events which\nwere to come upon Egypt afterward; and that he left this prediction for\nthe king in writing.\" Besides, how came it to pass that this prophet\ndid not foreknow his own death at the first? nay, how came he not to\ncontradict the king in his desire to see the gods immediately? how came\nthat unreasonable dread upon him of judgments that were not to happen\nin his lifetime? or what worse thing could he suffer, out of the fear\nof which he made haste to kill himself? But now let us see the silliest\nthing of all:--The king, although he had been informed of these things,\nand terrified with the fear of what was to come, yet did not he even\nthen eject these maimed people out of his country, when it had been\nforetold him that he was to clear Egypt of them; but, as Manetho says,\n\"he then, upon their request, gave them that city to inhabit, which had\nformerly belonged to the shepherds, and was called Avaris; whither when\nthey were gone in crowds,\" he says, \"they chose one that had formerly\nbeen priest of Hellopolls; and that this priest first ordained that they\nshould neither worship the gods, nor abstain from those animals that\nwere worshipped by the Egyptians, but should kill and eat them all, and\nshould associate with nobody but those that had conspired with them;\nand that he bound the multitude by oaths to be sure to continue in\nthose laws; and that when he had built a wall about Avaris, he made\nwar against the king.\" Manetho adds also, that \"this priest sent to\nJerusalem to invite that people to come to his assistance, and promised\nto give them Avaris; for that it had belonged to the forefathers of\nthose that were coming from Jerusalem, and that when they were come,\nthey made a war immediately against the king, and got possession of\nall Egypt.\" He says also that \"the Egyptians came with an army of\ntwo hundred thousand men, and that Amenophis, the king of Egypt, not\nthinking that he ought to fight against the gods, ran away presently\ninto Ethiopia, and committed Apis and certain other of their sacred\nanimals to the priests, and commanded them to take care of preserving\nthem.\" He says further, that, \"the people of Jerusalem came accordingly\nupon the Egyptians, and overthrew their cities, and burnt their temples,\nand slew their horsemen, and, in short, abstained from no sort of\nwickedness nor barbarity; and for that priest who settled their polity\nand their laws,\" he says, \"he was by birth of Hellopolis, and his name\nwas Osarsiph, from Osyris the god of Hellopolis, but that he changed his\nname, and called himself Moses.\" He then says that \"on the thirteenth\nyear afterward, Amenophis, according to the fatal time of the duration\nof his misfortunes, came upon them out of Ethiopia with a great army,\nand joining battle with the shepherds and with the polluted people,\novercame them in battle, and slew a great many of them, and pursued them\nas far as the bounds of Syria.\"\n\n29. Now Manetho does not reflect upon the improbability of his lie; for\nthe leprous people, and the multitude that was with them, although\nthey might formerly have been angry at the king, and at those that had\ntreated them so coarsely, and this according to the prediction of the\nprophet; yet certainly, when they were come out of the mines, and had\nreceived of the king a city, and a country, they would have grown milder\ntowards him. However, had they ever so much hated him in particular,\nthey might have laid a private plot against himself, but would hardly\nhave made war against all the Egyptians; I mean this on the account of\nthe great kindred they who were so numerous must have had among them.\nNay still, if they had resolved to fight with the men, they would not\nhave had impudence enough to fight with their gods; nor would they have\nordained laws quite contrary to those of their own country, and to\nthose in which they had been bred up themselves. Yet are we beholden\nto Manethe, that he does not lay the principal charge of this horrid\ntransgression upon those that came from Jerusalem, but says that the\nEgyptians themselves were the most guilty, and that they were their\npriests that contrived these things, and made the multitude take their\noaths for doing so. But still how absurd is it to suppose that none\nof these people's own relations or friends should be prevailed with\nto revolt, nor to undergo the hazards of war with them, while these\npolluted people were forced to send to Jerusalem, and bring their\nauxiliaries from thence! What friendship, I pray, or what relation\nwas there formerly between them that required this assistance? On the\ncontrary, these people were enemies, and greatly differed from them in\ntheir customs. He says, indeed, that they complied immediately, upon\ntheir praising them that they should conquer Egypt; as if they did not\nthemselves very well know that country out of which they had been driven\nby force. Now had these men been in want, or lived miserably, perhaps\nthey might have undertaken so hazardous an enterprise; but as they dwelt\nin a happy city, and had a large country, and one better than Egypt\nitself, how came it about that, for the sake of those that had of old\nbeen their enemies, of those that were maimed in their bodies, and of\nthose whom none of their own relations would endure, they should run\nsuch hazards in assisting them? For they could not foresee that the\nking would run away from them: on the contrary, he saith himself that\n\"Amenophis's son had three hundred thousand men with him, and met them\nat Pelusium.\" Now, to be sure, those that came could not be ignorant of\nthis; but for the king's repentance and flight, how could they possibly\nguess at it? He then says, that \"those who came from Jerusalem, and made\nthis invasion, got the granaries of Egypt into their possession, and\nperpetrated many of the most horrid actions there.\" And thence he\nreproaches them, as though he had not himself introduced them as\nenemies, or as though he might accuse such as were invited from another\nplace for so doing, when the natural Egyptians themselves had done the\nsame things before their coming, and had taken oaths so to do. However,\n\"Amenophis, some time afterward, came upon them, and conquered them\nin battle, and slew his enemies, and drove them before him as far as\nSyria.\" As if Egypt were so easily taken by people that came from any\nplace whatsoever, and as if those that had conquered it by war, when\nthey were informed that Amenophis was alive, did neither fortify the\navenues out of Ethiopia into it, although they had great advantages for\ndoing it, nor did get their other forces ready for their defense! but\nthat he followed them over the sandy desert, and slew them as far as\nSyria; while yet it is rot an easy thing for an army to pass over that\ncountry, even without fighting.\n\n30. Our nation, therefore, according to Manetho, was not derived from\nEgypt, nor were any of the Egyptians mingled with us. For it is to be\nsupposed that many of the leprous and distempered people were dead\nin the mines, since they had been there a long time, and in so ill\na condition; many others must be dead in the battles that happened\nafterward, and more still in the last battle and flight after it.\n\n31. It now remains that I debate with Manetho about Moses. Now the\nEgyptians acknowledge him to have been a wonderful and a divine person;\nnay, they would willingly lay claim to him themselves, though after\na most abusive and incredible manner, and pretend that he was of\nHeliopolis, and one of the priests of that place, and was ejected out\nof it among the rest, on account of his leprosy; although it had\nbeen demonstrated out of their records that he lived five hundred and\neighteen years earlier, and then brought our forefathers out of Egypt\ninto the country that is now inhabited by us. But now that he was\nnot subject in his body to any such calamity, is evident from what he\nhimself tells us; for he forbade those that had the leprosy either to\ncontinue in a city, or to inhabit in a village, but commanded that they\nshould go about by themselves with their clothes rent; and declares that\nsuch as either touch them, or live under the same roof with them, should\nbe esteemed unclean; nay, more, if any one of their disease be healed,\nand he recover his natural constitution again, he appointed them certain\npurifications, and washings with spring water, and the shaving off all\ntheir hair, and enjoins that they shall offer many sacrifices, and those\nof several kinds, and then at length to be admitted into the holy city;\nalthough it were to be expected that, on the contrary, if he had been\nunder the same calamity, he should have taken care of such persons\nbeforehand, and have had them treated after a kinder manner, as affected\nwith a concern for those that were to be under the like misfortunes with\nhimself. Nor was it only those leprous people for whose sake he made\nthese laws, but also for such as should be maimed in the smallest part\nof their body, who yet are not permitted by him to officiate as priests;\nnay, although any priest, already initiated, should have such a calamity\nfall upon him afterward, he ordered him to be deprived of his honor of\nofficiating. How can it then be supposed that Moses should ordain such\nlaws against himself, to his own reproach and damage who so ordained\nthem? Nor indeed is that other notion of Manetho at all probable,\nwherein he relates the change of his name, and says that \"he was\nformerly called Osarsiph;\" and this a name no way agreeable to the\nother, while his true name was Mosses, and signifies a person who is\npreserved out of the water, for the Egyptians call water Moil. I think,\ntherefore, I have made it sufficiently evident that Manetho, while he\nfollowed his ancient records, did not much mistake the truth of the\nhistory; but that when he had recourse to fabulous stories, without any\ncertain author, he either forged them himself, without any probability,\nor else gave credit to some men who spake so out of their ill-will to\nus.\n\n32. And now I have done with Manetho, I will inquire into what Cheremon\nsays. For he also, when he pretended to write the Egyptian history, sets\ndown the same name for this king that Manetho did, Amenophis, as also of\nhis son Ramesses, and then goes on thus: \"The goddess Isis appeared\nto Amenophis in his sleep, and blamed him that her temple had been\ndemolished in the war. But that Phritiphantes, the sacred scribe, said\nto him, that in case he would purge Egypt of the men that had pollutions\nupon them, he should be no longer troubled with such frightful\napparitions. That Amenophis accordingly chose out two hundred and fifty\nthousand of those that were thus diseased, and cast them out of the\ncountry: that Moses and Joseph were scribes, and Joseph was a sacred\nscribe; that their names were Egyptian originally; that of Moses had\nbeen Tisithen, and that of Joseph, Peteseph: that these two came to\nPelusium, and lighted upon three hundred and eighty thousand that had\nbeen left there by Amenophis, he not being willing to carry them into\nEgypt; that these scribes made a league of friendship with them, and\nmade with them an expedition against Egypt: that Amenophis could not\nsustain their attacks, but fled into Ethiopia, and left his wife with\nchild behind him, who lay concealed in certain caverns, and there\nbrought forth a son, whose name was Messene, and who, when he was grown\nup to man's estate, pursued the Jews into Syria, being about two hundred\nthousand, and then received his father Amenophis out of Ethiopia.\"\n\n33. This is the account Cheremon gives us. Now I take it for granted\nthat what I have said already hath plainly proved the falsity of both\nthese narrations; for had there been any real truth at the bottom, it\nwas impossible they should so greatly disagree about the particulars.\nBut for those that invent lies, what they write will easily give us very\ndifferent accounts, while they forge what they please out of their own\nheads. Now Manetho says that the king's desire of seeing the gods was\nthe origin of the ejection of the polluted people; but Cheremon feigns\nthat it was a dream of his own, sent upon him by Isis, that was the\noccasion of it. Manetho says that the person who foreshowed this\npurgation of Egypt to the king was Amenophis; but this man says it was\nPhritiphantes. As to the numbers of the multitude that were expelled,\nthey agree exceedingly well [24] the former reckoning them eighty\nthousand, and the latter about two hundred and fifty thousand! Now, for\nManetho, he describes those polluted persons as sent first to work in\nthe quarries, and says that the city Avaris was given them for their\nhabitation. As also he relates that it was not till after they had made\nwar with the rest of the Egyptians, that they invited the people of\nJerusalem to come to their assistance; while Cheremon says only that\nthey were gone out of Egypt, and lighted upon three hundred and eighty\nthousand men about Pelusium, who had been left there by Amenophis, and\nso they invaded Egypt with them again; that thereupon Amenophis fled\ninto Ethiopia. But then this Cheremon commits a most ridiculous blunder\nin not informing us who this army of so many ten thousands were, or\nwhence they came; whether they were native Egyptians, or whether they\ncame from a foreign country. Nor indeed has this man, who forged a dream\nfrom Isis about the leprous people, assigned the reason why the king\nwould not bring them into Egypt. Moreover, Cheremon sets down Joseph as\ndriven away at the same time with Moses, who yet died four generations\n[25] before Moses, which four generations make almost one hundred and\nseventy years. Besides all this, Ramesses, the son of Amenophis, by\nManetho's account, was a young man, and assisted his father in his war,\nand left the country at the same time with him, and fled into Ethiopia.\nBut Cheremon makes him to have been born in a certain cave, after his\nfather was dead, and that he then overcame the Jews in battle, and\ndrove them into Syria, being in number about two hundred thousand. O the\nlevity of the man! for he had neither told us who these three hundred\nand eighty thousand were, nor how the four hundred and thirty thousand\nperished; whether they fell in war, or went over to Ramesses. And, what\nis the strangest of all, it is not possible to learn out of him who they\nwere whom he calls Jews, or to which of these two parties he applies\nthat denomination, whether to the two hundred and fifty thousand leprous\npeople, or to the three hundred and eighty thousand that were about\nPelusium. But perhaps it will be looked upon as a silly thing in me\nto make any larger confutation of such writers as sufficiently confute\nthemselves; for had they been only confuted by other men, it had been\nmore tolerable.\n\n34. I shall now add to these accounts about Manethoand Cheremon somewhat\nabout Lysimachus, who hath taken the same topic of falsehood with those\nforementioned, but hath gone far beyond them in the incredible nature of\nhis forgeries; which plainly demonstrates that he contrived them out of\nhis virulent hatred of our nation. His words are these: \"The people of\nthe Jews being leprous and scabby, and subject to certain other kinds\nof distempers, in the days of Bocchoris, king of Egypt, they fled to the\ntemples, and got their food there by begging: and as the numbers were\nvery great that were fallen under these diseases, there arose a scarcity\nin Egypt. Hereupon Bocehoris, the king of Egypt, sent some to consult\nthe oracle of [Jupiter] Hammon about his scarcity. The god's answer\nwas this, that he must purge his temples of impure and impious men, by\nexpelling them out of those temples into desert places; but as to the\nscabby and leprous people, he must drown them, and purge his temples,\nthe sun having an indignation at these men being suffered to live; and\nby this means the land will bring forth its fruits. Upon Bocchoris's\nhaving received these oracles, he called for their priests, and the\nattendants upon their altars, and ordered them to make a collection of\nthe impure people, and to deliver them to the soldiers, to carry them\naway into the desert; but to take the leprous people, and wrap them in\nsheets of lead, and let them down into the sea. Hereupon the scabby and\nleprous people were drowned, and the rest were gotten together, and sent\ninto desert places, in order to be exposed to destruction. In this case\nthey assembled themselves together, and took counsel what they should\ndo, and determined that, as the night was coming on, they should kindle\nfires and lamps, and keep watch; that they also should fast the next\nnight, and propitiate the gods, in order to obtain deliverance from\nthem. That on the next day there was one Moses, who advised them that\nthey should venture upon a journey, and go along one road till they\nshould come to places fit for habitation: that he charged them to have\nno kind regards for any man, nor give good counsel to any, but always to\nadvise them for the worst; and to overturn all those temples and altars\nof the gods they should meet with: that the rest commended what he\nhad said with one consent, and did what they had resolved on, and so\ntraveled over the desert. But that the difficulties of the journey being\nover, they came to a country inhabited, and that there they abused the\nmen, and plundered and burnt their temples; and then came into that land\nwhich is called Judea, and there they built a city, and dwelt therein,\nand that their city was named Hierosyla, from this their robbing of the\ntemples; but that still, upon the success they had afterwards, they in\ntime changed its denomination, that it might not be a reproach to them,\nand called the city Hierosolyma, and themselves Hierosolymites.\"\n\n35. Now this man did not discover and mention the same king with the\nothers, but feigned a newer name, and passing by the dream and the\nEgyptian prophet, he brings him to [Jupiter] Hammon, in order to gain\noracles about the scabby and leprous people; for he says that the\nmultitude of Jews were gathered together at the temples. Now it is\nuncertain whether he ascribes this name to these lepers, or to those\nthat were subject to such diseases among the Jews only; for he describes\nthem as a people of the Jews. What people does he mean? foreigners, or\nthose of that country? Why then' dost thou call them Jews, if they were\nEgyptians? But if they were foreigners, why dost thou not tell us whence\nthey came? And how could it be that, after the king had drowned many of\nthem in the sea, and ejected the rest into desert places, there should\nbe still so great a multitude remaining? Or after what manner did they\npass over the desert, and get the land which we now dwell in, and build\nour city, and that temple which hath been so famous among all mankind?