This is a modern-English version of Against Apion, originally written by Josephus, Flavius.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
AGAINST APION.
By Flavius Josephus
Translated by William Whiston
BOOK 1.
1. I Suppose that by my books of the Antiquity of the Jews, most excellent Epaphroditus, 2 have made it evident to those who peruse them, that our Jewish nation is of very great antiquity, and had a distinct subsistence of its own originally; as also, I have therein declared how we came to inhabit this country wherein we now live. Those Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken out of our sacred books, but are translated by me into the Greek tongue. However, since I observe a considerable number of people giving ear to the reproaches that are laid against us by those who bear ill-will to us, and will not believe what I have written concerning the antiquity of our nation, while they take it for a plain sign that our nation is of a late date, because they are not so much as vouchsafed a bare mention by the most famous historiographers among the Grecians. I therefore have thought myself under an obligation to write somewhat briefly about these subjects, in order to convict those that reproach us of spite and voluntary falsehood, and to correct the ignorance of others, and withal to instruct all those who are desirous of knowing the truth of what great antiquity we really are. As for the witnesses whom I shall produce for the proof of what I say, they shall be such as are esteemed to be of the greatest reputation for truth, and the most skillful in the knowledge of all antiquity by the Greeks themselves. I will also show, that those who have written so reproachfully and falsely about us are to be convicted by what they have written themselves to the contrary. I shall also endeavor to give an account of the reasons why it hath so happened, that there have not been a great number of Greeks who have made mention of our nation in their histories. I will, however, bring those Grecians to light who have not omitted such our history, for the sake of those that either do not know them, or pretend not to know them already.
1. I suppose that through my books on the Antiquity of the Jews, most excellent Epaphroditus, 2 I have made it clear to those who read them that our Jewish nation is very ancient and originally had its own distinct existence. I have also outlined how we came to live in this country where we are now. These Antiquities cover five thousand years of history, drawn from our sacred texts and translated by me into Greek. However, I've noticed that quite a few people listen to the accusations thrown at us by those who harbor animosity towards us and refuse to believe what I’ve written about our nation's antiquity. They see our not being mentioned by the most renowned Greek historians as evidence that we are a recent people. Therefore, I feel compelled to write briefly on these topics, to counter those who attack us out of malice and intentional falsehood, to enlighten others, and to inform all those interested in knowing the truth about our great antiquity. The evidence I will present to support my claims will come from sources considered highly reputable for truthfulness and expertise in ancient knowledge by the Greeks themselves. I will also demonstrate that those who have written negatively and falsely about us can be disproven by their own contradictory writings. Additionally, I will try to explain why so few Greeks have mentioned our nation in their histories. However, I will illuminate those Greeks who have indeed acknowledged our history, for the benefit of those who are either unaware of them or pretend not to know.
2. And now, in the first place, I cannot but greatly wonder at those men, who suppose that we must attend to none but Grecians, when we are inquiring about the most ancient facts, and must inform ourselves of their truth from them only, while we must not believe ourselves nor other men; for I am convinced that the very reverse is the truth of the case. I mean this,—if we will not be led by vain opinions, but will make inquiry after truth from facts themselves; for they will find that almost all which concerns the Greeks happened not long ago; nay, one may say, is of yesterday only. I speak of the building of their cities, the inventions of their arts, and the description of their laws; and as for their care about the writing down of their histories, it is very near the last thing they set about. However, they acknowledge themselves so far, that they were the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, and the Phoenicians (for I will not now reckon ourselves among them) that have preserved the memorials of the most ancient and most lasting traditions of mankind; for almost all these nations inhabit such countries as are least subject to destruction from the world about them; and these also have taken especial care to have nothing omitted of what was [remarkably] done among them; but their history was esteemed sacred, and put into public tables, as written by men of the greatest wisdom they had among them. But as for the place where the Grecians inhabit, ten thousand destructions have overtaken it, and blotted out the memory of former actions; so that they were ever beginning a new way of living, and supposed that every one of them was the origin of their new state. It was also late, and with difficulty, that they came to know the letters they now use; for those who would advance their use of these letters to the greatest antiquity pretend that they learned them from the Phoenicians and from Cadmus; yet is nobody able to demonstrate that they have any writing preserved from that time, neither in their temples, nor in any other public monuments. This appears, because the time when those lived who went to the Trojan war, so many years afterward, is in great doubt, and great inquiry is made, whether the Greeks used their letters at that time; and the most prevailing opinion, and that nearest the truth, is, that their present way of using those letters was unknown at that time. However, there is not any writing which the Greeks agree to be genuine among them ancienter than Homer's Poems, who must plainly he confessed later than the siege of Troy; nay, the report goes, that even he did not leave his poems in writing, but that their memory was preserved in songs, and they were put together afterward, and that this is the reason of such a number of variations as are found in them. 3 As for those who set themselves about writing their histories, I mean such as Cadmus of Miletus, and Acusilaus of Argos, and any others that may be mentioned as succeeding Acusilaus, they lived but a little while before the Persian expedition into Greece. But then for those that first introduced philosophy, and the consideration of things celestial and divine among them, such as Pherceydes the Syrian, and Pythagoras, and Thales, all with one consent agree, that they learned what they knew of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and wrote but little And these are the things which are supposed to be the oldest of all among the Greeks; and they have much ado to believe that the writings ascribed to those men are genuine.
2. First of all, I can’t help but be amazed by those people who think we should only listen to the Greeks when we’re trying to uncover ancient facts, believing we can only find the truth through them, while we can’t trust ourselves or anyone else. I truly believe the opposite is true. If we look for truth in facts rather than empty opinions, we’ll see that most events concerning the Greeks happened not that long ago; in fact, you could say they’re just from yesterday. I’m talking about the founding of their cities, the innovations in their arts, and how they described their laws. As for their commitment to documenting their histories, that was almost one of the last things they did. However, they do admit that it was the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, and the Phoenicians (who I won’t include ourselves among) that kept the records of the oldest and most lasting traditions of humanity; most of these nations lived in areas less prone to destruction from external forces and made sure to document everything significant that happened among them. Their histories were considered sacred and recorded on public tablets, written by the wisest individuals they had. But when it comes to where the Greeks live, it has experienced countless destructions that wiped out memories of past events; as a result, they were always starting anew, thinking each of them was the foundation of their new way of life. They also struggled to learn the letters they use today; those who claim to trace their use back to ancient times argue that they learned them from the Phoenicians and Cadmus. Still, no one has been able to prove that any writing from that period has survived, whether in their temples or any other public monuments. This is evident because it’s quite uncertain when those who fought in the Trojan War lived, and there’s much debate about whether the Greeks used their letters back then; the most prevailing view, closest to the truth, is that their current alphabet wasn’t known at that time. However, there isn’t any writing that the Greeks agree is older than Homer's poems, which were clearly written after the siege of Troy. It’s said that even he didn’t leave his poems in writing; instead, they were remembered through songs and compiled later, which explains the many variations found in them. 3 As for those who set out to write histories, like Cadmus of Miletus and Acusilaus of Argos, as well as anyone else who followed Acusilaus, they lived just shortly before the Persian invasion of Greece. But those who first brought philosophy and the study of celestial and divine matters to the Greeks, like Pherceydes the Syrian, Pythagoras, and Thales, all agree that they learned what they knew from the Egyptians and Chaldeans and didn’t write much. These are considered the oldest works among the Greeks, and they struggle to accept that the writings attributed to those men are authentic.
3. How can it then be other than an absurd thing, for the Greeks to be so proud, and to vaunt themselves to be the only people that are acquainted with antiquity, and that have delivered the true accounts of those early times after an accurate manner? Nay, who is there that cannot easily gather from the Greek writers themselves, that they knew but little on any good foundation when they set to write, but rather wrote their histories from their own conjectures? Accordingly, they confute one another in their own books to purpose, and are not ashamed. to give us the most contradictory accounts of the same things; and I should spend my time to little purpose, if I should pretend to teach the Greeks that which they know better than I already, what a great disagreement there is between Hellanicus and Acusilaus about their genealogies; in how many eases Acusilaus corrects Hesiod: or after what manner Ephorus demonstrates Hellanicus to have told lies in the greatest part of his history; as does Timeus in like manner as to Ephorus, and the succeeding writers do to Timeus, and all the later writers do to Herodotus nor could Timeus agree with Antiochus and Philistius, or with Callias, about the Sicilian History, no more than do the several writers of the Athide follow one another about the Athenian affairs; nor do the historians the like, that wrote the Argolics, about the affairs of the Argives. And now what need I say any more about particular cities and smaller places, while in the most approved writers of the expedition of the Persians, and of the actions which were therein performed, there are so great differences? Nay, Thucydides himself is accused of some as writing what is false, although he seems to have given us the exactest history of the affairs of his own time. 4
3. How can it be anything other than ridiculous for the Greeks to be so proud and to boast that they are the only people who truly understand ancient history and have accurately recorded those early times? Seriously, who can’t see from the Greek writers themselves that they had very little solid knowledge when they started writing? They mostly wrote their histories based on their own guesses. They contradict each other in their own books without shame, providing us with the most conflicting accounts of the same events. It would be a waste of time for me to teach the Greeks something they already know better than I do, like the huge disagreements between Hellanicus and Acusilaus about their family trees; how many times Acusilaus corrects Hesiod; or how Ephorus shows that Hellanicus lied in most of his history. Timeus does the same with Ephorus, and later writers do it to Timeus, just as all subsequent writers critique Herodotus. Timeus couldn't even agree with Antiochus and Philistius, or Callias, about Sicilian history, just as various writers about Athenian matters fail to follow each other. The same goes for the historians who wrote about the Argives and their affairs. And what more can I say about specific cities and smaller places when even the most respected writers on the Persian expedition and the events that took place during it present such vast discrepancies? Even Thucydides is accused by some of writing falsehoods, although he appears to have given us the most accurate account of events in his own time. 4
4. As for the occasions of so great disagreement of theirs, there may be assigned many that are very probable, if any have a mind to make an inquiry about them; but I ascribe these contradictions chiefly to two causes, which I will now mention, and still think what I shall mention in the first place to be the principal of all. For if we remember that in the beginning the Greeks had taken no care to have public records of their several transactions preserved, this must for certain have afforded those that would afterward write about those ancient transactions the opportunity of making mistakes, and the power of making lies also; for this original recording of such ancient transactions hath not only been neglected by the other states of Greece, but even among the Athenians themselves also, who pretend to be Aborigines, and to have applied themselves to learning, there are no such records extant; nay, they say themselves that the laws of Draco concerning murders, which are now extant in writing, are the most ancient of their public records; which Draco yet lived but a little before the tyrant Pisistratus. 5 For as to the Arcadians, who make such boasts of their antiquity, what need I speak of them in particular, since it was still later before they got their letters, and learned them, and that with difficulty also. 6
4. Regarding the reasons for their significant disagreements, there are many plausible explanations if anyone wants to investigate. However, I attribute these contradictions mainly to two causes, with the first being the most important. If we remember that in the beginning the Greeks did not bother to keep public records of their various activities, this certainly allowed later writers to make mistakes and even create falsehoods. The original recording of such ancient events has not only been overlooked by other Greek states but even by the Athenians themselves, who claim to be indigenous and dedicated to learning—there are no such records available. In fact, they themselves state that the laws of Draco concerning murders, which we have in writing now, are the oldest of their public records; Draco lived only shortly before the tyrant Pisistratus. 5 As for the Arcadians, who pride themselves on their ancient heritage, what is there to say about them specifically, since it was even later that they learned to read and write, and that was not easy for them either. 6
5. There must therefore naturally arise great differences among writers, when they had no original records to lay for their foundation, which might at once inform those who had an inclination to learn, and contradict those that would tell lies. However, we are to suppose a second occasion besides the former of these contradictions; it is this: That those who were the most zealous to write history were not solicitous for the discovery of truth, although it was very easy for them always to make such a profession; but their business was to demonstrate that they could write well, and make an impression upon mankind thereby; and in what manner of writing they thought they were able to exceed others, to that did they apply themselves, Some of them betook themselves to the writing of fabulous narrations; some of them endeavored to please the cities or the kings, by writing in their commendation; others of them fell to finding faults with transactions, or with the writers of such transactions, and thought to make a great figure by so doing. And indeed these do what is of all things the most contrary to true history; for it is the great character of true history that all concerned therein both speak and write the same things; while these men, by writing differently about the same things, think they shall be believed to write with the greatest regard to truth. We therefore [who are Jews] must yield to the Grecian writers as to language and eloquence of composition; but then we shall give them no such preference as to the verity of ancient history, and least of all as to that part which concerns the affairs of our own several countries.