\nAnd besides, he ought to have spoken more about our legislator than by\ngiving us his bare name; and to have informed us of what nation he was,\nand what parents he was derived from; and to have assigned the reasons\nwhy he undertook to make such laws concerning the gods, and concerning\nmatters of injustice with regard to men during that journey. For in case\nthe people were by birth Egyptians, they would not on the sudden have so\neasily changed the customs of their country; and in case they had been\nforeigners, they had for certain some laws or other which had been kept\nby them from long custom. It is true, that with regard to those who had\nejected them, they might have sworn never to bear good-will to them,\nand might have had a plausible reason for so doing. But if these men\nresolved to wage an implacable war against all men, in case they had\nacted as wickedly as he relates of them, and this while they wanted the\nassistance of all men, this demonstrates a kind of mad conduct indeed;\nbut not of the men themselves, but very greatly so of him that tells\nsuch lies about them. He hath also impudence enough to say that a name,\nimplying \"Robbers of the temples,\" [26] was given to their city, and\nthat this name was afterward changed. The reason of which is plain, that\nthe former name brought reproach and hatred upon them in the times of\ntheir posterity, while, it seems, those that built the city thought they\ndid honor to the city by giving it such a name. So we see that this fine\nfellow had such an unbounded inclination to reproach us, that he did not\nunderstand that robbery of temples is not expressed By the same word and\nname among the Jews as it is among the Greeks. But why should a man say\nany more to a person who tells such impudent lies? However, since this\nbook is arisen to a competent length, I will make another beginning, and\nendeavor to add what still remains to perfect my design in the following\nbook.\n\n\n\n\nAPION BOOK 1 FOOTNOTES\n\n[1] This first book has a wrong title. It is not written against Apion,\nas is the first part of the second book, but against those Greeks in\ngeneral who would not believe Josephus's former accounts of the very\nancient state of the Jewish nation, in his 20 books of Antiquities; and\nparticularly against Agatharelddes, Manetho, Cheremon, and Lysimachus.\nit is one of the most learned, excellent, and useful books of all\nantiquity; and upon Jerome's perusal of this and the following book,\nhe declares that it seems to him a miraculous thing \"how one that was\na Hebrew, who had been from his infancy instructed in sacred learning,\nshould be able to pronounce such a number of testimonies out of profane\nauthors, as if he had read over all the Grecian libraries,\" Epist. 8.\nad Magnum; and the learned Jew, Manasseh-Ben-Israel, esteemed these two\nbooks so excellent, as to translate them into the Hebrew; this we learn\nfrom his own catalogue of his works, which I have seen. As to the time\nand place when and where these two books were written, the learned have\nnot hitherto been able to determine them any further than that they were\nwritten some time after his Antiquities, or some time after A.D. 93;\nwhich indeed is too obvious at their entrance to be overlooked by even a\ncareless peruser, they being directly intended against those that would\nnot believe what he had advanced in those books con-the great of the\nJewish nation As to the place, they all imagine that these two books\nwere written where the former were, I mean at Rome; and I confess that\nI myself believed both those determinations, till I came to finish my\nnotes upon these books, when I met with plain indications that they were\nwritten not at Rome, but in Judea, and this after the third of Trajan,\nor A.D. 100.\n\n[2] Take Dr. Hudson's note here, which as it justly contradicts the\ncommon opinion that Josephus either died under Domitian, or at least\nwrote nothing later than his days, so does it perfectly agree to my own\ndetermination, from Justus of Tiberias, that he wrote or finished his\nown Life after the third of Trajan, or A.D. 100. To which Noldius also\nagrees, de Herod, No. 383 [Epaphroditus]. \"Since Florius Josephus,\"\nsays Dr. Hudson, \"wrote [or finished] his books of Antiquities on the\nthirteenth of Domitian, [A.D. 93,] and after that wrote the Memoirs of\nhis own Life, as an appendix to the books of Antiquities, and at last\nhis two books against Apion, and yet dedicated all those writings\nto Epaphroditus; he can hardly be that Epaphroditus who was formerly\nsecretary to Nero, and was slain on the fourteenth [or fifteenth] of\nDomitian, after he had been for a good while in banishment; but another\nEpaphroditas, a freed-man, and procurator of Trajan, as says Grotius on\nLuke 1:3.\"\n\n[3] The preservation of Homer's Poems by memory, and not by his own\nwriting them down, and that thence they were styled Rhapsodies, as sung\nby him, like ballads, by parts, and not composed and connected\ntogether in complete works, are opinions well known from the ancient\ncommentators; though such supposal seems to myself, as well as to\nFabricius Biblioth. Grace. I. p. 269, and to others, highly improbable.\nNor does Josephus say there were no ancienter writings among the Greeks\nthan Homer's Poems, but that they did not fully own any ancienter\nwritings pretending to such antiquity, which is trite.\n\n[4] It well deserves to be considered, that Josephus here says how all\nthe following Greek historians looked on Herodotus as a fabulous author;\nand presently, sect. 14, how Manetho, the most authentic writer of the\nEgyptian history, greatly complains of his mistakes in the Egyptian\naffairs; as also that Strabo, B. XI. p. 507, the most accurate\ngeographer and historian, esteemed him such; that Xenophon, the\nmuch more accurate historian in the affairs of Cyrus, implies that\nHerodotus's account of that great man is almost entirely romantic. See\nthe notes on Antiq. B. XI. ch. 2. sect. 1, and Hutchinson's Prolegomena\nto his edition of Xenophon's, that we have already seen in the note on\nAntiq. B. VIII. ch. 10. sect. 3, how very little Herodotus knew about\nthe Jewish affairs and country, and that he greatly affected what we\ncall the marvelous, as Monsieur Rollin has lately and justly determined;\nwhence we are not always to depend on the authority of Herodotus, where\nit is unsupported by other evidence, but ought to compare the other\nevidence with his, and if it preponderate, to prefer it before his. I do\nnot mean by this that Herodotus willfully related what he believed to\nbe false, [as Cteeias seems to have done,] but that he often wanted\nevidence, and sometimes preferred what was marvelous to what was best\nattested as really true.\n\n[5]About the days of Cyrus and Daniel.\n\n[6] It is here well worth our observation, what the reasons are that\nsuch ancient authors as Herodotus, Josephus, and others have been read\nto so little purpose by many learned critics; viz. that their main aim\nhas not been chronology or history, but philology, to know words, and\nnot things, they not much entering oftentimes into the real contents of\ntheir authors, and judging which were the most accurate discoverers of\ntruth, and most to be depended on in the several histories, but rather\ninquiring who wrote the finest style, and had the greatest elegance in\ntheir expressions; which are things of small consequence in comparison\nof the other. Thus you will sometimes find great debates among the\nlearned, whether Herodotus or Thucydides were the finest historian in\nthe Ionic and Attic ways of writing; which signify little as to the real\nvalue of each of their histories; while it would be of much more moment\nto let the reader know, that as the consequence of Herodotus's history,\nwhich begins so much earlier, and reaches so much wider, than that\nof Thucydides, is therefore vastly greater; so is the most part of\nThucydides, which belongs to his own times, and fell under his own\nobservation, much the most certain.\n\n[7] Of this accuracy of the Jews before and in our Savior's time, in\ncarefully preserving their genealogies all along, particularly those of\nthe priests, see Josephus's Life, sect. 1. This accuracy. seems to have\nended at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, or, however, at that by\nAdrian.\n\n[8] Which were these twenty-two sacred books of the Old Testament, see\nthe Supplement to the Essay of the Old Testament, p. 25-29, viz. those\nwe call canonical, all excepting the Canticles; but still with this\nfurther exception, that the book of apocryphal Esdras be taken into that\nnumber instead of our canonical Ezra, which seems to be no more than a\nlater epitome of the other; which two books of Canticles and Ezra it no\nway appears that our Josephus ever saw.\n\n[9] Here we have an account of the first building of the city of\nJerusalem, according to Manetho, when the Phoenician shepherds were\nexpelled out of Egypt about thirty-seven years before Abraham came out\nof Harsh.\n\n[10] Genesis 46;32, 34; 47:3, 4.\n\n[11] In our copies of the book of Genesis and of Joseph, this Joseph\nnever calls himself \"a captive,\" when he was with the king of Egypt,\nthough he does call himself \"a servant,\" \"a slave,\" or \"captive,\" many\ntimes in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, under Joseph, sect. 1,\n11, 13-16.\n\n[12] Of this Egyptian chronology of Manetho, as mistaken by Josephus,\nand of these Phoenician shepherds, as falsely supposed by him, and\nothers after him, to have been the Israelites in Egypt, see Essay on the\nOld Testament, Appendix, p. 182-188. And note here, that when Josephus\ntells us that the Greeks or Argives looked on this Danaus as \"a most\nancient,\" or \"the most ancient,\" king of Argos, he need not be supposed\nto mean, in the strictest sense, that they had no one king so ancient as\nhe; for it is certain that they owned nine kings before him, and Inachus\nat the head of them. See Authentic Records, Part II. p. 983, as Josephus\ncould not but know very well; but that he was esteemed as very ancient\nby them, and that they knew they had been first of all denominated\n\"Danai\" from this very ancient king Danaus. Nor does this superlative\ndegree always imply the \"most ancient\" of all without exception, but is\nsometimes to be rendered \"very ancient\" only, as is the case in the like\nsuperlative degrees of other words also.\n\n[13] Authentic Records, Part II. p. 983, as Josephus could not but know\nvery well; but that he was esteemed as very ancient by them, and that\nthey knew they had been first of all denominated \"Danai\" from this very\nancient king Danaus. Nor does this superlative degree always imply the\n\"most ancient\" of all without exception, but is sometimes to be rendered\n\"very ancient\" only, as is the case in the like superlative degrees of\nother words also.\n\n[14] This number in Josephus, that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple\nin the eighteenth year of his reign, is a mistake in the nicety of\nchronology; for it was in the nineteenth. The true number here for the\nyear of Darius, in which the second temple was finished, whether the\nsecond with our present copies, or the sixth with that of Syncellus,\nor the tenth with that of Eusebius, is very uncertain; so we had best\nfollow Josephus's own account elsewhere, Antiq.;B. XI. ch. 3. sect. 4,\nwhich shows us that according to his copy of the Old Testament, after\nthe second of Cyrus, that work was interrupted till the second of\nDarius, when in seven years it was finished in the ninth of Darius.\n\n[15] This is a thing well known by the learned, that we are not secure\nthat we have any genuine writings of Pythagoras; those Golden Verses,\nwhich are his best remains, being generally supposed to have been\nwritten not by himself, but by some of his scholars only, in agreement\nwith what Josephus here affirms of him.\n\n[16] Whether these verses of Cherilus, the heathen poet, in the days of\nXerxes, belong to the Solymi in Pisidia, that were near a small lake, or\nto the Jews that dwelt on the Solymean or Jerusalem mountains, near the\ngreat and broad lake Asphaltitis, that were a strange people, and\nspake the Phoenician tongue, is not agreed on by the learned. If is yet\ncertain that Josephus here, and Eusebius, Prep. IX. 9. p. 412, took them\nto be Jews; and I confess I cannot but very much incline to the same\nopinion. The other Solymi were not a strange people, but heathen\nidolaters, like the other parts of Xerxes's army; and that these spake\nthe Phoenician tongue is next to impossible, as the Jews certainly\ndid; nor is there the least evidence for it elsewhere. Nor was the\nlake adjoining to the mountains of the Solvmi at all large or broad,\nin comparison of the Jewish lake Asphaltitis; nor indeed were these so\nconsiderable a people as the Jews, nor so likely to be desired by Xerxes\nfor his army as the Jews, to whom he was always very favorable. As for\nthe rest of Cherilus's description, that \"their heads were sooty; that\nthey had round rasures on their heads; that their heads and faces were\nlike nasty horse-heads, which had been hardened in the smoke;\" these\nawkward characters probably fitted the Solymi of Pisidi no better than\nthey did the Jews in Judea. And indeed this reproachful language, here\ngiven these people, is to me a strong indication that they were the poor\ndespicable Jews, and not the Pisidian Solymi celebrated in Homer, whom\nCherilus here describes; nor are we to expect that either Cherilus or\nHecateus, or any other pagan writers cited by Josephus and Eusebius,\nmade no mistakes in the Jewish history. If by comparing their\ntestimonies with the more authentic records of that nation we find them\nfor the main to confirm the same, as we almost always do, we ought to be\nsatisfied, and not expect that they ever had an exact knowledge of all\nthe circumstances of the Jewish affairs, which indeed it was almost\nalways impossible for them to have. See sect. 23.\n\n[17] This Hezekiah, who is here called a high priest, is not named in\nJosephus's catalogue; the real high priest at that time being rather\nOnias, as Archbishop Usher supposes. However, Josephus often uses the\nword high priests in the plural number, as living many at the same time.\nSee the note on Antiq. B. XX. ch. 8. sect. 8.\n\n[18] So I read the text with Havercamp, though the place be difficult.\n\n[19] This number of arourae or Egyptian acres, 3,000,000, each aroura\ncontaining a square of 100 Egyptian cubits, [being about three quarters\nof an English acre, and just twice the area of the court of the Jewish\ntabernacle,] as contained in the country of Judea, will be about one\nthird of the entire number of arourae in the whole land of Judea,\nsupposing it 160 measured miles long and 70 such miles broad; which\nestimation, for the fruitful parts of it, as perhaps here in Hecateus,\nis not therefore very wide from the truth. The fifty furlongs in compass\nfor the city Jerusalem presently are not very wide from the truth also,\nas Josephus himself describes it, who, Of the War, B. V. ch. 4. sect. 3.\nmakes its wall thirty-three furlongs, besides the suburbs and gardens;\nnay, he says, B. V. ch. 12. sect. 2, that Titus's wall about it at some\nsmall distance, after the gardens and suburbs were destroyed, was\nnot less than thirty-nine furlongs. Nor perhaps were its constant\ninhabitants, in the days of Hecateus, many more than these 120,000,\nbecause room was always to be left for vastly greater numbers which came\nup at the three great festivals; to say nothing of the probable increase\nin their number between the days of Hecateus and Josephus, which was at\nleast three hundred years. But see a more authentic account of some of\nthese measures in my Description of the Jewish Temples. However, we are\nnot to expect that such heathens as Cherilus or Hecateus, or the\nrest that are cited by Josephus and Eusebius, could avoid making many\nmistakes in the Jewish history, while yet they strongly confirm the same\nhistory in the general, and are most valuable attestations to those more\nauthentic accounts we have in the Scriptures and Josephus concerning\nthem.\n\n[20] A glorious testimony this of the observation of the sabbath by the\nJews. See Antiq. B. XVI. ch. 2. sect. 4, and ch. 6. sect. 2; the Life,\nsect. 54; and War, B. IV. ch. 9. sect. 12.\n\n[21] Not their law, but the superstitious interpretation of their\nleaders which neither the Maccabees nor our blessed Savior did ever\napprove of.\n\n[22] In reading this and the remaining sections of this book, and some\nparts of the next, one may easily perceive that our usually cool and\ncandid author, Josephus, was too highly offended with the impudent\ncalumnies of Manethe, and the other bitter enemies of the Jews, with\nwhom he had now to deal, and was thereby betrayed into a greater heat\nand passion than ordinary, and that by consequence he does not hear\nreason with his usual fairness and impartiality; he seems to depart\nsometimes from the brevity and sincerity of a faithful historian, which\nis his grand character, and indulges the prolixity and colors of a\npleader and a disputant: accordingly, I confess, I always read these\nsections with less pleasure than I do the rest of his writings, though\nI fully believe the reproaches cast on the Jews, which he here endeavors\nto confute and expose, were wholly groundless and unreasonable.\n\n[23] This is a very valuable testimony of Manetho, that the laws of\nOsarsiph, or Moses, were not made in compliance with, but in opposition\nto, the customs of the Egyptians. See the note on Antiq. B. III. ch. 8.\nsect. 9.\n\n[24] By way of irony, I suppose.\n\n[25] Here we see that Josephus esteemed a generation between Joseph\nand Moses to be about forty-two or forty-three years; which, if taken\nbetween the earlier children, well agrees with the duration of human\nlife in those ages. See Antheat. Rec. Part II. pages 966, 1019, 1020.\n\n[26] That is the meaning of Hierosyla in Greek, not in Hebrew.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK II.\n\n\n1. In the former book, most honored Epaphroditus, I have demonstrated\nour antiquity, and confirmed the truth of what I have said, from the\nwritings of the Phoenicians, and Chaldeans, and Egyptians. I have,\nmoreover, produced many of the Grecian writers as witnesses thereto.