5. There will naturally be significant differences among writers when they don't have original records to base their work on, which could inform those eager to learn and challenge those spreading falsehoods. However, we also need to consider another reason for these discrepancies: those most eager to write history often weren't genuinely interested in uncovering the truth, even though they could easily claim to be. Their goal was to show off their writing skills and make an impact on people. They focused on the type of writing they thought would set them apart from others. Some wrote fanciful stories; others aimed to win favor with cities or kings by praising them; still, others criticized events or the authors who covered them, believing this would elevate their own status. In fact, these actions go against the essence of true history, which should have everyone involved speaking and writing consistently about the same events. Yet these writers, by presenting different accounts of the same events, think they are regarded as more truthful. Therefore, we [who are Jews] must acknowledge the Grecian writers in terms of language and style; however, we will not concede to them any superiority regarding the accuracy of ancient history, particularly regarding matters pertinent to our own lands.
6. As to the care of writing down the records from the earliest antiquity among the Egyptians and Babylonians; that the priests were intrusted therewith, and employed a philosophical concern about it; that they were the Chaldean priests that did so among the Babylonians; and that the Phoenicians, who were mingled among the Greeks, did especially make use of their letters, both for the common affairs of life, and for the delivering down the history of common transactions, I think I may omit any proof, because all men allow it so to be. But now as to our forefathers, that they took no less care about writing such records, [for I will not say they took greater care than the others I spoke of,] and that they committed that matter to their high priests and to their prophets, and that these records have been written all along down to our own times with the utmost accuracy; nay, if it be not too bold for me to say it, our history will be so written hereafter;—I shall endeavor briefly to inform you.
6. Regarding the effort put into recording history from ancient times by the Egyptians and Babylonians, it was the priests who were responsible for this task, and they approached it with a philosophical mindset. It was the Chaldean priests who did this among the Babylonians, and the Phoenicians, who interacted with the Greeks, particularly used their letters for everyday matters and for documenting their shared history. I think I can skip providing proof of this because it's generally accepted. Now, concerning our ancestors, they were just as diligent about writing these records—though I won’t claim they were more meticulous than those I previously mentioned—and they entrusted this task to their high priests and prophets. These records have been kept with great precision right up to the present day. In fact, if I may be so bold to say, our history will continue to be recorded in this way going forward. I will try to give you a brief overview.
7. For our forefathers did not only appoint the best of these priests, and those that attended upon the Divine worship, for that design from the beginning, but made provision that the stock of the priests should continue unmixed and pure; for he who is partaker of the priesthood must propagate of a wife of the same nation, without having any regard to money, or any other dignities; but he is to make a scrutiny, and take his wife's genealogy from the ancient tables, and procure many witnesses to it. 7 And this is our practice not only in Judea, but wheresoever any body of men of our nation do live; and even there an exact catalogue of our priests' marriages is kept; I mean at Egypt and at Babylon, or in any other place of the rest of the habitable earth, whithersoever our priests are scattered; for they send to Jerusalem the ancient names of their parents in writing, as well as those of their remoter ancestors, and signify who are the witnesses also. But if any war falls out, such as have fallen out a great many of them already, when Antiochus Epiphanes made an invasion upon our country, as also when Pompey the Great and Quintilius Varus did so also, and principally in the wars that have happened in our own times, those priests that survive them compose new tables of genealogy out of the old records, and examine the circumstances of the women that remain; for still they do not admit of those that have been captives, as suspecting that they had conversation with some foreigners. But what is the strongest argument of our exact management in this matter is what I am now going to say, that we have the names of our high priests from father to son set down in our records for the interval of two thousand years; and if any of these have been transgressors of these rules, they are prohibited to present themselves at the altar, or to be partakers of any other of our purifications; and this is justly, or rather necessarily done, because every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.
7. Our ancestors didn’t just choose the best priests who served in the Divine worship from the start, but they also ensured that the priestly lineage remained pure and untainted. Anyone who becomes a priest must marry a woman from the same nation, disregarding money or any other status; instead, they must investigate her family history from ancient records and gather many witnesses to support it. 7 This practice is followed not only in Judea but also wherever our people live; even there, a detailed list of our priests’ marriages is maintained, like in Egypt, Babylon, or anywhere else our priests are spread out. They send the names of their parents in writing to Jerusalem, as well as those of their ancestors, along with the names of the witnesses. However, if a war occurs—like the many we’ve experienced, including the invasions by Antiochus Epiphanes, Pompey the Great, and Quintilius Varus, and especially the wars in our own times—surviving priests create new family trees based on old records and check the backgrounds of any remaining women. They still don’t accept those who were captives, fearing they may have had contact with foreigners. The strongest proof of our meticulous approach in this matter is that we have records of our high priests’ names passed down from father to son for two thousand years. If any of them have violated these rules, they are barred from presenting themselves at the altar or participating in any of our rites. This is done justly, or rather necessarily, because not everyone is allowed to write on their own accord, and there is no discrepancy in what is recorded; only the prophets have written the original and earliest accounts of events as they learned them directly from God through inspiration, while others have documented what occurred in their own times very clearly.
8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, 8 which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them; whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account, no, nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed; for they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them; and they have justly the same opinion of the ancient writers, since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present, nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them; examples of which may be had in this late war of ours, where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned, or having been near them when the actions were done; but these men put a few things together by hearsay, and insolently abuse the world, and call these writings by the name of Histories.
8. We don’t have a countless number of books that contradict each other, like the Greeks do, but only twenty-two books, 8 that record all of history. These are rightly considered divine, with five of them belonging to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of humanity's beginnings up to his death. This spans almost three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the Persian king who came after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses wrote about their times in thirteen books. The other four books include hymns to God and guidelines for living a good life. It's true that our history has been documented in detail since Artaxerxes, but our ancestors didn’t view it with the same authority as the earlier texts because there hasn’t been a continuous line of prophets since then. The strong belief in the validity of our own nation's books is evident in our actions; for ages, no one has dared to add to, remove from, or alter them. It has become second nature for all Jews, from birth, to see these books as containing divine teachings and to hold firmly to them, willing to die for them if necessary. It’s not uncommon for our captives, numerous and often, to withstand torture and death in public just to avoid saying anything against our laws and the texts that preserve them. In contrast, there’s no one among the Greeks who would endure even the slightest harm for that reason, nor would they care if all their writings were destroyed, because they see them as simply reflecting the perspectives of their authors. They rightly regard the ancient writers in the same light, as they see some in the present generation bold enough to write about events they didn’t witness or inquire about from those who did. This is evident in our recent war, where some people have written and published histories without being anywhere near the events, merely piecing together hearsay and disrespectfully calling their writings “Histories.”
9. As for myself, I have composed a true history of that whole war, and of all the particulars that occurred therein, as having been concerned in all its transactions; for I acted as general of those among us that are named Galileans, as long as it was possible for us to make any opposition. I was then seized on by the Romans, and became a captive. Vespasian also and Titus had me kept under a guard, and forced me to attend them continually. At the first I was put into bonds, but was set at liberty afterward, and sent to accompany Titus when he came from Alexandria to the siege of Jerusalem; during which time there was nothing done which escaped my knowledge; for what happened in the Roman camp I saw, and wrote down carefully; and what informations the deserters brought [out of the city], I was the only man that understood them. Afterward I got leisure at Rome; and when all my materials were prepared for that work, I made use of some persons to assist me in learning the Greek tongue, and by these means I composed the history of those transactions. And I was so well assured of the truth of what I related, that I first of all appealed to those that had the supreme command in that war, Vespasian and Titus, as witnesses for me, for to them I presented those books first of all, and after them to many of the Romans who had been in the war. I also sold them to many of our own men who understood the Greek philosophy; among whom were Julius Archelaus, Herod [king of Chalcis], a person of great gravity, and king Agrippa himself, a person that deserved the greatest admiration. Now all these men bore their testimony to me, that I had the strictest regard to truth; who yet would not have dissembled the matter, nor been silent, if I, out of ignorance, or out of favor to any side, either had given false colors to actions, or omitted any of them.
9. As for me, I’ve put together an accurate account of the entire war and all the details that happened during it, since I was involved in all its events. I served as the general for those of us known as Galileans for as long as we could resist. Eventually, I was captured by the Romans and taken prisoner. Vespasian and Titus had me under guard and made me attend to them constantly. Initially, I was shackled, but later I was freed and sent to accompany Titus when he arrived from Alexandria to lay siege to Jerusalem. During that time, nothing happened that I didn’t know about; I witnessed everything in the Roman camp and carefully wrote it down, and I was the only one who understood the information brought out by the deserters from the city. Later, I had some downtime in Rome, and when I gathered all my materials for that project, I enlisted some people to help me learn Greek. With their assistance, I wrote the history of those events. I was very confident in the accuracy of what I reported that I first presented my books to Vespasian and Titus, the top commanders in the war, as my witnesses. After that, I showed it to many Romans who had participated in the war. I also sold copies to several of our own people who understood Greek philosophy, including Julius Archelaus, King Herod of Chalcis, a respected figure, and King Agrippa himself, a man deserving of great admiration. All of these individuals confirmed that I was committed to the truth; none of them would have hesitated to speak up or remain silent if I had misrepresented events out of ignorance or bias.
10. There have been indeed some bad men, who have attempted to calumniate my history, and took it to be a kind of scholastic performance for the exercise of young men. A strange sort of accusation and calumny this! since every one that undertakes to deliver the history of actions truly ought to know them accurately himself in the first place, as either having been concerned in them himself, or been informed of them by such as knew them. Now both these methods of knowledge I may very properly pretend to in the composition of both my works; for, as I said, I have translated the Antiquities out of our sacred books; which I easily could do, since I was a priest by my birth, and have studied that philosophy which is contained in those writings: and for the History of the War, I wrote it as having been an actor myself in many of its transactions, an eye-witness in the greatest part of the rest, and was not unacquainted with any thing whatsoever that was either said or done in it. How impudent then must those deserve to be esteemed that undertake to contradict me about the true state of those affairs! who, although they pretend to have made use of both the emperors' own memoirs, yet could not they he acquainted with our affairs who fought against them.
10. There have definitely been some bad people who have tried to slander my history, treating it as just an academic exercise for young men. What a strange accusation! Anyone who aims to tell the story of events accurately should first know them well—either by being involved themselves or by hearing from those who were. I can rightfully claim to have both types of knowledge in writing both of my works; as I mentioned, I translated the Antiquities from our sacred texts, which I could do easily since I was born a priest and have studied the philosophy contained in those writings. As for the History of the War, I wrote it because I was personally involved in many of its events, witnessed most of the rest, and knew everything that was said or done in it. How outrageous it is for anyone to challenge me about the true nature of those events! Even though they claim to have used both emperors' memoirs, they could not possibly understand our situation since they fought against us.
11. This digression I have been obliged to make out of necessity, as being desirous to expose the vanity of those that profess to write histories; and I suppose I have sufficiently declared that this custom of transmitting down the histories of ancient times hath been better preserved by those nations which are called Barbarians, than by the Greeks themselves. I am now willing, in the next place, to say a few things to those that endeavor to prove that our constitution is but of late time, for this reason, as they pretend, that the Greek writers have said nothing about us; after which I shall produce testimonies for our antiquity out of the writings of foreigners; I shall also demonstrate that such as cast reproaches upon our nation do it very unjustly.
11. I had to take this detour out of necessity because I wanted to highlight the foolishness of those who claim to write histories. I believe I’ve made it clear that the practice of passing down historical accounts from ancient times has been better maintained by what are called barbarian nations than by the Greeks themselves. Now, I’d like to address those who try to argue that our constitution is a recent development, claiming that Greek writers have said nothing about us. After that, I’ll provide evidence of our ancient history from foreign writings and show that those who criticize our nation are doing so very unfairly.
12. As for ourselves, therefore, we neither inhabit a maritime country, nor do we delight in merchandise, nor in such a mixture with other men as arises from it; but the cities we dwell in are remote from the sea, and having a fruitful country for our habitation, we take pains in cultivating that only. Our principal care of all is this, to educate our children well; and we think it to be the most necessary business of our whole life to observe the laws that have been given us, and to keep those rules of piety that have been delivered down to us. Since, therefore, besides what we have already taken notice of, we have had a peculiar way of living of our own, there was no occasion offered us in ancient ages for intermixing among the Greeks, as they had for mixing among the Egyptians, by their intercourse of exporting and importing their several goods; as they also mixed with the Phoenicians, who lived by the sea-side, by means of their love of lucre in trade and merchandise. Nor did our forefathers betake themselves, as did some others, to robbery; nor did they, in order to gain more wealth, fall into foreign wars, although our country contained many ten thousands of men of courage sufficient for that purpose. For this reason it was that the Phoenicians themselves came soon by trading and navigation to be known to the Grecians, and by their means the Egyptians became known to the Grecians also, as did all those people whence the Phoenicians in long voyages over the seas carried wares to the Grecians. The Medes also and the Persians, when they were lords of Asia, became well known to them; and this was especially true of the Persians, who led their armies as far as the other continent [Europe]. The Thracians were also known to them by the nearness of their countries, and the Scythians by the means of those that sailed to Pontus; for it was so in general that all maritime nations, and those that inhabited near the eastern or western seas, became most known to those that were desirous to be writers; but such as had their habitations further from the sea were for the most part unknown to them which things appear to have happened as to Europe also, where the city of Rome, that hath this long time been possessed of so much power, and hath performed such great actions in war, is yet never mentioned by Herodotus, nor by Thucydides, nor by any one of their contemporaries; and it was very late, and with great difficulty, that the Romans became known to the Greeks. Nay, those that were reckoned the most exact historians [and Ephorus for one] were so very ignorant of the Gauls and the Spaniards, that he supposed the Spaniards, who inhabit so great a part of the western regions of the earth, to be no more than one city. Those historians also have ventured to describe such customs as were made use of by them, which they never had either done or said; and the reason why these writers did not know the truth of their affairs was this, that they had not any commerce together; but the reason why they wrote such falsities was this, that they had a mind to appear to know things which others had not known. How can it then be any wonder, if our nation was no more known to many of the Greeks, nor had given them any occasion to mention them in their writings, while they were so remote from the sea, and had a conduct of life so peculiar to themselves?
12. As for us, we don’t live in a coastal country, nor are we interested in trade, or the mix that comes from it; instead, we live in cities far from the sea, and with a fertile land to call home, we focus solely on farming. Our main priority is to raise our children well, and we believe it’s the most important task of our lives to follow the laws that have been given to us and uphold the principles of piety that have been passed down. Therefore, aside from what we’ve already mentioned, we have had our own distinct way of living, which is why there was little opportunity for us to blend with the Greeks, unlike the Egyptians who mixed through their trading activities, or the Phoenicians who lived by the coast and engaged in trade for profit. Our ancestors also didn’t resort to robbery, nor did they engage in foreign wars to accumulate wealth, even though our land could have supported many brave men for such ventures. This is why the Phoenicians quickly became known to the Greeks through trade and navigation, and through them, the Egyptians and other peoples from whom the Phoenicians brought goods across the seas also became known. The Medes and Persians, when they dominated Asia, were well-known too, especially the Persians, who led their armies as far as Europe. The Thracians were known because of their proximity, and the Scythians were known through those who sailed to the Black Sea; in general, all maritime nations and those living near the eastern or western seas became well-known to aspiring writers, while those living further inland were largely unknown, which was also true in Europe, where the city of Rome, long recognized for its power and military achievements, was never mentioned by Herodotus or Thucydides, nor by any of their contemporaries. It wasn’t until much later, and with great difficulty, that the Romans became known to the Greeks. Even the historians considered the most accurate, like Ephorus, were so uninformed about the Gauls and Spaniards that he thought the Spaniards, who occupy a large part of the western world, were just one city. Those historians also attempted to describe customs they had never observed or heard of, and the reason they didn't know the truth is that there was no interaction between them; their inaccuracies stemmed from a desire to seem knowledgeable about things others had not discovered. So, is it really surprising that our nation was largely unknown to many Greeks and that they had no reason to mention us in their writings, considering our distance from the sea and our unique way of life?
13. Let us now put the case, therefore, that we made use of this argument concerning the Grecians, in order to prove that their nation was not ancient, because nothing is said of them in our records: would not they laugh at us all, and probably give the same reasons for our silence that I have now alleged, and would produce their neighbor nations as witnesses to their own antiquity? Now the very same thing will I endeavor to do; for I will bring the Egyptians and the Phoenicians as my principal witnesses, because nobody can complain Of their testimony as false, on account that they are known to have borne the greatest ill-will towards us; I mean this as to the Egyptians in general all of them, while of the Phoenicians it is known the Tyrians have been most of all in the same ill disposition towards us: yet do I confess that I cannot say the same of the Chaldeans, since our first leaders and ancestors were derived from them; and they do make mention of us Jews in their records, on account of the kindred there is between us. Now when I shall have made my assertions good, so far as concerns the others, I will demonstrate that some of the Greek writers have made mention of us Jews also, that those who envy us may not have even this pretense for contradicting what I have said about our nation.
13. Let’s consider this argument about the Greeks to prove that their nation isn’t ancient because our records don’t mention them: wouldn’t they just laugh at us and likely offer the same reasons for our silence that I've just given, pointing to neighboring nations as proof of their own history? I will do the same by bringing in the Egyptians and the Phoenicians as my main witnesses since no one can dismiss their accounts as false; they’re known for having the strongest resentment towards us. This applies to all Egyptians, while it’s particularly true for the Tyrians among the Phoenicians. However, I admit I can’t say the same about the Chaldeans since our early leaders and ancestors came from them, and they mention us Jews in their records due to our connection. Once I establish my claims regarding the others, I will also show that some Greek writers have mentioned us Jews so that those who envy us can’t use this as an excuse to refute what I’ve said about our nation.