\nI have also made a refutation of Manetho and Cheremon, and of certain\nothers of our enemies. I shall now [1] therefore begin a confutation of\nthe remaining authors who have written any thing against us; although\nI confess I have had a doubt upon me about Apion [2] the grammarian,\nwhether I ought to take the trouble of confuting him or not; for some\nof his writings contain much the same accusations which the others have\nlaid against us, some things that he hath added are very frigid and\ncontemptible, and for the greatest part of what he says, it is very\nscurrilous, and, to speak no more than the plain truth, it shows him\nto be a very unlearned person, and what he lays together looks like the\nwork of a man of very bad morals, and of one no better in his whole\nlife than a mountebank. Yet, because there are a great many men so very\nfoolish, that they are rather caught by such orations than by what\nis written with care, and take pleasure in reproaching other men, and\ncannot abide to hear them commended, I thought it to be necessary not\nto let this man go off without examination, who had written such an\naccusation against us, as if he would bring us to make an answer in open\ncourt. For I also have observed, that many men are very much delighted\nwhen they see a man who first began to reproach another, to be himself\nexposed to contempt on account of the vices he hath himself been\nguilty of. However, it is not a very easy thing to go over this man's\ndiscourse, nor to know plainly what he means; yet does he seem, amidst a\ngreat confusion and disorder in his falsehoods, to produce, in the first\nplace, such things as resemble what we have examined already, and relate\nto the departure of our forefathers out of Egypt; and, in the second\nplace, he accuses those Jews that are inhabitants of Alexandria; as, in\nthe third place, he mixes with those things such accusations as concern\nthe sacred purifications, with the other legal rites used in the temple.\n\n2. Now although I cannot but think that I have already demonstrated,\nand that abundantly more than was necessary, that our fathers were not\noriginally Egyptians, nor were thence expelled, either on account\nof bodily diseases, or any other calamities of that sort; yet will I\nbriefly take notice of what Apion adds upon that subject; for in his\nthird book, which relates to the affairs of Egypt, he speaks thus: \"I\nhave heard of the ancient men of Egypt, that Moses was of Heliopolis,\nand that he thought himself obliged to follow the customs of his\nforefathers, and offered his prayers in the open air, towards the city\nwalls; but that he reduced them all to be directed towards sun-rising,\nwhich was agreeable to the situation of Heliopolis; that he also set\nup pillars instead of gnomons, [3] under which was represented a cavity\nlike that of a boat, and the shadow that fell from their tops fell down\nupon that cavity, that it might go round about the like course as the\nsun itself goes round in the other.\" This is that wonderful relation\nwhich we have given us by this grammarian. But that it is a false one\nis so plain, that it stands in need of few words to prove it, but\nis manifest from the works of Moses; for when he erected the first\ntabernacle to God, he did himself neither give order for any such kind\nof representation to be made at it, nor ordain that those that came\nafter him should make such a one. Moreover, when in a future age Solomon\nbuilt his temple in Jerusalem, he avoided all such needless decorations\nas Apion hath here devised. He says further, how he had \"heard of the\nancient men, that Moses was of Hellopolis.\" To be sure that was, because\nbeing a younger man himself, he believed those that by their elder age\nwere acquainted and conversed with him. Now this grammarian, as he was,\ncould not certainly tell which was the poet Homer's country, no\nmore than he could which was the country of Pythagoras, who lived\ncomparatively but a little while ago; yet does he thus easily determine\nthe age of Moses, who preceded them such a vast number of years, as\ndepending on his ancient men's relation, which shows how notorious a\nliar he was. But then as to this chronological determination of the time\nwhen he says he brought the leprous people, the blind, and the lame out\nof Egypt, see how well this most accurate grammarian of ours agrees with\nthose that have written before him! Manetho says that the Jews departed\nout of Egypt, in the reign of Tethmosis, three hundred ninety-three\nyears before Danaus fled to Argos; Lysimaehus says it was under king\nBocchoris, that is, one thousand seven hundred years ago; Molo and some\nothers determined it as every one pleased: but this Apion of ours, as\ndeserving to be believed before them, hath determined it exactly to have\nbeen in the seventh olympiad, and the first year of that olympiad;\nthe very same year in which he says that Carthage was built by the\nPhoenicians. The reason why he added this building of Carthage was,\nto be sure, in order, as he thought, to strengthen his assertion by\nso evident a character of chronology. But he was not aware that this\ncharacter confutes his assertion; for if we may give credit to the\nPhoenician records as to the time of the first coming of their colony\nto Carthage, they relate that Hirom their king was above a hundred and\nfifty years earlier than the building of Carthage; concerning whom I\nhave formerly produced testimonials out of those Phoenician records, as\nalso that this Hirom was a friend of Solomon when he was building the\ntemple of Jerusalem, and gave him great assistance in his building that\ntemple; while still Solomon himself built that temple six hundred and\ntwelve years after the Jews came out of Egypt. As for the number of\nthose that were expelled out of Egypt, he hath contrived to have the\nvery same number with Lysimaehus, and says they were a hundred and ten\nthousand. He then assigns a certain wonderful and plausible occasion for\nthe name of Sabbath; for he says that \"when the Jews had traveled a six\ndays' journey, they had buboes in their groins; and that on this account\nit was that they rested on the seventh day, as having got safely to that\ncountry which is now called Judea; that then they preserved the language\nof the Egyptians, and called that day the Sabbath, for that malady of\nbuboes on their groin was named Sabbatosis by the Egyptians.\" And\nwould not a man now laugh at this fellow's trifling, or rather hate his\nimpudence in writing thus? We must, it seems, fake it for granted that\nall these hundred and ten thousand men must have these buboes. But,\nfor certain, if those men had been blind and lame, and had all sorts of\ndistempers upon them, as Apion says they had, they could not have gone\none single day's journey; but if they had been all able to travel over a\nlarge desert, and, besides that, to fight and conquer those that opposed\nthem, they had not all of them had buboes on their groins after the\nsixth day was over; for no such distemper comes naturally and of\nnecessity upon those that travel; but still, when there are many ten\nthousands in a camp together, they constantly march a settled space [in\na day]. Nor is it at all probable that such a thing should happen by\nchance; this would be prodigiously absurd to be supposed. However, our\nadmirable author Apion hath before told us that \"they came to Judea in\nsix days' time;\" and again, that \"Moses went up to a mountain that lay\nbetween Egypt and Arabia, which was called Sinai, and was concealed\nthere forty days, and that when he came down from thence he gave laws to\nthe Jews.\" But, then, how was it possible for them to tarry forty days\nin a desert place where there was no water, and at the same time to pass\nall over the country between that and Judea in the six days? And as for\nthis grammatical translation of the word Sabbath, it either contains an\ninstance of his great impudence or gross ignorance; for the words Sabbo\nand Sabbath are widely different from one another; for the word Sabbath\nin the Jewish language denotes rest from all sorts of work; but the word\nSabbo, as he affirms, denotes among the Egyptians the malady of a bubo\nin the groin.\n\n3. This is that novel account which the Egyptian Apion gives us\nconcerning the Jews' departure out of Egypt, and is no better than a\ncontrivance of his own. But why should we wonder at the lies he tells\nabout our forefathers, when he affirms them to be of Egyptian original,\nwhen he lies also about himself? for although he was born at Oasis\nin Egypt, he pretends to be, as a man may say, the top man of all the\nEgyptians; yet does he forswear his real country and progenitors, and by\nfalsely pretending to be born at Alexandria, cannot deny the [4] pravity\nof his family; for you see how justly he calls those Egyptians whom he\nhates, and endeavors to reproach; for had he not deemed Egyptians to\nbe a name of great reproach, he would not have avoided the name of an\nEgyptian himself; as we know that those who brag of their own countries\nvalue themselves upon the denomination they acquire thereby, and reprove\nsuch as unjustly lay claim thereto. As for the Egyptians' claim to be of\nour kindred, they do it on one of the following accounts; I mean, either\nas they value themselves upon it, and pretend to bear that relation\nto us; or else as they would draw us in to be partakers of their own\ninfamy. But this fine fellow Apion seems to broach this reproachful\nappellation against us, [that we were originally Egyptians,] in order\nto bestow it on the Alexandrians, as a reward for the privilege they had\ngiven him of being a fellow citizen with them: he also is apprized of\nthe ill-will the Alexandrians bear to those Jews who are their fellow\ncitizens, and so proposes to himself to reproach them, although he must\nthereby include all the other Egyptians also; while in both cases he is\nno better than an impudent liar.\n\n4. But let us now see what those heavy and wicked crimes are which Apion\ncharges upon the Alexandrian Jews. \"They came [says he] out of Syria,\nand inhabited near the tempestuous sea, and were in the neighborhood of\nthe dashing of the waves.\" Now if the place of habitation includes any\nthing that is reproached, this man reproaches not his own real country,\n[Egypt,] but what he pretends to be his own country, Alexandria; for all\nare agreed in this, that the part of that city which is near the sea is\nthe best part of all for habitation. Now if the Jews gained that part of\nthe city by force, and have kept it hitherto without impeachment, this\nis a mark of their valor; but in reality it was Alexander himself that\ngave them that place for their habitation, when they obtained equal\nprivileges there with the Macedonians. Nor call I devise what Apion\nwould have said, had their habitation been at Necropolis? and not been\nfixed hard by the royal palace [as it is]; nor had their nation had\nthe denomination of Macedonians given them till this very day [as they\nhave]. Had this man now read the epistles of king Alexander, or those\nof Ptolemy the son of Lagus, or met with the writings of the succeeding\nkings, or that pillar which is still standing at Alexandria, and\ncontains the privileges which the great [Julius] Caesar bestowed upon\nthe Jews; had this man, I say, known these records, and yet hath the\nimpudence to write in contradiction to them, he hath shown himself to\nbe a wicked man; but if he knew nothing of these records, he hath shown\nhimself to be a man very ignorant: nay, when lie appears to wonder how\nJews could be called Alexandrians, this is another like instance of his\nignorance; for all such as are called out to be colonies, although they\nbe ever so far remote from one another in their original, receive their\nnames from those that bring them to their new habitations. And what\noccasion is there to speak of others, when those of us Jews that dwell\nat Antioch are named Antiochians, because Seleucns the founder of that\ncity gave them the privileges belonging thereto? After the like manner\ndo those Jews that inhabit Ephesus, and the other cities of Ionia, enjoy\nthe same name with those that were originally born there, by the grant\nof the succeeding princes; nay, the kindness and humanity of the Romans\nhath been so great, that it hath granted leave to almost all others to\ntake the same name of Romans upon them; I mean not particular men only,\nbut entire and large nations themselves also; for those anciently named\nIberi, and Tyrrheni, and Sabini, are now called Romani. And if Apion\nreject this way of obtaining the privilege of a citizen of Alexandria,\nlet him abstain from calling himself an Alexandrian hereafter; for\notherwise, how can he who was born in the very heart of Egypt be an\nAlexandrian, if this way of accepting such a privilege, of which he\nwould have us deprived, be once abrogated? although indeed these\nRomans, who are now the lords of the habitable earth, have forbidden the\nEgyptians to have the privileges of any city whatsoever; while this fine\nfellow, who is willing to partake of such a privilege himself as he is\nforbidden to make use of, endeavors by calumnies to deprive those of it\nthat have justly received it; for Alexander did not therefore get some\nof our nation to Alexandria, because he wanted inhabitants for this\nhis city, on whose building he had bestowed so much pains; but this was\ngiven to our people as a reward, because he had, upon a careful trial,\nfound them all to have been men of virtue and fidelity to him; for, as\nHecateus says concerning us, \"Alexander honored our nation to such a\ndegree, that, for the equity and the fidelity which the Jews exhibited\nto him, he permitted them to hold the country of Samaria free from\ntribute. Of the same mind also was Ptolemy the son of Lagus, as to those\nJews who dwelt at Alexandria.\" For he intrusted the fortresses of Egypt\ninto their hands, as believing they would keep them faithfully and\nvaliantly for him; and when he was desirous to secure the government of\nCyrene, and the other cities of Libya, to himself, he sent a party of\nJews to inhabit in them. And for his successor Ptolemy, who was called\nPhiladelphus, he did not only set all those of our nation free who were\ncaptives under him, but did frequently give money [for their ransom];\nand, what was his greatest work of all, he had a great desire of\nknowing our laws, and of obtaining the books of our sacred Scriptures;\naccordingly, he desired that such men might be sent him as might\ninterpret our law to him; and, in order to have them well compiled, he\ncommitted that care to no ordinary persons, but ordained that Demetrius\nPhalereus, and Andreas, and Aristeas; the first, Demetrius, the most\nlearned person of his age, and the others, such as were intrusted with\nthe guard of his body; should take care of this matter: nor would he\ncertainly have been so desirous of learning our law, and the philosophy\nof our nation, had he despised the men that made use of it, or had he\nnot indeed had them in great admiration.\n\n5. Now this Apion was unacquainted with almost all the kings of those\nMacedonians whom he pretends to have been his progenitors, who were yet\nvery well affected towards us; for the third of those Ptolemies, who was\ncalled Euergetes, when he had gotten possession of all Syria by force,\ndid not offer his thank-offerings to the Egyptian gods for his victory,\nbut came to Jerusalem, and according to our own laws offered many\nsacrifices to God, and dedicated to him such gifts as were suitable to\nsuch a victory: and as for Ptolemy Philometer and his wife Cleopatra,\nthey committed their whole kingdom to the Jews, when Onias and\nDositheus, both Jews, whose names are laughed at by Apion, were the\ngenerals of their whole army. But certainly, instead of reproaching\nthem, he ought to admire their actions, and return them thanks for\nsaving Alexandria, whose citizen he pretends to be; for when these\nAlexandrians were making war with Cleopatra the queen, and were in\ndanger of being utterly ruined, these Jews brought them to terms of\nagreement, and freed them from the miseries of a civil war. \"But then\n[says Apion] Onias brought a small army afterward upon the city at the\ntime when Thorruns the Roman ambassador was there present.\" Yes, do I\nventure to say, and that he did rightly and very justly in so doing;\nfor that Ptolemy who was called Physco, upon the death of his brother\nPhilometer, came from Cyrene, and would have ejected Cleopatra as well\nas her sons out of their kingdom, that he might obtain it for himself\nunjustly. [5] For this cause then it was that Onias undertook a war\nagainst him on Cleopatra's account; nor would he desert that trust the\nroyal family had reposed in him in their distress. Accordingly, God gave\na remarkable attestation to his righteous procedure; for when Ptolemy\nPhysco [6] had the presumption to fight against Onias's army, and had\ncaught all the Jews that were in the city [Alexandria], with their\nchildren and wives, and exposed them naked and in bonds to his\nelephants, that they might be trodden upon and destroyed, and when\nhe had made those elephants drunk for that purpose, the event proved\ncontrary to his preparations; for these elephants left the Jews who were\nexposed to them, and fell violently upon Physco's friends, and slew\na great number of them; nay, after this Ptolemy saw a terrible ghost,\nwhich prohibited his hurting those men; his very concubine, whom\nhe loved so well, [some call her Ithaca, and others Irene,] making\nsupplication to him, that he would not perpetrate so great a wickedness.