14. I shall begin with the writings of the Egyptians; not indeed of those that have written in the Egyptian language, which it is impossible for me to do. But Manetho was a man who was by birth an Egyptian, yet had he made himself master of the Greek learning, as is very evident; for he wrote the history of his own country in the Greek tongue, by translating it, as he saith himself, out of their sacred records; he also finds great fault with Herodotus for his ignorance and false relations of Egyptian affairs. Now this Manetho, in the second book of his Egyptian History, writes concerning us in the following manner. I will set down his very words, as if I were to bring the very man himself into a court for a witness: "There was a king of ours whose name was Timaus. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us, and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth out of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country, and with ease subdued it by force, yet without our hazarding a battle with them. So when they had gotten those that governed us under their power, they afterwards burnt down our cities, and demolished the temples of the gods, and used all the inhabitants after a most barbarous manner; nay, some they slew, and led their children and their wives into slavery. At length they made one of themselves king, whose name was Salatis; he also lived at Memphis, and made both the upper and lower regions pay tribute, and left garrisons in places that were the most proper for them. He chiefly aimed to secure the eastern parts, as fore-seeing that the Assyrians, who had then the greatest power, would be desirous of that kingdom, and invade them; and as he found in the Saite Nomos, [Sethroite,] a city very proper for this purpose, and which lay upon the Bubastic channel, but with regard to a certain theologic notion was called Avaris, this he rebuilt, and made very strong by the walls he built about it, and by a most numerous garrison of two hundred and forty thousand armed men whom he put into it to keep it. Thither Salatis came in summer time, partly to gather his corn, and pay his soldiers their wages, and partly to exercise his armed men, and thereby to terrify foreigners. When this man had reigned thirteen years, after him reigned another, whose name was Beon, for forty-four years; after him reigned another, called Apachnas, thirty-six years and seven months; after him Apophis reigned sixty-one years, and then Janins fifty years and one month; after all these reigned Assis forty-nine years and two months. And these six were the first rulers among them, who were all along making war with the Egyptians, and were very desirous gradually to destroy them to the very roots. This whole nation was styled Hycsos, that is, Shepherd-kings: for the first syllable Hyc, according to the sacred dialect, denotes a king, as is Sos a shepherd; but this according to the ordinary dialect; and of these is compounded Hycsos: but some say that these people were Arabians." Now in another copy it is said that this word does not denote Kings, but, on the contrary, denotes Captive Shepherds, and this on account of the particle Hyc; for that Hyc, with the aspiration, in the Egyptian tongue again denotes Shepherds, and that expressly also; and this to me seems the more probable opinion, and more agreeable to ancient history. [But Manetho goes on]: "These people, whom we have before named kings, and called shepherds also, and their descendants," as he says, "kept possession of Egypt five hundred and eleven years." After these, he says, "That the kings of Thebais and the other parts of Egypt made an insurrection against the shepherds, and that there a terrible and long war was made between them." He says further, "That under a king, whose name was Alisphragmuthosis, the shepherds were subdued by him, and were indeed driven out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a place that contained ten thousand acres; this place was named Avaris." Manetho says, "That the shepherds built a wall round all this place, which was a large and a strong wall, and this in order to keep all their possessions and their prey within a place of strength, but that Thummosis the son of Alisphragmuthosis made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, with four hundred and eighty thousand men to lie rotund about them, but that, upon his despair of taking the place by that siege, they came to a composition with them, that they should leave Egypt, and go, without any harm to be done to them, whithersoever they would; and that, after this composition was made, they went away with their whole families and effects, not fewer in number than two hundred and forty thousand, and took their journey from Egypt, through the wilderness, for Syria; but that as they were in fear of the Assyrians, who had then the dominion over Asia, they built a city in that country which is now called Judea, and that large enough to contain this great number of men, and called it Jerusalem." 9 Now Manetho, in another book of his, says, "That this nation, thus called Shepherds, were also called Captives, in their sacred books." And this account of his is the truth; for feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages 10 and as they led such a wandering life in feeding sheep, they were called Shepherds. Nor was it without reason that they were called Captives by the Egyptians, since one of our ancestors, Joseph, told the king of Egypt that he was a captive, and afterward sent for his brethren into Egypt by the king's permission. But as for these matters, I shall make a more exact inquiry about them elsewhere. 11
14. I'll start with the writings of the Egyptians; not those written in the Egyptian language, since that's impossible for me. But Manetho, who was Egyptian by birth, had mastered Greek learning, which is evident because he wrote the history of his country in Greek, translating it, as he claims, from their sacred records. He criticizes Herodotus for his ignorance and false accounts regarding Egyptian matters. In the second book of his Egyptian History, Manetho writes about us as follows. I'll quote him directly, as if I were bringing the man himself as a witness in court: "There was a king of ours named Timaus. Under his reign, I don't know how, God turned against us, and men of low birth came from the east, boldly launching an expedition into our land, easily conquering it without us even battling them. Once they had taken control of our leaders, they burned our cities, destroyed the temples of the gods, and treated the inhabitants in a brutally savage manner; some they killed, and they took their children and wives into slavery. Eventually, they made one of their own kings, named Salatis; he lived in Memphis and forced both upper and lower regions to pay tribute, leaving garrisons in the most strategic locations. His main aim was to secure the eastern areas, anticipating that the Assyrians, who were then the most powerful, would want that kingdom and invade it; he found Avaris in the Saite Nomos, a city well-suited for this purpose located along the Bubastic channel, and he rebuilt it, fortifying it with strong walls and a vast garrison of two hundred and forty thousand armed men. Salatis would come there in summer to gather his grain, pay his soldiers, and drill his troops to intimidate foreigners. After he ruled for thirteen years, another king named Beon ruled for forty-four years; then there was Apachnas for thirty-six years and seven months; followed by Apophis for sixty-one years, and then Janins for fifty years and one month; after all these came Assis for forty-nine years and two months. These six were the first rulers among them, continually at war with the Egyptians, eager to systematically eradicate them. This entire nation was called Hycsos, meaning Shepherd-kings: the first syllable Hyc denotes a king in sacred dialect, while Sos means shepherd in ordinary terms, thus forming Hycsos; however, some claim these people were Arabians." In another version, it’s said that this term does not refer to kings but rather to Captive Shepherds, based on the particle Hyc; since Hyc, with aspiration, in the Egyptian language also signifies shepherds explicitly, and this seems to be the more likely interpretation, aligning better with ancient history. [But Manetho continues]: "These people, whom we called kings and also shepherds, along with their descendants," he states, "held onto Egypt for five hundred and eleven years." He goes on to say, "That the kings of Thebais and other parts of Egypt rebelled against the shepherds, leading to a long and brutal war between them." He further claims, "Under a king named Alisphragmuthosis, the shepherds were defeated and expelled from other regions of Egypt but were confined to an area of ten thousand acres; this area was called Avaris." Manetho writes, "That the shepherds constructed a large strong wall around this place to protect their possessions and their spoils, but when Thummosis, the son of Alisphragmuthosis, attempted to take it by force with four hundred and eighty thousand men blockading them, he ultimately abandoned the siege and made a deal with them to leave Egypt unscathed, wherever they wished; and after this agreement, they departed with their families and belongings, numbering at least two hundred and forty thousand, and journeyed from Egypt through the wilderness to Syria; however, fearing the Assyrians, who then dominated Asia, they built a city in what is now called Judea, large enough to accommodate their massive population, and named it Jerusalem." 9 Now Manetho, in another of his books, states, "This nation, known as Shepherds, was also referred to as Captives in their sacred texts." This account is accurate; for raising sheep was the profession of our ancestors in ancient times 10 and as they lived such a nomadic lifestyle tending sheep, they were known as Shepherds. It’s reasonable they were called Captives by the Egyptians, since one of our ancestors, Joseph, identified himself to the king of Egypt as a captive, and later brought his brothers to Egypt with the king's permission. As for these matters, I will investigate them more thoroughly elsewhere. 11
15. But now I shall produce the Egyptians as witnesses to the antiquity of our nation. I shall therefore here bring in Manetho again, and what he writes as to the order of the times in this case; and thus he speaks: "When this people or shepherds were gone out of Egypt to Jerusalem, Tethtoosis the king of Egypt, who drove them out, reigned afterward twenty-five years and four months, and then died; after him his son Chebron took the kingdom for thirteen years; after whom came Amenophis, for twenty years and seven months; then came his sister Amesses, for twenty-one years and nine months; after her came Mephres, for twelve years and nine months; after him was Mephramuthosis, for twenty-five years and ten months; after him was Thmosis, for nine years and eight months; after him came Amenophis, for thirty years and ten months; after him came Orus, for thirty-six years and five months; then came his daughter Acenchres, for twelve years and one month; then was her brother Rathotis, for nine years; then was Acencheres, for twelve years and five months; then came another Acencheres, for twelve years and three months; after him Armais, for four years and one month; after him was Ramesses, for one year and four months; after him came Armesses Miammoun, for sixty-six years and two months; after him Amenophis, for nineteen years and six months; after him came Sethosis, and Ramesses, who had an army of horse, and a naval force. This king appointed his brother, Armais, to be his deputy over Egypt." [In another copy it stood thus: "After him came Sethosis, and Ramesses, two brethren, the former of whom had a naval force, and in a hostile manner destroyed those that met him upon the sea; but as he slew Ramesses in no long time afterward, so he appointed another of his brethren to be his deputy over Egypt.] He also gave him all the other authority of a king, but with these only injunctions, that he should not wear the diadem, nor be injurious to the queen, the mother of his children, and that he should not meddle with the other concubines of the king; while he made an expedition against Cyprus, and Phoenicia, and besides against the Assyrians and the Medes. He then subdued them all, some by his arms, some without fighting, and some by the terror of his great army; and being puffed up by the great successes he had had, he went on still the more boldly, and overthrew the cities and countries that lay in the eastern parts. But after some considerable time, Armais, who was left in Egypt, did all those very things, by way of opposition, which his brother had forbid him to do, without fear; for he used violence to the queen, and continued to make use of the rest of the concubines, without sparing any of them; nay, at the persuasion of his friends he put on the diadem, and set up to oppose his brother. But then he who was set over the priests of Egypt wrote letters to Sethosis, and informed him of all that had happened, and how his brother had set up to oppose him: he therefore returned back to Pelusium immediately, and recovered his kingdom again. The country also was called from his name Egypt; for Manetho says, that Sethosis was himself called Egyptus, as was his brother Armais called Danaus."
15. But now I will present the Egyptians as proof of the long history of our nation. So, I will bring up Manetho again and what he writes about the timeline in this matter; and here’s what he says: "When this people or shepherds left Egypt for Jerusalem, Tethtoosis, the king of Egypt who drove them out, reigned for twenty-five years and four months before he died; after him, his son Chebron ruled for thirteen years; then came Amenophis, for twenty years and seven months; after him was his sister Amesses, who ruled for twenty-one years and nine months; next was Mephres, who reigned for twelve years and nine months; then came Mephramuthosis, for twenty-five years and ten months; after him was Thmosis, for nine years and eight months; after him came Amenophis, for thirty years and ten months; then came Orus, for thirty-six years and five months; next was his daughter Acenchres, for twelve years and one month; then her brother Rathotis, for nine years; then Acencheres, for twelve years and five months; then came another Acencheres, for twelve years and three months; after him was Armais, for four years and one month; after him was Ramesses, for one year and four months; then came Armesses Miammoun, for sixty-six years and two months; after him, Amenophis ruled for nineteen years and six months; then came Sethosis and Ramesses, who had a cavalry and a naval force. This king appointed his brother Armais to be his deputy over Egypt." [In another copy, it stated: "After him came Sethosis and Ramesses, two brothers, the former of whom had a naval force and hostilely attacked those he encountered at sea; but after a short time, he killed Ramesses and appointed another of his brothers as his deputy over Egypt." ] He also gave him all the other powers of a king, but with these conditions: he should not wear the crown, nor harm the queen, the mother of his children, and that he should not interfere with the other concubines of the king. While he led an expedition against Cyprus, Phoenicia, and also against the Assyrians and the Medes, he defeated them all, some through force, some without fighting, and some by instilling fear with his massive army. Feeling inflated by his successes, he grew even bolder and conquered cities and territories in the eastern regions. But after a considerable time, Armais, who was left in Egypt, did everything his brother had forbidden him to do, without fear; he abused the queen and continued to take advantage of the other concubines, without holding back; indeed, at the urging of his friends, he put on the crown and sought to oppose his brother. But then the priest in charge in Egypt wrote letters to Sethosis, informing him of everything that had transpired, and how his brother had sought to oppose him: he therefore immediately returned to Pelusium and reclaimed his kingdom. The country was also named after him, Egypt; for Manetho says that Sethosis was called Egyptus, just as his brother Armais was called Danaus."
16. This is Manetho's account. And evident it is from the number of years by him set down belonging to this interval, if they be summed up together, that these shepherds, as they are here called, who were no other than our forefathers, were delivered out of Egypt, and came thence, and inhabited this country, three hundred and ninety-three years before Danaus came to Argos; although the Argives look upon him 12 as their most ancient king Manetho, therefore, hears this testimony to two points of the greatest consequence to our purpose, and those from the Egyptian records themselves. In the first place, that we came out of another country into Egypt; and that withal our deliverance out of it was so ancient in time as to have preceded the siege of Troy almost a thousand years; but then, as to those things which Manetbo adds, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he confesses himself, from some stories of an uncertain original, I will disprove them hereafter particularly, and shall demonstrate that they are no better than incredible fables.
16. This is Manetho's account. It's clear from the total number of years he recorded for this period that these shepherds, who are actually our ancestors, were freed from Egypt, left, and settled in this land three hundred and ninety-three years before Danaus arrived in Argos; even though the Argives consider him 12 their earliest king. Therefore, Manetho provides evidence for two key points crucial to our discussion, both drawn from Egyptian records. First, that we came from another country into Egypt; and that our escape happened so long ago that it was nearly a thousand years before the Trojan War. As for the additional details Manetho includes, which are not from Egyptian records but, as he admits, from stories of uncertain origins, I will refute them later and show that they are nothing more than unbelievable myths.
17. I will now, therefore, pass from these records, and come to those that belong to the Phoenicians, and concern our nation, and shall produce attestations to what I have said out of them. There are then records among the Tyrians that take in the history of many years, and these are public writings, and are kept with great exactness, and include accounts of the facts done among them, and such as concern their transactions with other nations also, those I mean which were worth remembering. Therein it was recorded that the temple was built by king Solomon at Jerusalem, one hundred forty-three years and eight months before the Tyrians built Carthage; and in their annals the building of our temple is related; for Hirom, the king of Tyre, was the friend of Solomon our king, and had such friendship transmitted down to him from his forefathers. He thereupon was ambitious to contribute to the splendor of this edifice of Solomon, and made him a present of one hundred and twenty talents of gold. He also cut down the most excellent timber out of that mountain which is called Libanus, and sent it to him for adorning its roof. Solomon also not only made him many other presents, by way of requital, but gave him a country in Galilee also, that was called Chabulon. 13 But there was another passion, a philosophic inclination of theirs, which cemented the friendship that was betwixt them; for they sent mutual problems to one another, with a desire to have them unriddled by each other; wherein Solomon was superior to Hirom, as he was wiser than he in other respects: and many of the epistles that passed between them are still preserved among the Tyrians. Now, that this may not depend on my bare word, I will produce for a witness Dius, one that is believed to have written the Phoenician History after an accurate manner. This Dius, therefore, writes thus, in his Histories of the Phoenicians: "Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took the kingdom. This king raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them, and adorned that temple with donations of gold. He moreover went up to Libanus, and had timber cut down for the building of temples. They say further, that Solomon, when he was king of Jerusalem, sent problems to Hirom to be solved, and desired he would send others back for him to solve, and that he who could not solve the problems proposed to him should pay money to him that solved them. And when Hirom had agreed to the proposals, but was not able to solve the problems, he was obliged to pay a great deal of money, as a penalty for the same. As also they relate, that one OEabdemon, a man of Tyre, did solve the problems, and propose others which Solomon could not solve, upon which he was obliged to repay a great deal of money to Hirom." These things are attested to by Dius, and confirm what we have said upon the same subjects before.
17. I will now move on from these records to those related to the Phoenicians, which concern our nation, and I will provide evidence for what I have stated from them. There are records among the Tyrians that encompass the history of many years; these are public documents, kept with great care, and include accounts of events among them, as well as those involving their interactions with other nations that are worth remembering. It was recorded that the temple was built by King Solomon in Jerusalem one hundred forty-three years and eight months before the Tyrians established Carthage, and their annals recount the construction of our temple; for Hirom, the king of Tyre, was a friend of King Solomon, and this friendship had been passed down to him from his ancestors. He was eager to contribute to the grandeur of Solomon's building project and gifted him one hundred and twenty talents of gold. He also cut down the finest timber from the mountain called Lebanon and sent it to Solomon to adorn the roof. Solomon not only gave him many other gifts in return but also granted him land in Galilee known as Chabulon. 13 Additionally, there was a shared intellectual curiosity that strengthened their bond; they exchanged riddles with the hope of solving them for each other, in which Solomon excelled over Hirom, as he was wiser in other matters as well: many of the letters exchanged between them are still preserved among the Tyrians. To support this, I will cite Dius, who is believed to have accurately documented the history of the Phoenicians. Dius writes in his Histories of the Phoenicians: "Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom ascended to the throne. This king built embankments in the eastern part of the city and expanded it; he also connected the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which had previously stood alone on an island, to the city by constructing a causeway, and he adorned that temple with gold donations. Furthermore, he went to Lebanon to cut timber for building temples. It is also said that Solomon, while he was king of Jerusalem, sent riddles to Hirom to solve, requesting that he send back riddles for him to solve, and that whoever was unable to solve the proposed riddles would pay money to the person who could. When Hirom agreed to this arrangement but was unable to solve the riddles, he was obliged to pay a substantial amount as a penalty. Additionally, they recount that a man named OEabdemon from Tyre did solve the riddles and posed others that Solomon could not solve, leading Solomon to pay a significant sum to Hirom." These events are confirmed by Dius and corroborate what we have stated on the same subjects previously.
18. And now I shall add Menander the Ephesian, as an additional witness. This Menander wrote the Acts that were done both by the Greeks and Barbarians, under every one of the Tyrian kings, and had taken much pains to learn their history out of their own records. Now when he was writing about those kings that had reigned at Tyre, he came to Hirom, and says thus: "Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took the kingdom; he lived fifty-three years, and reigned thirty-four. He raised a bank on that called the Broad Place, and dedicated that golden pillar which is in Jupiter's temple; he also went and cut down timber from the mountain called Libanus, and got timber Of cedar for the roofs of the temples. He also pulled down the old temples, and built new ones; besides this, he consecrated the temples of Hercules and of Astarte. He first built Hercules's temple in the month Peritus, and that of Astarte when he made his expedition against the Tityans, who would not pay him their tribute; and when he had subdued them to himself, he returned home. Under this king there was a younger son of Abdemon, who mastered the problems which Solomon king of Jerusalem had recommended to be solved." Now the time from this king to the building of Carthage is thus calculated: "Upon the death of Hirom, Baleazarus his son took the kingdom; he lived forty-three years, and reigned seven years: after him succeeded his son Abdastartus; he lived twenty-nine years, and reigned nine years. Now four sons of his nurse plotted against him and slew him, the eldest of whom reigned twelve years: after them came Astartus, the son of Deleastartus; he lived fifty-four years, and reigned twelve years: after him came his brother Aserymus; he lived fifty-four years, and reigned nine years: he was slain by his brother Pheles, who took the kingdom and reigned but eight months, though he lived fifty years: he was slain by Ithobalus, the priest of Astarte, who reigned thirty-two years, and lived sixty-eight years: he was succeeded by his son Badezorus, who lived forty-five years, and reigned six years: he was succeeded by Matgenus his son; he lived thirty-two years, and reigned nine years: Pygmalion succeeded him; he lived fifty-six years, and reigned forty-seven years. Now in the seventh year of his reign, his sister fled away from him, and built the city Carthage in Libya." So the whole time from the reign of Hirom, till the building of Carthage, amounts to the sum of one hundred fifty-five years and eight months. Since then the temple was built at Jerusalem in the twelfth year of the reign of Hirom, there were from the building of the temple, until the building of Carthage, one hundred forty-three years and eight months. Wherefore, what occasion is there for alleging any more testimonies out of the Phoenician histories [on the behalf of our nation], since what I have said is so thoroughly confirmed already? and to be sure our ancestors came into this country long before the building of the temple; for it was not till we had gotten possession of the whole land by war that we built our temple. And this is the point that I have clearly proved out of our sacred writings in my Antiquities.