\nSo he complied with her request, and repented of what he either had\nalready done, or was about to do; whence it is well known that the\nAlexandrian Jews do with good reason celebrate this day, on the account\nthat they had thereon been vouchsafed such an evident deliverance from\nGod. However, Apion, the common calumniator of men, hath the presumption\nto accuse the Jews for making this war against Physco, when he ought\nto have commended them for the same. This man also makes mention of\nCleopatra, the last queen of Alexandria, and abuses us, because she was\nungrateful to us; whereas he ought to have reproved her, who indulged\nherself in all kinds of injustice and wicked practices, both with regard\nto her nearest relations and husbands who had loved her, and, indeed, in\ngeneral with regard to all the Romans, and those emperors that were her\nbenefactors; who also had her sister Arsinoe slain in a temple, when\nshe had done her no harm: moreover, she had her brother slain by private\ntreachery, and she destroyed the gods of her country and the sepulchers\nof her progenitors; and while she had received her kingdom from the\nfirst Caesar, she had the impudence to rebel against his son: [7] and\nsuccessor; nay, she corrupted Antony with her love-tricks, and rendered\nhim an enemy to his country, and made him treacherous to his friends,\nand [by his means] despoiled some of their royal authority, and forced\nothers in her madness to act wickedly. But what need I enlarge upon this\nhead any further, when she left Antony in his fight at sea, though he\nwere her husband, and the father of their common children, and compelled\nhim to resign up his government, with the army, and to follow her [into\nEgypt]? nay, when last of all Caesar had taken Alexandria, she came to\nthat pitch of cruelty, that she declared she had some hope of preserving\nher affairs still, in case she could kill the Jews, though it were with\nher own hand; to such a degree of barbarity and perfidiousness had she\narrived. And doth any one think that we cannot boast ourselves of\nany thing, if, as Apion says, this queen did not at a time of famine\ndistribute wheat among us? However, she at length met with the\npunishment she deserved. As for us Jews, we appeal to the great Caesar\nwhat assistance we brought him, and what fidelity we showed to him\nagainst the Egyptians; as also to the senate and its decrees, and the\nepistles of Augustus Caesar, whereby our merits [to the Romans] are\njustified. Apion ought to have looked upon those epistles, and in\nparticular to have examined the testimonies given on our behalf, under\nAlexander and all the Ptolemies, and the decrees of the senate and of\nthe greatest Roman emperors. And if Germanicus was not able to make a\ndistribution of corn to all the inhabitants of Alexandria, that only\nshows what a barren time it was, and how great a want there was then of\ncorn, but tends nothing to the accusation of the Jews; for what all the\nemperors have thought of the Alexandrian Jews is well known, for this\ndistribution of wheat was no otherwise omitted with regard to the Jews,\nthan it was with regard to the other inhabitants of Alexandria. But they\nstill were desirous to preserve what the kings had formerly intrusted to\ntheir care, I mean the custody of the river; nor did those kings think\nthem unworthy of having the entire custody thereof, upon all occasions.\n\n6. But besides this, Apion objects to us thus: \"If the Jews [says he] be\ncitizens of Alexandria, why do they not worship the same gods with the\nAlexandrians?\" To which I give this answer: Since you are yourselves\nEgyptians, why do you fight it out one against another, and have\nimplacable wars about your religion? At this rate we must not call you\nall Egyptians, nor indeed in general men, because you breed up with\ngreat care beasts of a nature quite contrary to that of men, although\nthe nature of all men seems to be one and the same. Now if there be such\ndifferences in opinion among you Egyptians, why are you surprised that\nthose who came to Alexandria from another country, and had original laws\nof their own before, should persevere in the observance of those laws?\nBut still he charges us with being the authors of sedition; which\naccusation, if it be a just one, why is it not laid against us all,\nsince we are known to be all of one mind. Moreover, those that search\ninto such matters will soon discover that the authors of sedition have\nbeen such citizens of Alexandria as Apion is; for while they were the\nGrecians and Macedonians who were ill possession of this city, there\nwas no sedition raised against us, and we were permitted to observe our\nancient solemnities; but when the number of the Egyptians therein came\nto be considerable, the times grew confused, and then these seditions\nbrake out still more and more, while our people continued uncorrupted.\nThese Egyptians, therefore, were the authors of these troubles, who\nhaving not the constancy of Macedonians, nor the prudence of Grecians,\nindulged all of them the evil manners of the Egyptians, and continued\ntheir ancient hatred against us; for what is here so presumptuously\ncharged upon us, is owing to the differences that are amongst\nthemselves; while many of them have not obtained the privileges of\ncitizens in proper times, but style those who are well known to have\nhad that privilege extended to them all no other than foreigners: for it\ndoes not appear that any of the kings have ever formerly bestowed those\nprivileges of citizens upon Egyptians, no more than have the emperors\ndone it more lately; while it was Alexander who introduced us into\nthis city at first, the kings augmented our privileges therein, and the\nRomans have been pleased to preserve them always inviolable. Moreover,\nApion would lay a blot upon us, because we do not erect images for our\nemperors; as if those emperors did not know this before, or stood in\nneed of Apion as their defender; whereas he ought rather to have admired\nthe magnanimity and modesty of the Romans, whereby they do not\ncompel those that are subject to them to transgress the laws of their\ncountries, but are willing to receive the honors due to them after such\na manner as those who are to pay them esteem consistent with piety and\nwith their own laws; for they do not thank people for conferring honors\nupon them, When they are compelled by violence so to do. Accordingly,\nsince the Grecians and some other nations think it a right thing to make\nimages, nay, when they have painted the pictures of their parents, and\nwives, and children, they exult for joy; and some there are who take\npictures for themselves of such persons as were no way related to them;\nnay, some take the pictures of such servants as they were fond of;\nwhat wonder is it then if such as these appear willing to pay the\nsame respect to their princes and lords? But then our legislator hath\nforbidden us to make images, not by way of denunciation beforehand, that\nthe Roman authority was not to be honored, but as despising a thing that\nwas neither necessary nor useful for either God or man; and he forbade\nthem, as we shall prove hereafter, to make these images for any part of\nthe animal creation, and much less for God himself, who is no part of\nsuch animal creation. Yet hath our legislator no where forbidden us to\npay honors to worthy men, provided they be of another kind, and inferior\nto those we pay to God; with which honors we willingly testify our\nrespect to our emperors, and to the people of Rome; we also offer\nperpetual sacrifices for them; nor do we only offer them every day at\nthe common expenses of all the Jews, but although we offer no other such\nsacrifices out of our common expenses, no, not for our own children, yet\ndo we this as a peculiar honor to the emperors, and to them alone, while\nwe do the same to no other person whomsoever. And let this suffice for\nan answer in general to Apion, as to what he says with relation to the\nAlexandrian Jews.\n\n7. However, I cannot but admire those other authors who furnished this\nman with such his materials; I mean Possidonius and Apollonius [the son\nof] Molo, [8] who, while they accuse us for not worshipping the same\ngods whom others worship, they think themselves not guilty of impiety\nwhen they tell lies of us, and frame absurd and reproachful stories\nabout our temple; whereas it is a most shameful thing for freemen to\nforge lies on any occasion, and much more so to forge them about our\ntemple, which was so famous over all the world, and was preserved so\nsacred by us; for Apion hath the impudence to pretend that, \"the Jews\nplaced an ass's head in their holy place;\" and he affirms that this was\ndiscovered when Antiochus Epiphanes spoiled our temple, and found that\nass's head there made of gold, and worth a great deal of money. To this\nmy first answer shall be this, that had there been any such thing among\nus, an Egyptian ought by no means to have thrown it in our teeth, since\nan ass is not a more contemptible animal than [9] and goats, and other\nsuch creatures, which among them are gods. But besides this answer, I\nsay further, how comes it about that Apion does not understand this to\nbe no other than a palpable lie, and to be confuted by the thing itself\nas utterly incredible? For we Jews are always governed by the same laws,\nin which we constantly persevere; and although many misfortunes have\nbefallen our city, as the like have befallen others, and although Theos\n[Epiphanes], and Pompey the Great, and Licinius Crassus, and last of\nall Titus Caesar, have conquered us in war, and gotten possession of\nour temple; yet have they none of them found any such thing there, nor\nindeed any thing but what was agreeable to the strictest piety; although\nwhat they found we are not at liberty to reveal to other nations. But\nfor Antiochus [Epiphanes], he had no just cause for that ravage in our\ntemple that he made; he only came to it when he wanted money, without\ndeclaring himself our enemy, and attacked us while we were his\nassociates and his friends; nor did he find any thing there that\nwas ridiculous. This is attested by many worthy writers; Polybius of\nMegalopolis, Strabo of Cappadocia, Nicolaus of Damascus, Timagenes,\nCastor the chronotoger, and Apollodorus; [10] who all say that it was\nout of Antiochus's want of money that he broke his league with the Jews,\nand despoiled their temple when it was full of gold and silver. Apion\nought to have had a regard to these facts, unless he had himself had\neither an ass's heart or a dog's impudence; of such a dog I mean as they\nworship; for he had no other external reason for the lies he tells of\nus. As for us Jews, we ascribe no honor or power to asses, as do the\nEgyptians to crocodiles and asps, when they esteem such as are seized\nupon by the former, or bitten by the latter, to be happy persons, and\npersons worthy of God. Asses are the same with us which they are with\nother wise men, viz. creatures that bear the burdens that we lay upon\nthem; but if they come to our thrashing-floors and eat our corn, or do\nnot perform what we impose upon them, we beat them with a great many\nstripes, because it is their business to minister to us in our husbandry\naffairs. But this Apion of ours was either perfectly unskillful in the\ncomposition of such fallacious discourses, or however, when he\nbegun [somewhat better], he was not able to persevere in what he had\nundertaken, since he hath no manner of success in those reproaches he\ncasts upon us.\n\n8. He adds another Grecian fable, in order to reproach us. In reply to\nwhich, it would be enough to say, that they who presume to speak about\nDivine worship ought not to be ignorant of this plain truth, that it is\na degree of less impurity to pass through temples, than to forge wicked\ncalumnies of its priests. Now such men as he are more zealous to justify\na sacrilegious king, than to write what is just and what is true about\nus, and about our temple; for when they are desirous of gratifying\nAntiochus, and of concealing that perfidiousness and sacrilege which\nhe was guilty of, with regard to our nation, when he wanted money, they\nendeavor to disgrace us, and tell lies even relating to futurities.\nApion becomes other men's prophet upon this occasion, and says that\n\"Antiochus found in our temple a bed, and a man lying upon it, with a\nsmall table before him, full of dainties, from the [fishes of the]\nsea, and the fowls of the dry land; that this man was amazed at these\ndainties thus set before him; that he immediately adored the king,\nupon his coming in, as hoping that he would afford him all possible\nassistance; that he fell down upon his knees, and stretched out to him\nhis right hand, and begged to be released; and that when the king bid\nhim sit down, and tell him who he was, and why he dwelt there, and what\nwas the meaning of those various sorts of food that were set before him\nthe man made a lamentable complaint, and with sighs, and tears in his\neyes, gave him this account of the distress he was in; and said that he\nwas a Greek and that as he went over this province, in order to get his\nliving, he was seized upon by foreigners, on a sudden, and brought\nto this temple, and shut up therein, and was seen by nobody, but was\nfattened by these curious provisions thus set before him; and that truly\nat the first such unexpected advantages seemed to him matter of great\njoy; that after a while, they brought a suspicion him, and at length\nastonishment, what their meaning should be; that at last he inquired of\nthe servants that came to him and was by them informed that it was in\norder to the fulfilling a law of the Jews, which they must not tell him,\nthat he was thus fed; and that they did the same at a set time every\nyear: that they used to catch a Greek foreigner, and fat him thus up\nevery year, and then lead him to a certain wood, and kill him, and\nsacrifice with their accustomed solemnities, and taste of his entrails,\nand take an oath upon this sacrificing a Greek, that they would ever be\nat enmity with the Greeks; and that then they threw the remaining parts\nof the miserable wretch into a certain pit.\" Apion adds further, that,\n\"the man said there were but a few days to come ere he was to be slain,\nand implored of Antiochus that, out of the reverence he bore to the\nGrecian gods, he would disappoint the snares the Jews laid for his\nblood, and would deliver him from the miseries with which he was\nencompassed.\" Now this is such a most tragical fable as is full of\nnothing but cruelty and impudence; yet does it not excuse Antiochus of\nhis sacrilegious attempt, as those who write it in his vindication are\nwilling to suppose; for he could not presume beforehand that he should\nmeet with any such thing in coming to the temple, but must have found it\nunexpectedly. He was therefore still an impious person, that was given\nto unlawful pleasures, and had no regard to God in his actions. But [as\nfor Apion], he hath done whatever his extravagant love of lying hath\ndictated to him, as it is most easy to discover by a consideration of\nhis writings; for the difference of our laws is known not to regard the\nGrecians only, but they are principally opposite to the Egyptians, and\nto some other nations also for while it so falls out that men of all\ncountries come sometimes and sojourn among us, how comes it about that\nwe take an oath, and conspire only against the Grecians, and that by the\neffusion of their blood also? Or how is it possible that all the Jews\nshould get together to these sacrifices, and the entrails of one man\nshould be sufficient for so many thousands to taste of them, as Apion\npretends? Or why did not the king carry this man, whosoever he was, and\nwhatsoever was his name, [which is not set down in Apion's book,] with\ngreat pomp back into his own country? when he might thereby have been\nesteemed a religious person himself, and a mighty lover of the Greeks,\nand might thereby have procured himself great assistance from all men\nagainst that hatred the Jews bore to him. But I leave this matter;\nfor the proper way of confuting fools is not to use bare words, but to\nappeal to the things themselves that make against them. Now, then, all\nsuch as ever saw the construction of our temple, of what nature it was,\nknow well enough how the purity of it was never to be profaned; for it\nhad four several courts [12] encompassed with cloisters round about,\nevery one of which had by our law a peculiar degree of separation\nfrom the rest. Into the first court every body was allowed to go, even\nforeigners, and none but women, during their courses, were prohibited\nto pass through it; all the Jews went into the second court, as well as\ntheir wives, when they were free from all uncleanness; into the third\ncourt went in the Jewish men, when they were clean and purified; into\nthe fourth went the priests, having on their sacerdotal garments; but\nfor the most sacred place, none went in but the high priests, clothed in\ntheir peculiar garments. Now there is so great caution used about these\noffices of religion, that the priests are appointed to go into the\ntemple but at certain hours; for in the morning, at the opening of the\ninner temple, those that are to officiate receive the sacrifices, as\nthey do again at noon, till the doors are shut. Lastly, it is not so\nmuch as lawful to carry any vessel into the holy house; nor is there any\nthing therein, but the altar [of incense], the table [of shew-bread],\nthe censer, and the candlestick, which are all written in the law; for\nthere is nothing further there, nor are there any mysteries performed\nthat may not be spoken of; nor is there any feasting within the place.\nFor what I have now said is publicly known, and supported by the\ntestimony of the whole people, and their operations are very manifest;\nfor although there be four courses of the priests, and every one of them\nhave above five thousand men in them, yet do they officiate on certain\ndays only; and when those days are over, other priests succeed in the\nperformance of their sacrifices, and assemble together at mid-day, and\nreceive the keys of the temple, and the vessels by tale, without any\nthing relating to food or drink being carried into the temple; nay, we\nare not allowed to offer such things at the altar, excepting what is\nprepared for the sacrifices.\n\n9. What then can we say of Apion, but that he examined nothing that\nconcerned these things, while still he uttered incredible words about\nthem? but it is a great shame for a grammarian not to be able to write\ntrue history. Now if he knew the purity of our temple, he hath entirely\nomitted to take notice of it; but he forges a story about the seizing of\na Grecian, about ineffable food, and the most delicious preparation of\ndainties; and pretends that strangers could go into a place whereinto\nthe noblest men among the Jews are not allowed to enter, unless they\nbe priests. This, therefore, is the utmost degree of impiety, and a\nvoluntary lie, in order to the delusion of those who will not examine\ninto the truth of matters; whereas such unspeakable mischiefs as are\nabove related have been occasioned by such calumnies that are raised\nupon us.