18. Now I'll also mention Menander the Ephesian as an additional witness. This Menander wrote about the actions of both the Greeks and Barbarians under each of the Tyrian kings and made a significant effort to learn their history from their own records. While writing about the kings who ruled Tyre, he mentioned Hirom and said: "After the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took over the kingdom; he lived for fifty-three years and reigned for thirty-four. He built a bank in what is called the Broad Place and dedicated the golden pillar in Jupiter's temple. He also cut down timber from the mountain known as Lebanon to obtain cedar for the temple roofs. He tore down the old temples and constructed new ones; additionally, he consecrated the temples of Hercules and Astarte. He first built Hercules's temple in the month of Peritus and the temple of Astarte during his campaign against the Tityans, who refused to pay him their tribute; once he subdued them, he returned home. During this king's reign, there was a younger son of Abdemon who solved the problems that King Solomon of Jerusalem had recommended." The time from this king to the foundation of Carthage is calculated as follows: "After Hirom's death, Baleazarus, his son, took the kingdom; he lived for forty-three years and reigned for seven years. After him, his son Abdastartus succeeded; he lived for twenty-nine years and reigned for nine years. Four sons of his nurse conspired against him and killed him, the eldest of whom reigned for twelve years. Then Astartus, the son of Deleastartus, came to power; he lived for fifty-four years and reigned for twelve years. After him, his brother Aserymus took over; he lived for fifty-four years and reigned for nine years. He was killed by his brother Pheles, who ruled for just eight months, even though he lived for fifty years. He was killed by Ithobalus, the priest of Astarte, who reigned for thirty-two years and lived for sixty-eight years. He was succeeded by his son Badezorus, who lived for forty-five years and reigned for six years. Following him was his son Matgenus; he lived for thirty-two years and reigned for nine years. Pygmalion succeeded him; he lived for fifty-six years and reigned for forty-seven years. In the seventh year of his reign, his sister ran away from him and founded the city of Carthage in Libya." Thus, the total time from Hirom's reign to the building of Carthage is one hundred fifty-five years and eight months. Since the temple was built in Jerusalem during Hirom's twelfth year of reign, the period from the temple's construction to the building of Carthage is one hundred forty-three years and eight months. Therefore, why do I need to present more evidence from Phoenician histories [in support of our nation] when what I've said is already so well established? Certainly, our ancestors arrived in this land long before the temple was built; we did not construct our temple until after we had taken control of the entire territory by force. This point is clearly demonstrated in my Antiquities from our sacred writings.
19. I will now relate what hath been written concerning us in the Chaldean histories, which records have a great agreement with our books in oilier things also. Berosus shall be witness to what I say: he was by birth a Chaldean, well known by the learned, on account of his publication of the Chaldean books of astronomy and philosophy among the Greeks. This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records of that nation, gives us a history of the deluge of waters that then happened, and of the destruction of mankind thereby, and agrees with Moses's narration thereof. He also gives us an account of that ark wherein Noah, the origin of our race, was preserved, when it was brought to the highest part of the Armenian mountains; after which he gives us a catalogue of the posterity of Noah, and adds the years of their chronology, and at length comes down to Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon, and of the Chaldeans. And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia. He then says, "That this Babylonian king conquered Egypt, and Syria, and Phoenicia, and Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon and Chaldea." A little after which Berosus subjoins what follows in his History of Ancient Times. I will set down Berosus's own accounts, which are these: "When Nabolassar, father of Nabuchodonosor, heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and over the parts of Celesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer; but committing certain parts of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then but young, he sent him against the rebel: Nabuchodonosor joined battle with him, and conquered him, and reduced the country under his dominion again. Now it so fell out that his father Nabolassar fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-nine years. But as he understood, in a little time, that his father Nabolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he found the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him. Accordingly, he now entirely obtained all his father's dominions. He then came, and ordered the captives to be placed as colonies in the most proper places of Babylonia; but for himself, he adorned the temple of Belus, and the other temples, after an elegant manner, out of the spoils he had taken in this war. He also rebuilt the old city, and added another to it on the outside, and so far restored Babylon, that none who should besiege it afterwards might have it in their power to divert the river, so as to facilitate an entrance into it; and this he did by building three walls about the inner city, and three about the outer. Some of these walls he built of burnt brick and bitumen, and some of brick only. So when he had thus fortified the city with walls, after an excellent manner, and had adorned the gates magnificently, he added a new palace to that which his father had dwelt in, and this close by it also, and that more eminent in its height, and in its great splendor. It would perhaps require too long a narration, if any one were to describe it. However, as prodigiously large and as magnificent as it was, it was finished in fifteen days. Now in this palace he erected very high walks, supported by stone pillars, and by planting what was called a pensile paradise, and replenishing it with all sorts of trees, he rendered the prospect an exact resemblance of a mountainous country. This he did to please his queen, because she had been brought up in Media, and was fond of a mountainous situation."
19. I will now share what has been written about us in the Chaldean histories, which have a lot in common with our own texts in other respects as well. Berosus can attest to what I’m saying; he was Chaldean by birth and well-known among scholars for publishing the Chaldean books on astronomy and philosophy to the Greeks. Berosus, therefore, following the oldest records of that nation, tells us about the flood that occurred, which led to the destruction of humanity, and he agrees with Moses’s account of it. He also recounts the story of the ark where Noah, the ancestor of our race, was saved, after it was brought to the highest part of the Armenian mountains; afterward, he lists the descendants of Noah and includes their years in the chronology, eventually leading down to Nabopolassar, who was the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans. When he discusses the deeds of this king, he describes how he sent his son Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt and our land with a large army after hearing they had revolted; he defeated them all, set fire to our temple in Jerusalem, and completely removed our people from their homeland, taking them to Babylon. Consequently, our city lay desolate for seventy years until the days of Cyrus, king of Persia. He then states, "This Babylonian king conquered Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, and Arabia, surpassing all previous rulers in Babylon and Chaldea." Shortly after this, Berosus adds what follows in his History of Ancient Times. I will provide Berosus’s own accounts: "When Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, heard that the governor he had appointed over Egypt and the regions of Celesyria and Phoenicia had revolted, he could no longer tolerate it. He entrusted parts of his army to his young son Nebuchadnezzar and sent him against the rebel. Nebuchadnezzar engaged in battle, defeated him, and brought the territory back under his control. At that time, his father Nabopolassar fell ill and died in the city of Babylon after reigning for twenty-nine years. As soon as he learned of his father's death, he organized the affairs of Egypt and the other regions, entrusting the captives he had taken from the Jews, Phoenicians, and Syrians, along with those from Egypt, to some of his friends to lead those equipped with heavy armor and their other belongings back to Babylonia. Meanwhile, he hurried with just a few companions across the desert to Babylon; upon arrival, he found that the Chaldeans had managed public affairs and that their leading member had preserved the kingdom for him. As a result, he fully inherited all his father’s dominions. He arrived and arranged for the captives to be settled as colonies in the most suitable areas of Babylonia; for himself, he decorated the temple of Belus and the other temples beautifully with the spoils from this war. He also rebuilt the old city and added another outside of it, restoring Babylon to the point where no one who besieged it could divert the river to gain entry; he accomplished this by building three walls around the inner city and three around the outer city. Some of these walls were made of burnt brick and bitumen, while others were just made of brick. Once he had fortified the city with well-constructed walls and magnificently adorned the gates, he added a new palace next to the one his father lived in, both close together, with the new one being taller and more splendid. It might take quite a while to describe it fully. Nevertheless, as impressively large and magnificent as it was, it was completed in fifteen days. In this palace, he built high terraces supported by stone pillars, and by planting what was called a hanging garden and filling it with all kinds of trees, he made the view closely resemble a mountainous area. He did this to please his queen, who had grown up in Media and longed for a mountainous environment."
20. This is what Berosus relates concerning the forementioned king, as he relates many other things about him also in the third book of his Chaldean History; wherein he complains of the Grecian writers for supposing, without any foundation, that Babylon was built by Semiramis, 14 queen of Assyria, and for her false pretense to those wonderful edifices thereto buildings at Babylon, do no way contradict those ancient and relating, as if they were her own workmanship; as indeed in these affairs the Chaldean History cannot but be the most credible. Moreover, we meet with a confirmation of what Berosus says in the archives of the Phoenicians, concerning this king Nabuchodonosor, that he conquered all Syria and Phoenicia; in which case Philostratus agrees with the others in that history which he composed, where he mentions the siege of Tyre; as does Megasthenes also, in the fourth book of his Indian History, wherein he pretends to prove that the forementioned king of the Babylonians was superior to Hercules in strength and the greatness of his exploits; for he says that he conquered a great part of Libya, and conquered Iberia also. Now as to what I have said before about the temple at Jerusalem, that it was fought against by the Babylonians, and burnt by them, but was opened again when Cyrus had taken the kingdom of Asia, shall now be demonstrated from what Berosus adds further upon that head; for thus he says in his third book: "Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall, fell sick, and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years; whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom. He governed public affairs after an illegal and impure manner, and had a plot laid against him by Neriglissoor, his sister's husband, and was slain by him when he had reigned but two years. After he was slain, Neriglissoor, the person who plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and reigned four years; his son Laborosoarchod obtained the kingdom, though he was but a child, and kept it nine mouths; but by reason of the very ill temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world, a plot was laid against him also by his friends, and he was tormented to death. After his death, the conspirators got together, and by common consent put the crown upon the head of Nabonnedus, a man of Babylon, and one who belonged to that insurrection. In his reign it was that the walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen; but when he was come to the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army; and having already conquered all the rest of Asia, he came hastily to Babylonia. When Nabonnedus perceived he was coming to attack him, he met him with his forces, and joining battle with him was beaten, and fled away with a few of his troops with him, and was shut up within the city Borsippus. Hereupon Cyrus took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls of the city should be demolished, because the city had proved very troublesome to him, and cost him a great deal of pains to take it. He then marched away to Borsippus, to besiege Nabonnedus; but as Nabonnedus did not sustain the siege, but delivered himself into his hands, he was at first kindly used by Cyrus, who gave him Carmania, as a place for him to inhabit in, but sent him out of Babylonia. Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country, and there died."
20. This is what Berosus says about the aforementioned king, and he shares many other details about him in the third book of his Chaldean History, where he criticizes Greek writers for wrongly believing, without any evidence, that Semiramis, queen of Assyria, built Babylon. He argues that her false claims about the amazing buildings in Babylon don’t align with ancient accounts, as they are not her creations; the Chaldean History is undoubtedly the most reliable source on these matters. Additionally, we find support for Berosus's account in the archives of the Phoenicians regarding King Nebuchadnezzar, who conquered all of Syria and Phoenicia. Philostratus agrees with this in his historical account, mentioning the siege of Tyre, just like Megasthenes does in the fourth book of his Indian History, where he tries to prove that the Babylonian king was stronger and more accomplished than Hercules since he conquered a large part of Libya and Iberia too. Regarding what I mentioned earlier about the temple in Jerusalem, which the Babylonians attacked and burned but was reopened when Cyrus took over Asia, Berosus adds more details on this topic. He states in his third book: "Nebuchadnezzar, after he began to build the aforementioned wall, fell ill and passed away after reigning for forty-three years; then his son Evil-merodach took the throne. He ruled in a corrupt and immoral way, and his brother-in-law Neriglassar plotted against him and killed him after he had reigned for just two years. Following his death, Neriglassar, the conspirator, became king and ruled for four years. His son Laborosoarchod, although just a child, ascended to the throne and held it for nine months; however, due to his terrible character and actions, his allies conspired against him, and he was killed. After his death, the conspirators agreed to crown Nabonidus, a Babylonian, and a participant in the uprising. During his reign, the walls of Babylon were expertly constructed with burnt brick and bitumen. But when he reached the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a large army; having already conquered the rest of Asia, he hurried to Babylonia. When Nabonidus realized Cyrus was coming to attack him, he met him with his forces but was defeated and fled with a few troops to the city of Borsippa. As a result, Cyrus took Babylon and ordered the outer walls of the city to be demolished, as taking the city had been very challenging and labor-intensive. He then went to Borsippa to lay siege to Nabonidus; however, since Nabonidus surrendered, Cyrus initially treated him kindly, giving him Carmania as a place to inhabit, but sent him out of Babylonia. Thus, Nabonidus spent the rest of his life there and died."
21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion. In them we have this enumeration of the times of their several kings: "Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom. So that the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians agree with our writings about this temple; and the testimonies here produced are an indisputable and undeniable attestation to the antiquity of our nation. And I suppose that what I have already said may be sufficient to such as are not very contentious.
21. These accounts match the true histories found in our books; as they state that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, left our temple in ruins, and it remained that way for fifty years. However, in the second year of Cyrus's reign, its foundations were laid, and it was completed again in the second year of Darius. I will now add the records from the Phoenicians, as it will be beneficial to provide the reader with ample evidence on this matter. They include this timeline of their kings: "Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years during the reign of their king, Ithobal; after him, Baal reigned for ten years; then judges were appointed to lead the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, judged for two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, for ten months; Abbar, the high priest, for three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, judged for six years; after them, Balatorus reigned for one year; after his death, they brought Merbalus from Babylon, who ruled for four years; after his death, they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned for twenty years. During his reign, Cyrus became the king of Persia." Thus, the entire period is fifty-four years and three months; for in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, he began the siege of Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the throne in the fourteenth year of Hirom. Therefore, the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians align with our writings about this temple, and the evidence provided here serves as irrefutable proof of our nation's ancient roots. I believe what I've already stated should be enough for those who are not overly argumentative.
22. But now it is proper to satisfy the inquiry of those that disbelieve the records of barbarians, and think none but Greeks to be worthy of credit, and to produce many of these very Greeks who were acquainted with our nation, and to set before them such as upon occasion have made mention of us in their own writings. Pythagoras, therefore, of Samos, lived in very ancient times, and was esteemed a person superior to all philosophers in wisdom and piety towards God. Now it is plain that he did not only know our doctrines, but was in very great measure a follower and admirer of them. There is not indeed extant any writing that is owned for his 15 but many there are who have written his history, of whom Hermippus is the most celebrated, who was a person very inquisitive into all sorts of history. Now this Hermippus, in his first book concerning Pythagoras, speaks thus: "That Pythagoras, upon the death of one of his associates, whose name was Calliphon, a Crotonlate by birth, affirmed that this man's soul conversed with him both night and day, and enjoined him not to pass over a place where an ass had fallen down; as also not to drink of such waters as caused thirst again; and to abstain from all sorts of reproaches." After which he adds thus: "This he did and said in imitation of the doctrines of the Jews and Thracians, which he transferred into his own philosophy." For it is very truly affirmed of this Pythagoras, that he took a great many of the laws of the Jews into his own philosophy. Nor was our nation unknown of old to several of the Grecian cities, and indeed was thought worthy of imitation by some of them. This is declared by Theophrastus, in his writings concerning laws; for he says that "the laws of the Tyrians forbid men to swear foreign oaths." Among which he enumerates some others, and particularly that called Corban: which oath can only be found among the Jews, and declares what a man may call "A thing devoted to God." Nor indeed was Herodotus of Halicarnassus unacquainted with our nation, but mentions it after a way of his own, when he saith thus, in the second book concerning the Colchians. His words are these: "The only people who were circumcised in their privy members originally, were the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians; but the Phoenicians and those Syrians that are in Palestine confess that they learned it from the Egyptians. And for those Syrians who live about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, and their neighbors the Macrones, they say they have lately learned it from the Colchians; for these are the only people that are circumcised among mankind, and appear to have done the very same thing with the Egyptians. But as for the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I am not able to say which of them received it from the other." This therefore is what Herodotus says, that "the Syrians that are in Palestine are circumcised." But there are no inhabitants of Palestine that are circumcised excepting the Jews; and therefore it must be his knowledge of them that enabled him to speak so much concerning them. Cherilus also, a still ancienter writer, and a poet, 16 makes mention of our nation, and informs us that it came to the assistance of king Xerxes, in his expedition against Greece. For in his enumeration of all those nations, he last of all inserts ours among the rest, when he says, "At the last there passed over a people, wonderful to be beheld; for they spake the Phoenician tongue with their mouths; they dwelt in the Solymean mountains, near a broad lake: their heads were sooty; they had round rasures on them; their heads and faces were like nasty horse-heads also, that had been hardened in the smoke." I think, therefore, that it is evident to every body that Cherilus means us, because the Solymean mountains are in our country, wherein we inhabit, as is also the lake called Asphaltitis; for this is a broader and larger lake than any other that is in Syria: and thus does Cherilus make mention of us. But now that not only the lowest sort of the Grecians, but those that are had in the greatest admiration for their philosophic improvements among them, did not only know the Jews, but when they lighted upon any of them, admired them also, it is easy for any one to know. For Clearchus, who was the scholar of Aristotle, and inferior to no one of the Peripatetics whomsoever, in his first book concerning sleep, says that "Aristotle his master related what follows of a Jew," and sets down Aristotle's own discourse with him. The account is this, as written down by him: "Now, for a great part of what this Jew said, it would be too long to recite it; but what includes in it both wonder and philosophy it may not be amiss to discourse of. Now, that I may be plain with thee, Hyperochides, I shall herein seem to thee to relate wonders, and what will resemble dreams themselves. Hereupon Hyperochides answered modestly, and said, For that very reason it is that all of us are very desirous of hearing what thou art going to say. Then replied Aristotle, For this cause it will be the best way to imitate that rule of the Rhetoricians, which requires us first to give an account of the man, and of what nation he was, that so we may not contradict our master's directions. Then said Hyperochides, Go on, if it so pleases thee. This man then, [answered Aristotle,] was by birth a Jew, and came from Celesyria; these Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their name from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for the name of their city, it is a very awkward one, for they call it Jerusalem. Now this man, when he was hospitably treated by a great many, came down from the upper country to the places near the sea, and became a Grecian, not only in his language, but in his soul also; insomuch that when we ourselves happened to be in Asia about the same places whither he came, he conversed with us, and with other philosophical persons, and made a trial of our skill in philosophy; and as he had lived with many learned men, he communicated to us more information than he received from us." This is Aristotle's account of the matter, as given us by Clearchus; which Aristotle discoursed also particularly of the great and wonderful fortitude of this Jew in his diet, and continent way of living, as those that please may learn more about him from Clearchus's book itself; for I avoid setting down any more than is sufficient for my purpose. Now Clearchus said this by way of digression, for his main design was of another nature. But for Hecateus of Abdera, who was both a philosopher, and one very useful ill an active life, he was contemporary with king Alexander in his youth, and afterward was with Ptolemy, the son of Lagus; he did not write about the Jewish affairs by the by only, but composed an entire book concerning the Jews themselves; out of which book I am willing to run over a few things, of which I have been treating by way of epitome. And, in the first place, I will demonstrate the time when this Hecateus lived; for he mentions the fight that was between Ptolemy and Demetrius about Gaza, which was fought in the eleventh year after the death of Alexander, and in the hundred and seventeenth olympiad, as Castor says in his history. For when he had set down this olympiad, he says further, that "in this olympiad Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, beat in battle Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, who was named Poliorcetes, at Gaza." Now, it is agreed by all, that Alexander died in the hundred and fourteenth olympiad; it is therefore evident that our nation flourished in his time, and in the time of Alexander. Again, Hecateus says to the same purpose, as follows: "Ptolemy got possession of the places in Syria after that battle at Gaza; and many, when they heard of Ptolemy's moderation and humanity, went along with him to Egypt, and were willing to assist him in his affairs; one of whom [Hecateus says] was Hezekiah 17 the high priest of the Jews; a man of about sixty-six years of age, and in great dignity among his own people. He was a very sensible man, and could speak very movingly, and was very skillful in the management of affairs, if any other man ever were so; although, as he says, all the priests of the Jews took tithes of the products of the earth, and managed public affairs, and were in number not above fifteen hundred at the most." Hecateus mentions this Hezekiah a second time, and says, that "as he was possessed of so great a dignity, and was become familiar with us, so did he take certain of those that were with him, and explained to them all the circumstances of their people; for he had all their habitations and polity down in writing." Moreover, Hecateus declares again, "what regard we have for our laws, and that we resolve to endure any thing rather than transgress them, because we think it right for us to do so." Whereupon he adds, that "although they are in a bad reputation among their neighbors, and among all those that come to them, and have been often treated injuriously by the kings and governors of Persia, yet can they not be dissuaded from acting what they think best; but that when they are stripped on this account, and have torments inflicted upon them, and they are brought to the most terrible kinds of death, they meet them after an extraordinary manner, beyond all other people, and will not renounce the religion of their forefathers." Hecateus also produces demonstrations not a few of this their resolute tenaciousness of their laws, when he speaks thus: "Alexander was once at Babylon, and had an intention to rebuild the temple of Belus that was fallen to decay, and in order thereto, he commanded all his soldiers in general to bring earth thither. But the Jews, and they only, would not comply with that command; nay, they underwent stripes and great losses of what they had on this account, till the king forgave them, and permitted them to live in quiet." He adds further, that "when the Macedonians came to them into that country, and demolished the [old] temples and the altars, they assisted them in demolishing them all 18 but [for not assisting them in rebuilding them] they either underwent losses, or sometimes obtained forgiveness." He adds further, that "these men deserve to be admired on that account." He also speaks of the mighty populousness of our nation, and says that "the Persians formerly carried away many ten thousands of our people to Babylon, as also that not a few ten thousands were removed after Alexander's death into Egypt and Phoenicia, by reason of the sedition that was arisen in Syria." The same person takes notice in his history, how large the country is which we inhabit, as well as of its excellent character, and says, that "the land in which the Jews inhabit contains three millions of arourae, 19 and is generally of a most excellent and most fruitful soil; nor is Judea of lesser dimensions." The same man describe our city Jerusalem also itself as of a most excellent structure, and very large, and inhabited from the most ancient times. He also discourses of the multitude of men in it, and of the construction of our