\n\n10. Nay, this miracle or piety derides us further, and adds the\nfollowing pretended facts to his former fable; for he says that this man\nrelated how, \"while the Jews were once in a long war with the Idumeans,\nthere came a man out of one of the cities of the Idumeans, who there had\nworshipped Apollo. This man, whose name is said to have been Zabidus,\ncame to the Jews, and promised that he would deliver Apollo, the god of\nDora, into their hands, and that he would come to our temple, if they\nwould all come up with him, and bring the whole multitude of the Jews\nwith them; that Zabidus made him a certain wooden instrument, and put it\nround about him, and set three rows of lamps therein, and walked after\nsuch a manner, that he appeared to those that stood a great way off\nhim to be a kind of star, walking upon the earth; that the Jews were\nterribly affrighted at so surprising an appearance, and stood very quiet\nat a distance; and that Zabidus, while they continued so very quiet,\nwent into the holy house, and carried off that golden head of an ass,\n[for so facetiously does he write,] and then went his way back again\nto Dora in great haste.\" And say you so, sir! as I may reply; then\ndoes Apion load the ass, that is, himself, and lays on him a burden of\nfooleries and lies; for he writes of places that have no being, and not\nknowing the cities he speaks of, he changes their situation; for Idumea\nborders upon our country, and is near to Gaza, in which there is no\nsuch city as Dora; although there be, it is true, a city named Dora in\nPhoenicia, near Mount Carmel, but it is four days' journey from Idumea.\n[12] Now, then, why does this man accuse us, because we have not gods in\ncommon with other nations, if our fathers were so easily prevailed upon\nto have Apollo come to them, and thought they saw him walking upon the\nearth, and the stars with him? for certainly those who have so many\nfestivals, wherein they light lamps, must yet, at this rate, have never\nseen a candlestick! But still it seems that while Zabidus took his\njourney over the country, where were so many ten thousands of people,\nnobody met him. He also, it seems, even in a time of war, found the\nwalls of Jerusalem destitute of guards. I omit the rest. Now the doors\nof the holy house were seventy [13] cubits high, and twenty cubits\nbroad; they were all plated over with gold, and almost of solid gold\nitself, and there were no fewer than twenty [14] men required to shut\nthem every day; nor was it lawful ever to leave them open, though it\nseems this lamp-bearer of ours opened them easily, or thought he\nopened them, as he thought he had the ass's head in his hand. Whether,\ntherefore, he returned it to us again, or whether Apion took it, and\nbrought it into the temple again, that Antiochus might find it, and\nafford a handle for a second fable of Apion's, is uncertain.\n\n11. Apion also tells a false story, when he mentions an oath of ours,\nas if we \"swore by God, the Maker of the heaven, and earth, and sea,\nto bear no good will to any foreigner, and particularly to none of the\nGreeks.\" Now this liar ought to have said directly that, \"we would\nbear no good-will to any foreigner, and particularly to none of the\nEgyptians.\" For then his story about the oath would have squared with\nthe rest of his original forgeries, in case our forefathers had been\ndriven away by their kinsmen, the Egyptians, not on account of any\nwickedness they had been guilty of, but on account of the calamities\nthey were under; for as to the Grecians, we were rather remote from them\nin place, than different from them in our institutions, insomuch that we\nhave no enmity with them, nor any jealousy of them. On the contrary, it\nhath so happened that many of them have come over to our laws, and some\nof them have continued in their observation, although others of them had\nnot courage enough to persevere, and so departed from them again; nor\ndid any body ever hear this oath sworn by us: Apion, it seems, was the\nonly person that heard it, for he indeed was the first composer of it.\n\n12. However, Apion deserves to be admired for his great prudence, as to\nwhat I am going to say, which is this, \"That there is a plain mark among\nus, that we neither have just laws, nor worship God as we ought to do,\nbecause we are not governors, but are rather in subjection to Gentiles,\nsometimes to one nation, and sometimes to another; and that our city\nhath been liable to several calamities, while their city [Alexandria]\nhath been of old time an imperial city, and not used to be in subjection\nto the Romans.\" But now this man had better leave off this bragging,\nfor every body but himself would think that Apion said what he hath said\nagainst himself; for there are very few nations that have had the good\nfortune to continue many generations in the principality, but still the\nmutations in human affairs have put them into subjection under others;\nand most nations have been often subdued, and brought into subjection\nby others. Now for the Egyptians, perhaps they are the only nation that\nhave had this extraordinary privilege, to have never served any of\nthose monarchs who subdued Asia and Europe, and this on account, as they\npretend, that the gods fled into their country, and saved themselves by\nbeing changed into the shapes of wild beasts! Whereas these Egyptians\n[15] are the very people that appear to have never, in all the past\nages, had one day of freedom, no, not so much as from their own lords.\nFor I will not reproach them with relating the manner how the Persians\nused them, and this not once only, but many times, when they laid their\ncities waste, demolished their temples, and cut the throats of those\nanimals whom they esteemed to be gods; for it is not reasonable to\nimitate the clownish ignorance of Apion, who hath no regard to the\nmisfortunes of the Athenians, or of the Lacedemonians, the latter of\nwhom were styled by all men the most courageous, and the former the\nmost religious of the Grecians. I say nothing of such kings as have been\nfamous for piety, particularly of one of them, whose name was Cresus,\nnor what calamities he met with in his life; I say nothing of the\ncitadel of Athens, of the temple at Ephesus, of that at Delphi, nor\nof ten thousand others which have been burnt down, while nobody cast\nreproaches on those that were the sufferers, but on those that were\nthe actors therein. But now we have met with Apion, an accuser of our\nnation, though one that still forgets the miseries of his own people,\nthe Egyptians; but it is that Sesostris who was once so celebrated a king\nof Egypt that hath blinded him. Now we will not brag of our kings, David\nand Solomon, though they conquered many nations; accordingly we will let\nthem alone. However, Apion is ignorant of what every body knows, that\nthe Egyptians were servants to the Persians, and afterwards to the\nMacedonians, when they were lords of Asia, and were no better than\nslaves, while we have enjoyed liberty formerly; nay, more than that,\nhave had the dominion of the cities that lie round about us, and this\nnearly for a hundred and twenty years together, until Pompeius Magnus.\nAnd when all the kings every where were conquered by the Romans, our\nancestors were the only people who continued to be esteemed their\nconfederates and friends, on account of their fidelity to them.[16]\n\n13. \"But,\" says Apion, \"we Jews have not had any wonderful men amongst\nus, not any inventors of arts, nor any eminent for wisdom.\" He then\nenumerates Socrates, and Zeno, and Cleanthes, and some others of the\nsame sort; and, after all, he adds himself to them, which is the most\nwonderful thing of all that he says, and pronounces Alexandria to be\nhappy, because it hath such a citizen as he is in it; for he was\nthe fittest man to be a witness to his own deserts, although he hath\nappeared to all others no better than a wicked mountebank, of a\ncorrupt life and ill discourses; on which account one may justly pity\nAlexandria, if it should value itself upon such a citizen as he is.\nBut as to our own men, we have had those who have been as deserving\nof commendation as any other whosoever, and such as have perused our\nAntiquities cannot be ignorant of them.\n\n14. As to the other things which he sets down as blameworthy, it may\nperhaps be the best way to let them pass without apology, that he may\nbe allowed to be his own accuser, and the accuser of the rest of the\nEgyptians. However, he accuses us for sacrificing animals, and for\nabstaining from swine's flesh, and laughs at us for the circumcision\nof our privy members. Now as for our slaughter of tame animals for\nsacrifices, it is common to us and to all other men; but this Apion,\nby making it a crime to sacrifice them, demonstrates himself to be\nan Egyptian; for had he been either a Grecian or a Macedonian, [as he\npretends to be,] he had not shown any uneasiness at it; for those people\nglory in sacrificing whole hecatombs to the gods, and make use of those\nsacrifices for feasting; and yet is not the world thereby rendered\ndestitute of cattle, as Apion was afraid would come to pass. Yet if all\nmen had followed the manners of the Egyptians, the world had certainly\nbeen made desolate as to mankind, but had been filled full of the\nwildest sort of brute beasts, which, because they suppose them to be\ngods, they carefully nourish. However, if any one should ask Apion which\nof the Egyptians he thinks to be the most wise and most pious of them\nall, he would certainly acknowledge the priests to be so; for the\nhistories say that two things were originally committed to their care\nby their kings' injunctions, the worship of the gods, and the support of\nwisdom and philosophy. Accordingly, these priests are all circumcised,\nand abstain from swine's flesh; nor does any one of the other Egyptians\nassist them in slaying those sacrifices they offer to the gods. Apion\nwas therefore quite blinded in his mind, when, for the sake of the\nEgyptians, he contrived to reproach us, and to accuse such others as not\nonly make use of that conduct of life which he so much abuses, but have\nalso taught other men to be circumcised, as says Herodotus; which makes\nme think that Apion is hereby justly punished for his casting such\nreproaches on the laws of his own country; for he was circumcised\nhimself of necessity, on account of an ulcer in his privy member; and\nwhen he received no benefit by such circumcision, but his member became\nputrid, he died in great torment. Now men of good tempers ought to\nobserve their own laws concerning religion accurately, and to persevere\ntherein, but not presently to abuse the laws of other nations, while\nthis Apion deserted his own laws, and told lies about ours. And this\nwas the end of Apion's life, and this shall be the conclusion of our\ndiscourse about him.\n\n15. But now, since Apollonius Molo, and Lysimachus, and some others,\nwrite treatises about our lawgiver Moses, and about our laws, which are\nneither just nor true, and this partly out of ignorance, but chiefly\nout of ill-will to us, while they calumniate Moses as an impostor and\ndeceiver, and pretend that our laws teach us wickedness, but nothing\nthat is virtuous, I have a mind to discourse briefly, according to\nmy ability, about our whole constitution of government, and about the\nparticular branches of it. For I suppose it will thence become evident,\nthat the laws we have given us are disposed after the best manner for\nthe advancement of piety, for mutual communion with one another, for a\ngeneral love of mankind, as also for justice, and for sustaining labors\nwith fortitude, and for a contempt of death. And I beg of those that\nshall peruse this writing of mine, to read it without partiality; for\nit is not my purpose to write an encomium upon ourselves, but I shall\nesteem this as a most just apology for us, and taken from those our\nlaws, according to which we lead our lives, against the many and the\nlying objections that have been made against us. Moreover, since this\nApollonius does not do like Apion, and lay a continued accusation\nagainst us, but does it only by starts, and up and clown his discourse,\nwhile he sometimes reproaches us as atheists, and man-haters, and\nsometimes hits us in the teeth with our want of courage, and yet\nsometimes, on the contrary, accuses us of too great boldness and\nmadness in our conduct; nay, he says that we are the weakest of all the\nbarbarians, and that this is the reason why we are the only people who\nhave made no improvements in human life; now I think I shall have then\nsufficiently disproved all these his allegations, when it shall appear\nthat our laws enjoin the very reverse of what he says, and that we very\ncarefully observe those laws ourselves. And if I he compelled to make\nmention of the laws of other nations, that are contrary to ours, those\nought deservedly to thank themselves for it, who have pretended to\ndepreciate our laws in comparison of their own; nor will there, I think,\nbe any room after that for them to pretend either that we have no such\nlaws ourselves, an epitome of which I will present to the reader, or\nthat we do not, above all men, continue in the observation of them.\n\n16. To begin then a good way backward, I would advance this, in the\nfirst place, that those who have been admirers of good order, and of\nliving under common laws, and who began to introduce them, may well have\nthis testimony that they are better than other men, both for moderation\nand such virtue as is agreeable to nature. Indeed their endeavor was to\nhave every thing they ordained believed to be very ancient, that\nthey might not be thought to imitate others, but might appear to have\ndelivered a regular way of living to others after them. Since then this\nis the case, the excellency of a legislator is seen in providing for the\npeople's living after the best manner, and in prevailing with those that\nare to use the laws he ordains for them, to have a good opinion of\nthem, and in obliging the multitude to persevere in them, and to make no\nchanges in them, neither in prosperity nor adversity. Now I venture to\nsay, that our legislator is the most ancient of all the legislators whom\nwe have ally where heard of; for as for the Lycurguses, and Solons, and\nZaleucus Locrensis, and all those legislators who are so admired by the\nGreeks, they seem to be of yesterday, if compared with our legislator,\ninsomuch as the very name of a law was not so much as known in old times\namong the Grecians. Homer is a witness to the truth of this observation,\nwho never uses that term in all his poems; for indeed there was then no\nsuch thing among them, but the multitude was governed by wise maxims,\nand by the injunctions of their king. It was also a long time that they\ncontinued in the use of these unwritten customs, although they were\nalways changing them upon several occasions. But for our legislator,\nwho was of so much greater antiquity than the rest, [as even those that\nspeak against us upon all occasions do always confess,] he exhibited\nhimself to the people as their best governor and counselor, and included\nin his legislation the entire conduct of their lives, and prevailed with\nthem to receive it, and brought it so to pass, that those that were made\nacquainted with his laws did most carefully observe them.\n\n17. But let us consider his first and greatest work; for when it was\nresolved on by our forefathers to leave Egypt, and return to their\nown country, this Moses took the many tell thousands that were of the\npeople, and saved them out of many desperate distresses, and brought\nthem home in safety. And certainly it was here necessary to travel over\na country without water, and full of sand, to overcome their enemies,\nand, during these battles, to preserve their children, and their wives,\nand their prey; on all which occasions he became an excellent general of\nan army, and a most prudent counselor, and one that took the truest\ncare of them all; he also so brought it about, that the whole multitude\ndepended upon him. And while he had them always obedient to what he\nenjoined, he made no manner of use of his authority for his own private\nadvantage, which is the usual time when governors gain great powers to\nthemselves, and pave the way for tyranny, and accustom the multitude\nto live very dissolutely; whereas, when our legislator was in so great\nauthority, he, on the contrary, thought he ought to have regard to\npiety, and to show his great good-will to the people; and by this means\nhe thought he might show the great degree of virtue that was in him, and\nmight procure the most lasting security to those who had made him their\ngovernor. When he had therefore come to such a good resolution, and\nhad performed such wonderful exploits, we had just reason to look upon\nourselves as having him for a divine governor and counselor. And when\nhe had first persuaded himself [17] that his actions and designs were\nagreeable to God's will, he thought it his duty to impress, above all\nthings, that notion upon the multitude; for those who have once believed\nthat God is the inspector of their lives, will not permit themselves\nin any sin. And this is the character of our legislator: he was no\nimpostor, no deceiver, as his revilers say, though unjustly, but such\na one as they brag Minos [18] to have been among the Greeks, and other\nlegislators after him; for some of them suppose that they had their laws\nfrom Jupiter, while Minos said that the revelation of his laws was to\nbe referred to Apollo, and his oracle at Delphi, whether they really\nthought they were so derived, or supposed, however, that they could\npersuade the people easily that so it was. But which of these it was who\nmade the best laws, and which had the greatest reason to believe\nthat God was their author, it will be easy, upon comparing those laws\nthemselves together, to determine; for it is time that we come to that\npoint. [19] Now there are innumerable differences in the particular\ncustoms and laws that are among all mankind, which a man may briefly\nreduce under the following heads: Some legislators have permitted their\ngovernments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies,\nand others under a republican form; but our legislator had no regard\nto any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a\nstrained expression, may be termed a Theocracy, [20] by ascribing the\nauthority and the power to God, and by persuading all the people to have\na regard to him, as the author of all the good things that were enjoyed\neither in common by all mankind, or by each one in particular, and of\nall that they themselves obtained by praying to him in their greatest\ndifficulties. He informed them that it was impossible to escape God's\nobservation, even in any of our outward actions, or in any of our\ninward thoughts. Moreover, he represented God as unbegotten, [21] and\nimmutable, through all eternity, superior to all mortal conceptions in\npulchritude; and, though known to us by his power, yet unknown to us as\nto his essence. I do not now explain how these notions of God are the\nsentiments of the wisest among the Grecians, and how they were taught\nthem upon the principles that he afforded them. However, they testify,\nwith great assurance, that these notions are just, and agreeable to the\nnature of God, and to his majesty; for Pythagoras, and Anaxagoras, and\nPlato, and the Stoic philosophers that succeeded them, and almost all\nthe rest, are of the same sentiments, and had the same notions of the\nnature of God; yet durst not these men disclose those true notions to\nmore than a few, because the body of the people were prejudiced with\nother opinions beforehand. But our legislator, who made his actions\nagree to his laws, did not only prevail with those that were his\ncontemporaries to agree with these his notions, but so firmly imprinted\nthis faith in God upon all their posterity, that it never could be\nremoved. The reason why the constitution of this legislation was ever\nbetter directed to the utility of all than other legislations were, is\nthis, that Moses did not make religion a part of virtue, but he saw and\nhe ordained other virtues to be parts of religion; I mean justice, and\nfortitude, and temperance, and a universal agreement of the members of\nthe community with one another; for all our actions and studies, and all\nour words, [in Moses's settlement,] have a reference to piety towards\nGod; for he hath left none of these in suspense, or undetermined.\nFor there are two ways of coming at any sort of learning and a moral\nconduct of life; the one is by instruction in words, the other by\npractical exercises. Now other lawgivers have separated these two ways\nin their opinions, and choosing one of those ways of instruction, or\nthat which best pleased every one of them, neglected the other. Thus did\nthe Lacedemonians and the Cretians teach by practical exercises, but not\nby words; while the Athenians, and almost all the other Grecians, made\nlaws about what was to be done, or left undone, but had no regard to the\nexercising them thereto in practice.\n\n18. But for our legislator, he very carefully joined these two methods\nof instruction together; for he neither left these practical exercises\nto go on without verbal instruction, nor did he permit the hearing of\nthe law to proceed without the exercises for practice; but beginning\nimmediately from the earliest infancy, and the appointment of every\none's diet, he left nothing of the very smallest consequence to be done\nat the pleasure and disposal of the person himself. Accordingly, he made\na fixed rule of law what sorts of food they should abstain from, and\nwhat sorts they should make use of; as also, what communion they\nshould have with others what great diligence they should use in their\noccupations, and what times of rest should be interposed, that, by\nliving under that law as under a father and a master, we might be guilty\nof no sin, neither voluntary nor out of ignorance; for he did not suffer\nthe guilt of ignorance to go on without punishment, but demonstrated\nthe law to be the best and the most necessary instruction of all others,\npermitting the people to leave off their other employments, and to\nassemble together for the hearing of the law, and learning it exactly,\nand this not once or twice, or oftener, but every week; which thing all\nthe other legislators seem to have neglected.\n\n19. And indeed the greatest part of mankind are so far from living\naccording to their own laws, that they hardly know them; but when they\nhave sinned, they learn from others that they have transgressed the law.\nThose also who are in the highest and principal posts of the government,\nconfess they are not acquainted with those laws, and are obliged to take\nsuch persons for their assessors in public administrations as profess to\nhave skill in those laws; but for our people, if any body do but ask any\none of them about our laws, he will more readily tell them all than he\nwill tell his own name, and this in consequence of our having learned\nthem immediately as soon as ever we became sensible of any thing, and of\nour having them as it were engraven on our souls. Our transgressors of\nthem are but few, and it is impossible, when any do offend, to escape\npunishment.\n\n20. And this very thing it is that principally creates such a wonderful\nagreement of minds amongst us all; for this entire agreement of ours\nin all our notions concerning God, and our having no difference in our\ncourse of life and manners, procures among us the most excellent concord\nof these our manners that is any where among mankind; for no other\npeople but the Jews have avoided all discourses about God that any way\ncontradict one another, which yet are frequent among other nations; and\nthis is true not only among ordinary persons, according as every one\nis affected, but some of the philosophers have been insolent enough to\nindulge such contradictions, while some of them have undertaken to use\nsuch words as entirely take away the nature of God, as others of them\nhave taken away his providence over mankind. Nor can any one perceive\namongst us any difference in the conduct of our lives, but all our works\nare common to us all. We have one sort of discourse concerning God,\nwhich is conformable to our law, and affirms that he sees all things;\nas also we have but one way of speaking concerning the conduct of our\nlives, that all other things ought to have piety for their end; and this\nany body may hear from our women, and servants themselves.\n\n21. And, indeed, hence hath arisen that accusation which some make\nagainst us, that we have not produced men that have been the inventors\nof new operations, or of new ways of speaking; for others think it a\nfine thing to persevere in nothing that has been delivered down from\ntheir forefathers, and these testify it to be an instance of the\nsharpest wisdom when these men venture to transgress those traditions;\nwhereas we, on the contrary, suppose it to be our only wisdom and virtue\nto admit no actions nor supposals that are contrary to our original\nlaws; which procedure of ours is a just and sure sign that our law\nis admirably constituted; for such laws as are not thus well made are\nconvicted upon trial to want amendment.\n\n22. But while we are ourselves persuaded that our law was made agreeably\nto the will of God, it would be impious for us not to observe the same;\nfor what is there in it that any body would change? and what can be\ninvented that is better? or what can we take out of other people's laws\nthat will exceed it? Perhaps some would have the entire settlement\nof our government altered. And where shall we find a better or more\nrighteous constitution than ours, while this makes us esteem God to be\nthe Governor of the universe, and permits the priests in general to be\nthe administrators of the principal affairs, and withal intrusts the\ngovernment over the other priests to the chief high priest himself?\nwhich priests our legislator, at their first appointment, did not\nadvance to that dignity for their riches, or any abundance of other\npossessions, or any plenty they had as the gifts of fortune; but he\nintrusted the principal management of Divine worship to those that\nexceeded others in an ability to persuade men, and in prudence of\nconduct. These men had the main care of the law and of the other parts\nof the people's conduct committed to them; for they were the priests who\nwere ordained to be the inspectors of all, and the judges in doubtful\ncases, and the punishers of those that were condemned to suffer\npunishment.\n\n23. What form of government then can be more holy than this? what more\nworthy kind of worship can be paid to God than we pay, where the entire\nbody of the people are prepared for religion, where an extraordinary\ndegree of care is required in the priests, and where the whole polity is\nso ordered as if it were a certain religious solemnity? For what things\nforeigners, when they solemnize such festivals, are not able to observe\nfor a few days' time, and call them Mysteries and Sacred Ceremonies, we\nobserve with great pleasure and an unshaken resolution during our whole\nlives. What are the things then that we are commanded or forbidden? They\nare simple, and easily known. The first command is concerning God, and\naffirms that God contains all things, and is a Being every way perfect\nand happy, self-sufficient, and supplying all other beings; the\nbeginning, the middle, and the end of all things. He is manifest in\nhis works and benefits, and more conspicuous than any other being\nwhatsoever; but as to his form and magnitude, he is most obscure. All\nmaterials, let them be ever so costly, are unworthy to compose an image\nfor him, and all arts are unartful to express the notion we ought to\nhave of him. We can neither see nor think of any thing like him, nor is\nit agreeable to piety to form a resemblance of him. We see his works,\nthe light, the heaven, the earth, the sun and the moon, the waters, the\ngenerations of animals, the productions of fruits. These things hath God\nmade, not with hands, nor with labor, nor as wanting the assistance of\nany to cooperate with him; but as his will resolved they should be made\nand be good also, they were made and became good immediately. All\nmen ought to follow this Being, and to worship him in the exercise of\nvirtue; for this way of worship of God is the most holy of all others.\n\n24. There ought also to be but one temple for one God; for likeness is\nthe constant foundation of agreement. This temple ought to be common to\nall men, because he is the common God of all men. High priests are to\nbe continually about his worship, over whom he that is the first by his\nbirth is to be their ruler perpetually. His business must be to offer\nsacrifices to God, together with those priests that are joined with him,\nto see that the laws be observed, to determine controversies, and to\npunish those that are convicted of injustice; while he that does not\nsubmit to him shall be subject to the same punishment, as if he had been\nguilty of impiety towards God himself. When we offer sacrifices to him,\nwe do it not in order to surfeit ourselves, or to be drunken; for\nsuch excesses are against the will of God, and would be an occasion of\ninjuries and of luxury; but by keeping ourselves sober, orderly, and\nready for our other occupations, and being more temperate than others.\nAnd for our duty at the sacrifices [22] themselves, we ought, in the\nfirst place, to pray for the common welfare of all, and after that for\nour own; for we are made for fellowship one with another, and he who\nprefers the common good before what is peculiar to himself is above all\nacceptable to God. And let our prayers and supplications be made humbly\nto God, not [so much] that he would give us what is good, [for he\nhath already given that of his own accord, and hath proposed the same\npublicly to all,] as that we may duly receive it, and when we have\nreceived it, may preserve it. Now the law has appointed several\npurifications at our sacrifices, whereby we are cleansed after\na funeral, after what sometimes happens to us in bed, and after\naccompanying with our wives, and upon many other occasions, which it\nwould be too long now to set down. And this is our doctrine concerning\nGod and his worship, and is the same that the law appoints for our\npractice.\n\n25. But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other\nmixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his\nwife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it\nabhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death\nis its punishment. It commands us also, when we marry, not to have\nregard to portion, nor to take a woman by violence, nor to persuade her\ndeceitfully and knavishly; but to demand her in marriage of him who hath\npower to dispose of her, and is fit to give her away by the nearness\nof his kindred; for, says the Scripture, \"A woman is inferior to her\nhusband in all things.\" [23] Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not\nso that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to\nher husband; for God hath given the authority to the husband. A husband,\ntherefore, is to lie only with his wife whom he hath married; but to\nhave to do with another man's wife is a wicked thing, which, if any one\nventures upon, death is inevitably his punishment: no more can he\navoid the same who forces a virgin betrothed to another man, or entices\nanother man's wife. The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our\noffspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or\nto destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she\nwill be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature,\nand diminishing human kind; if any one, therefore, proceeds to such\nfornication or murder, he cannot be clean. Moreover, the law enjoins,\nthat after the man and wife have lain together in a regular way, they\nshall bathe themselves; for there is a defilement contracted thereby,\nboth in soul and body, as if they had gone into another country; for\nindeed the soul, by being united to the body, is subject to miseries,\nand is not freed therefrom again but by death; on which account the law\nrequires this purification to be entirely performed.\n\n26. Nay, indeed, the law does not permit us to make festivals at the\nbirths of our children, and thereby afford occasion of drinking to\nexcess; but it ordains that the very beginning of our education should\nbe immediately directed to sobriety. It also commands us to bring those\nchildren up in learning, and to exercise them in the laws, and make\nthem acquainted with the acts of their predecessors, in order to their\nimitation of them, and that they might be nourished up in the laws from\ntheir infancy, and might neither transgress them, nor have any pretense\nfor their ignorance of them.\n\n27. Our law hath also taken care of the decent burial of the dead, but\nwithout any extravagant expenses for their funerals, and without the\nerection of any illustrious monuments for them; but hath ordered that\ntheir nearest relations should perform their obsequies; and hath showed\nit to be regular, that all who pass by when any one is buried should\naccompany the funeral, and join in the lamentation. It also ordains that\nthe house and its inhabitants should be purified after the funeral is\nover, that every one may thence learn to keep at a great distance from\nthe thoughts of being pure, if he hath been once guilty of murder.\n\n28. The law ordains also, that parents should be honored immediately\nafter God himself, and delivers that son who does not requite them for\nthe benefits he hath received from them, but is deficient on any such\noccasion, to be stoned. It also says that the young men should pay due\nrespect to every elder, since God is the eldest of all beings. It does\nnot give leave to conceal any thing from our friends, because that is\nnot true friendship which will not commit all things to their fidelity:\nit also forbids the revelation of secrets, even though an enmity arise\nbetween them. If any judge takes bribes, his punishment is death: he\nthat overlooks one that offers him a petition, and this when he is able\nto relieve him, he is a guilty person. What is not by any one intrusted\nto another ought not to be required back again. No one is to touch\nanother's goods. He that lends money must not demand usury for its loan.\nThese, and many more of the like sort, are the rules that unite us in\nthe bands of society one with another.\n\n29. It will be also worth our while to see what equity our legislator\nwould have us exercise in our intercourse with strangers; for it will\nthence appear that he made the best provision he possibly could, both\nthat we should not dissolve our own constitution, nor show any\nenvious mind towards those that would cultivate a friendship with us.\nAccordingly, our legislator admits all those that have a mind to observe\nour laws so to do; and this after a friendly manner, as esteeming that\na true union which not only extends to our own stock, but to those that\nwould live after the same manner with us; yet does he not allow those\nthat come to us by accident only to be admitted into communion with us.\n\n30. However, there are other things which our legislator ordained for us\nbeforehand, which of necessity we ought to do in common to all men; as\nto afford fire, and water, and food to such as want it; to show them\nthe roads; not to let any one lie unburied. He also would have us treat\nthose that are esteemed our enemies with moderation; for he doth not\nallow us to set their country on fire, nor permit us to cut down those\ntrees that bear fruit; nay, further, he forbids us to spoil those that\nhave been slain in war. He hath also provided for such as are taken\ncaptive, that they may not be injured, and especially that the women\nmay not be abused. Indeed he hath taught us gentleness and humanity\nso effectually, that he hath not despised the care of brute beasts,\nby permitting no other than a regular use of them, and forbidding any\nother; and if any of them come to our houses, like supplicants, we are\nforbidden to slay them; nor may we kill the dams, together with their\nyoung ones; but we are obliged, even in an enemy's country, to spare and\nnot kill those creatures that labor for mankind. Thus hath our lawgiver\ncontrived to teach us an equitable conduct every way, by using us\nto such laws as instruct us therein; while at the same time he hath\nordained that such as break these laws should be punished, without the\nallowance of any excuse whatsoever.\n\n31. Now the greatest part of offenses with us are capital; as if any\none be guilty of adultery; if any one force a virgin; if any one be so\nimpudent as to attempt sodomy with a male; or if, upon another's making\nan attempt upon him, he submits to be so used. There is also a law for\nslaves of the like nature, that can never be avoided. Moreover, if any\none cheats another in measures or weights, or makes a knavish bargain\nand sale, in order to cheat another; if any one steals what belongs to\nanother, and takes what he never deposited; all these have punishments\nallotted them; not such as are met with among other nations, but more\nsevere ones. And as for attempts of unjust behavior towards parents, or\nfor impiety against God, though they be not actually accomplished, the\noffenders are destroyed immediately. However, the reward for such as\nlive exactly according to the laws is not silver or gold; it is not a\ngarland of olive branches or of small age, nor any such public sign of\ncommendation; but every good man hath his own conscience bearing witness\nto himself, and by virtue of our legislator's prophetic spirit, and of\nthe firm security God himself affords such a one, he believes that God\nhath made this grant to those that observe these laws, even though they\nbe obliged readily to die for them, that they shall come into being\nagain, and at a certain revolution of things shall receive a better life\nthan they had enjoyed before. Nor would I venture to write thus at this\ntime, were it not well known to all by our actions that many of our\npeople have many a time bravely resolved to endure any sufferings,\nrather than speak one word against our law.\n\n32. Nay, indeed, in case it had so fallen out, that our nation had not\nbeen so thoroughly known among all men as they are, and our voluntary\nsubmission to our laws had not been so open and manifest as it is, but\nthat somebody had pretended to have written these laws himself, and had\nread them to the Greeks, or had pretended that he had met with men out\nof the limits of the known world, that had such reverent notions of God,\nand had continued a long time in the firm observance of such laws\nas ours, I cannot but suppose that all men would admire them on a\nreflection upon the frequent changes they had therein been themselves\nsubject to; and this while those that have attempted to write somewhat\nof the same kind for politic government, and for laws, are accused\nas composing monstrous things, and are said to have undertaken an\nimpossible task upon them. And here I will say nothing of those other\nphilosophers who have undertaken any thing of this nature in their\nwritings. But even Plato himself, who is so admired by the Greeks on\naccount of that gravity in his manners, and force in his words, and that\nability he had to persuade men beyond all other philosophers, is little\nbetter than laughed at and exposed to ridicule on that account, by those\nthat pretend to sagacity in political affairs; although he that shall\ndiligently peruse his writings will find his precepts to be somewhat\ngentle, and pretty near to the customs of the generality of mankind.\nNay, Plato himself confesseth that it is not safe to publish the true\nnotion concerning God among the ignorant multitude. Yet do some men look\nupon Plato's discourses as no better than certain idle words set off\nwith great artifice. However, they admire Lycurgus as the principal\nlawgiver, and all men celebrate Sparta for having continued in the firm\nobservance of his laws for a very long time. So far then we have gained,\nthat it is to be confessed a mark of virtue to submit to laws. [24] But\nthen let such as admire this in the Lacedemonians compare that duration\nof theirs with more than two thousand years which our political\ngovernment hath continued; and let them further consider, that though\nthe Lacedemonians did seem to observe their laws exactly while they\nenjoyed their liberty, yet that when they underwent a change of their\nfortune, they forgot almost all those laws; while we, having been under\nten thousand changes in our fortune by the changes that happened among\nthe kings of Asia, have never betrayed our laws under the most pressing\ndistresses we have been in; nor have we neglected them either out\nof sloth or for a livelihood. [25] if any one will consider it, the\ndifficulties and labors laid upon us have been greater than what appears\nto have been borne by the Lacedemonian fortitude, while they neither\nploughed their land, nor exercised any trades, but lived in their own\ncity, free from all such pains-taking, in the enjoyment of plenty, and\nusing such exercises as might improve their bodies, while they made use\nof other men as their servants for all the necessaries of life, and had\ntheir food prepared for them by the others; and these good and humane\nactions they do for no other purpose but this, that by their actions and\ntheir sufferings they may be able to conquer all those against whom they\nmake war. I need not add this, that they have not been fully able to\nobserve their laws; for not only a few single persons, but multitudes of\nthem, have in heaps neglected those laws, and have delivered themselves,\ntogether with their arms, into the hands of their enemies.\n\n33. Now as for ourselves, I venture to say that no one can tell of so\nmany; nay, not of more than one or two that have betrayed our laws, no,\nnot out of fear of death itself; I do not mean such an easy death as\nhappens in battles, but that which comes with bodily torments, and seems\nto be the severest kind of death of all others. Now I think those that\nhave conquered us have put us to such deaths, not out of their hatred to\nus when they had subdued us, but rather out of their desire of seeing a\nsurprising sight, which is this, whether there be such men in the world\nwho believe that no evil is to them so great as to be compelled to do or\nto speak any thing contrary to their own laws. Nor ought men to wonder\nat us, if we are more courageous in dying for our laws than all other\nmen are; for other men do not easily submit to the easier things in\nwhich we are instituted; I mean working with our hands, and eating but\nlittle, and being contented to eat and drink, not at random, or at every\none's pleasure, or being under inviolable rules in lying with our wives,\nin magnificent furniture, and again in the observation of our times of\nrest; while those that can use their swords in war, and can put their\nenemies to flight when they attack them, cannot bear to submit to such\nlaws about their way of living: whereas our being accustomed willingly\nto submit to laws in these instances, renders us fit to show our\nfortitude upon other occasions also.\n\n34. Yet do the Lysimachi and the Molones, and some other writers,\n[unskillful sophists as they are, and the deceivers of young men,]\nreproach us as the vilest of all mankind. Now I have no mind to make an\ninquiry into the laws of other nations; for the custom of our country is\nto keep our own laws, but not to bring accusations against the laws of\nothers. And indeed our legislator hath expressly forbidden us to laugh\nat and revile those that are esteemed gods by other people? on account\nof the very name of God ascribed to them. But since our antagonists\nthink to run us down upon the comparison of their religion and ours, it\nis not possible to keep silence here, especially while what I shall say\nto confute these men will not be now first said, but hath been already\nsaid by many, and these of the highest reputation also; for who is there\namong those that have been admired among the Greeks for wisdom, who\nhath not greatly blamed both the most famous poets, and most celebrated\nlegislators, for spreading such notions originally among the body of the\npeople concerning the gods? such as these, that they may be allowed to\nbe as numerous as they have a mind to have them; that they are begotten\none by another, and that after all the kinds of generation you can\nimagine. They also distinguish them in their places and ways of living\nas they would distinguish several sorts of animals; as some to be under\nthe earth; as some to be in the sea; and the ancientest of them all to\nbe bound in hell; and for those to whom they have allotted heaven, they\nhave set over them one, who in title is their father, but in his actions\na tyrant and a lord; whence it came to pass that his wife, and brother,\nand daughter [which daughter he brought forth from his own head] made\na conspiracy against him to seize upon him and confine hint, as he had\nhimself seized upon and confined his own father before.\n\n35. And justly have the wisest men thought these notions deserved\nsevere rebukes; they also laugh at them for determining that we ought to\nbelieve some of the gods to be beardless and young, and others of them\nto be old, and to have beards accordingly; that some are set to trades;\nthat one god is a smith, and another goddess is a weaver; that one god\nis a warrior, and fights with men; that some of them are harpers, or\ndelight in archery; and besides, that mutual seditions arise among them,\nand that they quarrel about men, and this so far, that they not only lay\nhands upon one another, but that they are wounded by men, and lament,\nand take on for such their afflictions. But what is the grossest of all\nin point of lasciviousness, are those unbounded lusts ascribed to almost\nall of them, and their amours; which how can it be other than a most\nabsurd supposal, especially when it reaches to the male gods, and to the\nfemale goddesses also? Moreover, the chief of all their gods, and their\nfirst father himself, overlooks those goddesses whom he hath deluded and\nbegotten with child, and suffers them to be kept in prison, or drowned\nin the sea. He is also so bound up by fate, that he cannot save his own\noffspring, nor can he bear their deaths without shedding of tears. These\nare fine things indeed! as are the rest that follow. Adulteries truly\nare so impudently looked on in heaven by the gods, that some of them\nhave confessed they envied those that were found in the very act. And\nwhy should they not do so, when the eldest of them, who is their king\nalso, hath not been able to restrain himself in the violence of his\nlust, from lying with his wife, so long as they might get into their\nbedchamber? Now some of the gods are servants to men, and will sometimes\nbe builders for a reward, and sometimes will be shepherds; while others\nof them, like malefactors, are bound in a prison of brass. And what\nsober person is there who would not be provoked at such stories, and\nrebuke those that forged them, and condemn the great silliness of those\nthat admit them for true? Nay, others there are that have advanced a\ncertain timorousness and fear, as also madness and fraud, and any other\nof the vilest passions, into the nature and form of gods, and have\npersuaded whole cities to offer sacrifices to the better sort of them;\non which account they have been absolutely forced to esteem some gods as\nthe givers of good things, and to call others of them averters of evil.\nThey also endeavor to move them, as they would the vilest of men, by\ngifts and presents, as looking for nothing else than to receive some\ngreat mischief from them, unless they pay them such wages.\n\n36. Wherefore it deserves our inquiry what should be the occasion of\nthis unjust management, and of these scandals about the Deity. And truly\nI suppose it to be derived from the imperfect knowledge the heathen\nlegislators had at first of the true nature of God; nor did they explain\nto the people even so far as they did comprehend of it: nor did they\ncompose the other parts of their political settlements according to it,\nbut omitted it as a thing of very little consequence, and gave leave\nboth to the poets to introduce what gods they pleased, and those subject\nto all sorts of passions, and to the orators to procure political\ndecrees from the people for the admission of such foreign gods as they\nthought proper. The painters also, and statuaries of Greece, had herein\ngreat power, as each of them could contrive a shape [proper for a god];\nthe one to be formed out of clay, and the other by making a bare picture\nof such a one. But those workmen that were principally admired, had the\nuse of ivory and of gold as the constant materials for their new statues\n[whereby it comes to pass that some temples are quite deserted, while\nothers are in great esteem, and adorned with all the rites of all kinds\nof purification]. Besides this, the first gods, who have long flourished\nin the honors done them, are now grown old [while those that flourished\nafter them are come in their room as a second rank, that I may speak the\nmost honorably of them I can]: nay, certain other gods there are who\nare newly introduced, and newly worshipped [as we, by way of digression,\nhave said already, and yet have left their places of worship desolate];\nand for their temples, some of them are already left desolate, and\nothers are built anew, according to the pleasure of men; whereas they\nought to have their opinion about God, and that worship which is due to\nhim, always and immutably the same.\n\n37. But now, this Apollonius Molo was one of these foolish and proud\nmen. However, nothing that I have said was unknown to those that were\nreal philosophers among the Greeks, nor were they unacquainted with\nthose frigid pretensions of allegories [which had been alleged for such\nthings]; on which account they justly despised them, but have still\nagreed with us as to the true and becoming notions of God; whence it was\nthat Plato would not have political settlements admit to of any one of\nthe other poets, and dismisses even Homer himself, with a garland on his\nhead, and with ointment poured upon him, and this because he should not\ndestroy the right notions of God with his fables. Nay, Plato principally\nimitated our legislator in this point, that he enjoined his citizens\nto have he main regard to this precept, \"That every one of them should\nlearn their laws accurately.\" He also ordained, that they should not\nadmit of foreigners intermixing with their own people at random; and\nprovided that the commonwealth should keep itself pure, and consist of\nsuch only as persevered in their own laws. Apollonius Molo did no way\nconsider this, when he made it one branch of his accusation against us,\nthat we do not admit of such as have different notions about God, nor\nwill we have fellowship with those that choose to observe a way of\nliving different from ourselves, yet is not this method peculiar to us,\nbut common to all other men; not among the ordinary Grecians only, but\namong such of those Grecians as are of the greatest reputation among\nthem. Moreover, the Lacedemonians continued in their way of expelling\nforeigners, and would not indeed give leave to their own people to\ntravel abroad, as suspecting that those two things would introduce a\ndissolution of their own laws: and perhaps there may be some reason to\nblame the rigid severity of the Lacedemonians, for they bestowed the\nprivilege of their city on no foreigners, nor indeed would give leave\nto them to stay among them; whereas we, though we do not think fit to\nimitate other institutions, yet do we willingly admit of those that\ndesire to partake of ours, which, I think, I may reckon to be a plain\nindication of our humanity, and at the same time of our magnanimity\nalso.\n\n38. But I shall say no more of the Lacedemonians. As for the Athenians,\nwho glory in having made their city to be common to all men, what their\nbehavior was Apollonius did not know, while they punished those that\ndid but speak one word contrary to the laws about the gods, without any\nmercy; for on what other account was it that Socrates was put to death\nby them? For certainly he neither betrayed their city to its enemies,\nnor was he guilty of any sacrilege with regard to any of their temples;\nbut it was on this account, that he swore certain new oaths [26] and\nthat he affirmed either in earnest, or, as some say, only in jest, that\na certain demon used to make signs to him [what he should not do]. For\nthese reasons he was condemned to drink poison, and kill himself. His\naccuser also complained that he corrupted the young men, by inducing\nthem to despise the political settlement and laws of their city: and\nthus was Socrates, the citizen of Athens, punished. There was also\nAnaxagoras, who, although he was of Clazomente, was within a few\nsuffrages of being condemned to die, because he said the sun, which the\nAthenians thought to be a god, was a ball of fire. They also made this\npublic proclamation, \"That they would give a talent to any one who would\nkill Diagoras of Melos,\" because it was reported of him that he laughed\nat their mysteries. Protagoras also, who was thought to have written\nsomewhat that was not owned for truth by the Athenians about the\ngods, had been seized upon, and put to death, if he had not fled away\nimmediately. Nor need we at all wonder that they thus treated such\nconsiderable men, when they did not spare even women also; for they very\nlately slew a certain priestess, because she was accused by somebody\nthat she initiated people into the worship of strange gods, it having\nbeen forbidden so to do by one of their laws; and a capital punishment\nhad been decreed to such as introduced a strange god; it being manifest,\nthat they who make use of such a law do not believe those of other\nnations to be really gods, otherwise they had not envied themselves the\nadvantage of more gods than they already had. And this was the happy\nadministration of the affairs of the Athenians! Now as to the Scythians,\nthey take a pleasure in killing men, and differ but little from brute\nbeasts; yet do they think it reasonable to have their institutions\nobserved. They also slew Anacharsis, a person greatly admired for his\nwisdom among the Greeks, when he returned to them, because he appeared\nto come fraught with Grecian customs. One may also find many to have\nbeen punished among the Persians, on the very same account. And to be\nsure Apollonius was greatly pleased with the laws of the Persians, and\nwas an admirer of them, because the Greeks enjoyed the advantage of\ntheir courage, and had the very same opinion about the gods which they\nhad. This last was exemplified in the temples which they burnt, and\ntheir courage in coming, and almost entirely enslaving the Grecians.\nHowever, Apollonius has imitated all the Persian institutions, and that\nby his offering violence to other men's wives, and gelding his own sons.\nNow, with us, it is a capital crime, if any one does thus abuse even a\nbrute beast; and as for us, neither hath the fear of our governors, nor\na desire of following what other nations have in so great esteem, been\nable to withdraw us from our own laws; nor have we exerted our courage\nin raising up wars to increase our wealth, but only for the observation\nof our laws; and when we with patience bear other losses, yet when any\npersons would compel us to break our laws, then it is that we choose to\ngo to war, though it be beyond our ability to pursue it, and bear the\ngreatest calamities to the last with much fortitude. And, indeed, what\nreason can there be why we should desire to imitate the laws of other\nnations, while we see they are not observed by their own legislators\n[27] And why do not the Lacedemonians think of abolishing that form of\ntheir government which suffers them not to associate with any others,\nas well as their contempt of matrimony? And why do not the Eleans and\nThebans abolish that unnatural and impudent lust, which makes them lie\nwith males? For they will not show a sufficient sign of their repentance\nof what they of old thought to be very excellent, and very advantageous\nin their practices, unless they entirely avoid all such actions for the\ntime to come: nay, such things are inserted into the body of their laws,\nand had once such a power among the Greeks, that they ascribed these\nsodomitical practices to the gods themselves, as a part of their good\ncharacter; and indeed it was according to the same manner that the gods\nmarried their own sisters. This the Greeks contrived as an apology for\ntheir own absurd and unnatural pleasures.\n\n39. I omit to speak concerning punishments, and how many ways of\nescaping them the greatest part of the legislators have afforded\nmalefactors, by ordaining that, for adulteries, fines in money should be\nallowed, and for corrupting [28] [virgins] they need only marry them\nas also what excuses they may have in denying the facts, if any one\nattempts to inquire into them; for amongst most other nations it is\na studied art how men may transgress their laws; but no such thing is\npermitted amongst us; for though we be deprived of our wealth, of our\ncities, or of the other advantages we have, our law continues immortal;\nnor can any Jew go so far from his own country, nor be so aftrighted at\nthe severest lord, as not to be more aftrighted at the law than at him.\nIf, therefore, this be the disposition we are under, with regard to the\nexcellency of our laws, let our enemies make us this concession, that\nour laws are most excellent; and if still they imagine, that though we\nso firmly adhere to them, yet are they bad laws notwithstanding, what\npenalties then do they deserve to undergo who do not observe their own\nlaws, which they esteem so far superior to them? Whereas, therefore,\nlength of time is esteemed to be the truest touchstone in all cases, I\nwould make that a testimonial of the excellency of our laws, and of that\nbelief thereby delivered to us concerning God. For as there hath been\na very long time for this comparison, if any one will but compare its\nduration with the duration of the laws made by other legislators, he\nwill find our legislator to have been the ancientest of them all.\n\n40. We have already demonstrated that our laws have been such as have\nalways inspired admiration and imitation into all other men; nay, the\nearliest Grecian philosophers, though in appearance they observed the\nlaws of their own countries, yet did they, in their actions, and their\nphilosophic doctrines, follow our legislator, and instructed men to live\nsparingly, and to have friendly communication one with another. Nay,\nfurther, the multitude of mankind itself have had a great inclination\nof a long time to follow our religious observances; for there is not\nany city of the Grecians, nor any of the barbarians, nor any nation\nwhatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not\ncome, and by which our fasts and lighting up lamps, and many of our\nprohibitions as to our food, are not observed; they also endeavor\nto imitate our mutual concord with one another, and the charitable\ndistribution of our goods, and our diligence in our trades, and our\nfortitude in undergoing the distresses we are in, on account of our\nlaws; and, what is here matter of the greatest admiration, our law hath\nno bait of pleasure to allure men to it, but it prevails by its own\nforce; and as God himself pervades all the world, so hath our law passed\nthrough all the world also. So that if any one will but reflect on his\nown country, and his own family, he will have reason to give credit to\nwhat I say. It is therefore but just, either to condemn all mankind\nof indulging a wicked disposition, when they have been so desirous of\nimitating laws that are to them foreign and evil in themselves, rather\nthan following laws of their own that are of a better character, or else\nour accusers must leave off their spite against us. Nor are we guilty of\nany envious behavior towards them, when we honor our own legislator, and\nbelieve what he, by his prophetic authority, hath taught us concerning\nGod. For though we should not be able ourselves to understand the\nexcellency of our own laws, yet would the great multitude of those that\ndesire to imitate them, justify us, in greatly valuing ourselves upon\nthem.\n\n41. But as for the [distinct] political laws by which we are governed, I\nhave delivered them accurately in my books of Antiquities; and have\nonly mentioned them now, so far as was necessary to my present purpose,\nwithout proposing to myself either to blame the laws of other nations,\nor to make an encomium upon our own; but in order to convict those\nthat have written about us unjustly, and in an impudent affectation of\ndisguising the truth. And now I think I have sufficiently completed\nwhat I proposed in writing these books. For whereas our accusers have\npretended that our nation are a people of very late original, I have\ndemonstrated that they are exceeding ancient; for I have produced as\nwitnesses thereto many ancient writers, who have made mention of us\nin their books, while they had said that no such writer had so done.\nMoreover, they had said that we were sprung from the Egyptians, while I\nhave proved that we came from another country into Egypt: while they had\ntold lies of us, as if we were expelled thence on account of diseases\non our bodies, it has appeared, on the contrary, that we returned to\nour country by our own choice, and with sound and strong bodies. Those\naccusers reproached our legislator as a vile fellow; whereas God in old\ntime bare witness to his virtuous conduct; and since that testimony of\nGod, time itself hath been discovered to have borne witness to the same\nthing.\n\n42. As to the laws themselves, more words are unnecessary, for they are\nvisible in their own nature, and appear to teach not impiety, but the\ntruest piety in the world. They do not make men hate one another, but\nencourage people to communicate what they have to one another freely;\nthey are enemies to injustice, they take care of righteousness, they\nbanish idleness and expensive living, and instruct men to be content\nwith what they have, and to be laborious in their calling; they forbid\nmen to make war from a desire of getting more, but make men courageous\nin defending the laws; they are inexorable in punishing malefactors;\nthey admit no sophistry of words, but are always established by actions\nthemselves, which actions we ever propose as surer demonstrations than\nwhat is contained in writing only: on which account I am so bold as to\nsay that we are become the teachers of other men, in the greatest number\nof things, and those of the most excellent nature only; for what is more\nexcellent than inviolable piety? what is more just than submission to\nlaws? and what is more advantageous than mutual love and concord? and\nthis so far that we are to be neither divided by calamities, nor to\nbecome injurious and seditious in prosperity; but to contemn death\nwhen we are in war, and in peace to apply ourselves to our mechanical\noccupations, or to our tillage of the ground; while we in all things\nand all ways are satisfied that God is the inspector and governor of\nour actions. If these precepts had either been written at first, or more\nexactly kept by any others before us, we should have owed them thanks as\ndisciples owe to their masters; but if it be visible that we have made\nuse of them more than any other men, and if we have demonstrated that\nthe original invention of them is our own, let the Apions, and the\nMolons, with all the rest of those that delight in lies and reproaches,\nstand confuted; but let this and the foregoing book be dedicated to\nthee, Epaphroditus, who art so great a lover of truth, and by thy means\nto those that have been in like manner desirous to be acquainted with\nthe affairs of our nation.\n\n\n\n\nAPION BOOK 2 FOOTNOTES\n\n[1] The former part of this second book is written against the calumnies\nof Apion, and then, more briefly, against the like calumnies of\nApollonius Molo. But after that, Josephus leaves off any more particular\nreply to those adversaries of the Jews, and gives us a large and\nexcellent description and vindication of that theocracy which was\nsettled for the Jewish nation by Moses, their great legislator.\n\n[2] Called by Tiberius Cymbalum Mundi, The drum of the world.\n\n[3] This seems to have been the first dial that had been made in Egypt,\nand was a little before the time that Ahaz made his [first] dial in\nJudea, and about anno 755, in the first year of the seventh olympiad, as\nwe shall see presently. See 2 Kings 20:11; Isaiah 38:8.\n\n[4] The burial-place for dead bodies, as I suppose.\n\n[5] Here begins a great defect in the Greek copy; but the old Latin\nversion fully supplies that defect.\n\n[6] What error is here generally believed to have been committed by our\nJosephus in ascribing a deliverance of the Jews to the reign of Ptolemy\nPhysco, the seventh of those Ptolemus, which has been universally\nsupposed to have happened under Ptolemy Philopater, the fourth of them,\nis no better than a gross error of the moderns, and not of Josephus, as\nI have fully proved in the Authentic. Rec. Part I. p. 200-201, whither I\nrefer the inquisitive reader.\n\n[7] Sister's son, and adopted son.\n\n[8] Called more properly Molo, or Apollonius Molo, as hereafter; for\nApollonins, the son of Molo, was another person, as Strabo informs us,\nlib. xiv.\n\n[9] Furones in the Latin, which what animal it denotes does not now\nappear.\n\n[10] It is great pity that these six pagan authors, here mentioned to\nhave described the famous profanation of the Jewish temple by Antiochus\nEpiphanes, should be all lost; I mean so far of their writings as\ncontained that description; though it is plain Josephus perused them all\nas extant in his time.\n\n[11] It is remarkable that Josephus here, and, I think, no where else,\nreckons up four distinct courts of the temple; that of the Gentiles,\nthat of the women of Israel, that of the men of Israel, and that of the\npriests; as also that the court of the women admitted of the men, [I\nsuppose only of the husbands of those wives that were therein,] while\nthe court of the men did not admit any women into it at all.\n\n[12] Judea, in the Greek, by a gross mistake of the transcribers.\n\n[13] Seven in the Greek, by a like gross mistake of the transcribers.\nSee of the War, B. V. ch. 5. sect. 4.\n\n[14] Two hundred in the Greek, contrary to the twenty in the War, B.\nVII. ch, 5. sect. 3.\n\n[15] This notorious disgrace belonging peculiarly to the people of\nEgypt, ever since the times of the old prophets of the Jews, noted\nboth sect. 4 already, and here, may be confirmed by the testimony of\nIsidorus, an Egyptian of Pelusium, Epist. lib. i. Ep. 489. And this is a\nremarkable completion of the ancient prediction of God by Ezekiel 29:14,\n15, \"that the Egyptians should be a base kingdom, the basest of the\nkingdoms,\" and that, \"it should not exalt itself any more above the\nnations.\"\n\n[16] The truth of which still further appears by the present observation\nof Josephus, that these Egyptians had never, in all the past ages since\nSesostris, had one day of liberty, no, not so much as to have been free\nfrom despotic power under any of the monarchies to that day. And all\nthis has been found equally true in the latter ages, under the Romans,\nSaracens, Mamelukes, and Turks, from the days of Josephus till the\npresent ago also.\n\n[17] This language, that Moses, \"persuaded himself\" that what he did was\naccording to God's will, can mean no more, by Josephus's own constant\nnotions elsewhere, than that he was \"firmly persuaded,\" that he had\n\"fully satisfied himself\" that so it was, viz. by the many revelations\nhe had received from God, and the numerous miracles God had enabled him\nto work, as he both in these very two books against Apion, and in his\nAntiquities, most clearly and frequently assures us. This is further\nevident from several passages lower, where he affirms that Moses was no\nimpostor nor deceiver, and where he assures that Moses's constitution of\ngovernment was no other than a theocracy; and where he says they are to\nhope for deliverance out of their distresses by prayer to God, and that\nwithal it was owing in part to this prophetic spirit of Moses that the\nJews expected a resurrection from the dead. See almost as strange a use\nof the like words, \"to persuade God,\" Antiq. B. VI. ch. 5. sect. 6.\n\n[18] That is, Moses really was, what the heathen legislators pretended\nto be, under a Divine direction; nor does it yet appear that these\npretensions to a supernatural conduct, either in these legislators or\noracles, were mere delusions of men without any demoniacal impressions,\nnor that Josephus took them so to be; as the ancientest and contemporary\nauthors did still believe them to be supernatural.\n\n[19] This whole very large passage is corrected by Dr. Hudson from\nEusebius's citation of it, Prep. Evangel. viii. 8, which is here not a\nlittle different from the present MSS. of Josephus.\n\n[20] This expression itself, that \"Moses ordained the Jewish government\nto be a theocracy,\" may be illustrated by that parallel expression in\nthe Antiquities, B. III. ch. 8. sect. 9, that \"Moses left it to God to\nbe present at his sacrifices when he pleased; and when he pleased, to\nbe absent.\" Both ways of speaking sound harsh in the ears of Jews and\nChristians, as do several others which Josephus uses to the heathens;\nbut still they were not very improper in him, when he all along thought\nfit to accommodate himself, both in his Antiquities, and in these his\nbooks against Apion, all written for the use of the Greeks and Romans,\nto their notions and language, and this as far as ever truth would give\nhim leave. Though it be very observable withal, that he never uses such\nexpressions in his books of the War, written originally for the Jews\nbeyond Euphrates, and in their language, in all these cases. However,\nJosephus directly supposes the Jewish settlement, under Moses, to be a\nDivine settlement, and indeed no other than a real theocracy.\n\n[21] These excellent accounts of the Divine attributes, and that God\nis not to be at all known in his essence, as also some other clear\nexpressions about the resurrection of the dead, and the state of\ndeparted souls, etc., in this late work of Josephus, look more like the\nexalted notions of the Essens, or rather Ebionite Christians, than those\nof a mere Jew or Pharisee. The following large accounts also of the laws\nof Moses, seem to me to show a regard to the higher interpretations and\nimprovements of Moses's laws, derived from Jesus Christ, than to the\nbare letter of them in the Old Testament, whence alone Josephus took\nthem when he wrote his Antiquities; nor, as I think, can some of these\nlaws, though generally excellent in their kind, be properly now found\neither in the copies of the Jewish Pentateuch, or in Philo, or in\nJosephus himself, before he became a Nazarene or Ebionite Christian; nor\neven all of them among the laws of catholic Christianity themselves. I\ndesire, therefore, the learned reader to consider, whether some of these\nimprovements or interpretations might not be peculiar to the Essens\namong the Jews, or rather to the Nazarenes or Ebionites among the\nChristians, though we have indeed but imperfect accounts of those\nNazarenes or Ebionite Christians transmitted down to us at this day.\n\n[22] We may here observe how known a thing it was among the Jews and\nheathens, in this and many other instances, that sacrifices were still\naccompanied with prayers; whence most probably came those phrases of\n\"the sacrifice of prayer, the sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of\nthanksgiving.\" However, those ancient forms used at sacrifices are now\ngenerally lost, to the no small damage of true religion. It is here also\nexceeding remarkable, that although the temple at Jerusalem was built\nas the only place where the whole nation of the Jews were to offer their\nsacrifices, yet is there no mention of the \"sacrifices\" themselves, but\nof \"prayers\" only, in Solomon's long and famous form of devotion at its\ndedication, 1 Kings 8.; 2 Chronicles 6. See also many passages cited in\nthe Apostolical Constitutions, VII. 37, and Of the War, above, B. VII.\nch. 5. sect. 6.\n\n[23] This text is no where in our present copies of the Old Testament.\n\n[24] It may not be amiss to set down here a very remarkable testimony\nof the great philosopher Cicero, as to the preference of \"laws to\nphilosophy:--I will,\" says he, \"boldly declare my opinion, though the\nwhole world be offended at it. I prefer this little book of the Twelve\nTables alone to all the volumes of the philosophers. I find it to be not\nonly of more weight,' but also much more useful.\"--Oratore.\n\n[25] we have observed our times of rest, and sorts of food allowed us\n[during our distresses].\n\n[26] See what those novel oaths were in Dr. Hudson's note, viz. to\nswear by an oak, by a goat, and by a dog, as also by a gander, as say\nPhilostratus and others. This swearing strange oaths was also forbidden\nby the Tyrians, B. I. sect. 22, as Spanheim here notes.\n\n[27] Why Josephus here should blame some heathen legislators, when they\nallowed so easy a composition for simple fornication, as an obligation\nto marry the virgin that was corrupted, is hard to say, seeing he had\nhimself truly informed us that it was a law of the Jews, Antiq. B.\nIV. ch. 8. sect. 23, as it is the law of Christianity also: see Horeb\nCovenant, p. 61. I am almost ready to suspect that, for, we should here\nread, and that corrupting wedlock, or other men's wives, is the crime\nfor which these heathens wickedly allowed this composition in money.\n\n[28] Or \"for corrupting other men's wives the same allowance.\"","title":"Against Apion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":41402}