temple, after the following manner: "There are many strong places and villages [says he] in the country of Judea; but one strong city there is, about fifty furlongs in circumference, which is inhabited by a hundred and twenty thousand men, or thereabouts; they call it Jerusalem. There is about the middle of the city a wall of stone, whose length is five hundred feet, and the breadth a hundred cubits, with double cloisters; wherein there is a square altar, not made of hewn stone, but composed of white stones gathered together, having each side twenty cubits long, and its altitude ten cubits. Hard by it is a large edifice, wherein there is an altar and a candlestick, both of gold, and in weight two talents: upon these there is a light that is never extinguished, either by night or by day. There is no image, nor any thing, nor any donations therein; nothing at all is there planted, neither grove, nor any thing of that sort. The priests abide therein both nights and days, performing certain purifications, and drinking not the least drop of wine while they are in the temple." Moreover, he attests that we Jews went as auxiliaries along with king Alexander, and after him with his successors. I will add further what he says he learned when he was himself with the same army, concerning the actions of a man that was a Jew. His words are these: "As I was myself going to the Red Sea, there followed us a man, whose name was Mosollam; he was one of the Jewish horsemen who conducted us; he was a person of great courage, of a strong body, and by all allowed to be the most skillful archer that was either among the Greeks or barbarians. Now this man, as people were in great numbers passing along the road, and a certain augur was observing an augury by a bird, and requiring them all to stand still, inquired what they staid for. Hereupon the augur showed him the bird from whence he took his augury, and told him that if the bird staid where he was, they ought all to stand still; but that if he got up, and flew onward, they must go forward; but that if he flew backward, they must retire again. Mosollam made no reply, but drew his bow, and shot at the bird, and hit him, and killed him; and as the augur and some others were very angry, and wished imprecations upon him, he answered them thus: Why are you so mad as to take this most unhappy bird into your hands? for how can this bird give us any true information concerning our march, who could not foresee how to save himself? for had he been able to foreknow what was future, he would not have come to this place, but would have been afraid lest Mosollam the Jew should shoot at him, and kill him." But of Hecateus's testimonies we have said enough; for as to such as desire to know more of them, they may easily obtain them from his book itself. However, I shall not think it too much for me to name Agatharchides, as having made mention of us Jews, though in way of derision at our simplicity, as he supposes it to be; for when he was discoursing of the affairs of Stratonice, "how she came out of Macedonia into Syria, and left her husband Demetrius, while yet Seleueus would not marry her as she expected, but during the time of his raising an army at Babylon, stirred up a sedition about Antioch; and how, after that, the king came back, and upon his taking of Antioch, she fled to Seleucia, and had it in her power to sail away immediately yet did she comply with a dream which forbade her so to do, and so was caught and put to death." When Agatharehides had premised this story, and had jested upon Stratonice for her superstition, he gives a like example of what was reported concerning us, and writes thus: "There are a people called Jews, and dwell in a city the strongest of all other cities, which the inhabitants call Jerusalem, and are accustomed to rest on every seventh day 20 on which times they make no use of their arms, nor meddle with husbandry, nor take care of any affairs of life, but spread out their hands in their holy places, and pray till the evening. Now it came to pass, that when Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, came into this city with his army, that these men, in observing this mad custom of theirs, instead of guarding the city, suffered their country to submit itself to a bitter lord; and their law was openly proved to have commanded a foolish practice. 21 This accident taught all other men but the Jews to disregard such dreams as these were, and not to follow the like idle suggestions delivered as a law, when, in such uncertainty of human reasonings, they are at a loss what they should do." Now this our procedure seems a ridiculous thing to Agatharehides, but will appear to such as consider it without prejudice a great thing, and what deserved a great many encomiums; I mean, when certain men constantly prefer the observation of their laws, and their religion towards God, before the preservation of themselves and their country.
22. But now it’s time to address those who doubt the accounts of non-Greeks and believe that only Greeks deserve to be taken seriously. Let's present many of these Greeks who were familiar with our people and highlight those who mentioned us in their own writings. Pythagoras of Samos, for example, lived a long time ago and was regarded as wiser and more pious than all philosophers toward God. It’s clear that he not only understood our teachings but was also a significant follower and admirer of them. While there are no surviving writings explicitly attributed to him, many have written his biography, with Hermippus being the most notable, known for his curiosity about all kinds of history. In his first book on Pythagoras, Hermippus states: “Pythagoras, upon the death of his friend Calliphon, a man from Croton, claimed that this man’s soul spoke to him day and night, advising him not to walk where a fallen donkey lay, not to drink from waters that would make him thirsty again, and to avoid all sorts of reproaches.” He adds: “He did this and said this in imitation of the teachings of the Jews and Thracians, which he incorporated into his own philosophy.” It’s accurately asserted that Pythagoras adopted many Jewish laws into his philosophy. Our nation was not unknown to several Greek cities in the past and was even seen as worthy of imitation by some of them. This is confirmed by Theophrastus in his writings about laws; he states that “the laws of the Tyrians forbid men from swearing foreign oaths.” Among these, he lists some others, particularly the one called Corban, which is unique to the Jews and refers to what someone can designate as “a thing devoted to God.” Herodotus of Halicarnassus was also aware of our nation and mentions it in his unique way in the second book about the Colchians. He states: “The only people who originally practiced circumcision were the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians; however, the Phoenicians and those Syrians in Palestine admit they learned this from the Egyptians. The Syrians living around the Thermodon and Parthenius rivers, and their neighbors the Macrones, claim they recently learned this from the Colchians; for these are the only people among humanity who are circumcised and appear to have adopted the practice from the Egyptians. As for the Egyptians and Ethiopians, I cannot say which of them acquired it from the other.” Thus, Herodotus notes that “the Syrians in Palestine are circumcised.” However, there are no inhabitants of Palestine who are circumcised except the Jews, so it is clear that his knowledge of them allowed him to speak so extensively about them. Cherilus, an even earlier writer and poet, also mentions our nation, noting that it assisted King Xerxes in his campaign against Greece. When listing all those nations, he finally includes ours, saying, “At last, a wonderful people passed by; they spoke the Phoenician language, lived in the Solymean mountains near a wide lake, their heads were dark, with shaved heads, and their faces resembled rough horse heads that had been blackened by smoke.” So, it’s clear that Cherilus refers to us, as the Solymean mountains are in our country, where we reside, and there is also the lake called Asphaltitis; this lake is broader and larger than any other in Syria. Thus, Cherilus includes us in his writings. It's also evident to everyone that not only the lower classes of Greeks but even those highly esteemed for their philosophical advancements were aware of the Jews, and when they encountered any of them, they admired them. For instance, Clearchus, a student of Aristotle, who was equal to any of the Peripatetics, states in his first book on sleep that “Aristotle, his teacher, recounted the following about a Jew” and shares Aristotle’s discussion with him. The story goes as follows, as written by Clearchus: “Much of what this Jew said is too lengthy to recite, but what encompasses both wonder and philosophy merits discussion. Now, to be clear with you, Hyperochides, this may seem like tales of wonder or dreams. Hyperochides replied politely, saying, ‘That’s exactly why we all eagerly want to hear what you are about to say.’ Then Aristotle continued, ‘For this reason, it’s best to follow that rule of the rhetoricians, which requires us first to introduce the man and state his nationality so we don’t contradict our teacher’s directions.’ Hyperochides replied, ‘Go on, if that pleases you.’ Thus Aristotle said: ‘This man was a Jew by birth and came from Celesyria; these Jews are descended from Indian philosophers; the Indians refer to them as Calami, while the Syrians call them Judaei, named after the country they inhabit, which is Judea. As for the name of their city, it’s quite awkward, for they call it Jerusalem. This man, after being warmly received by many, came down from the mountainous region to coastal areas and became a Greek, not just in language but also in spirit. So much so that when we were in Asia near where he arrived, he conversed with us and other philosophers, testing our philosophical knowledge; and having lived with many scholars, he shared more insights with us than he received.’ This is Aristotle’s account of the matter, conveyed to us by Clearchus, where Aristotle also speaks specifically of the remarkable self-control of this Jew in terms of his diet and way of life, details of which can be learned from Clearchus’s book, as I aim to avoid stating more than what is necessary for my purpose. Clearchus mentioned this as a digression since his main purpose was different. Hecateus of Abdera, a philosopher who was very useful in practical matters, lived during the youth of King Alexander and later was with Ptolemy, son of Lagus. He didn’t only write casually about Jewish affairs but composed an entire book concerning the Jews themselves; from this book, I would like to summarize a few points related to what we've been discussing. First, I will establish when Hecateus lived, as he mentions the battle between Ptolemy and Demetrius over Gaza, fought in the eleventh year after Alexander's death and during the 117th olympiad, as Castor notes in his history. After stating this olympiad, he further remarks that “during this olympiad, Ptolemy, son of Lagus, defeated Demetrius, son of Antigonus, known as Poliorcetes, at Gaza.” It’s generally agreed that Alexander died in the 114th olympiad; thus it’s clear our nation thrived during his time and Alexander's. Hecateus elaborates on the same subject, saying: “Ptolemy took control of territories in Syria after the battle at Gaza; many, drawn by Ptolemy’s moderation and kindness, went with him to Egypt, one of whom was Hezekiah, the high priest of the Jews; a man about sixty-six years old and of high status among his people. He was a very reasonable man, capable of speaking persuasively, and skilled in managing affairs, possibly more so than anyone else; although he mentions that all the priests of the Jews took tithes from the earth’s produce and managed public affairs, totaling no more than fifteen hundred at most.” Hecateus mentions Hezekiah again, stating that “due to his significant rank and having become familiar with us, he shared with those accompanying him all the details of his people; for he had documented all their settlements and governance.” Furthermore, Hecateus reiterates, “We have great respect for our laws and resolve to endure anything rather than violate them, as we believe it is right to do so.” He adds that “although they have a poor reputation among their neighbors and all who come to them, and have often suffered mistreatment from the kings and governors of Persia, they cannot be discouraged from doing what they deem best; even when they are stripped and face severe punishments and tragic deaths, they confront them in a way that surpasses all other people and will not renounce their ancestral religion.” Hecateus offers several examples of this steadfast adherence to their laws, stating, “Once, when Alexander was in Babylon, he intended to rebuild the deteriorating temple of Belus and commanded all his soldiers to bring dirt to that site. But the Jews, and they alone, refused to follow that order; in fact, they endured beatings and considerable losses for it until the king pardoned them and allowed them to live in peace.” He goes on to state that “when the Macedonians invaded their country and destroyed the [old] temples and altars, they assisted in their destruction but did not help rebuild them; instead, they faced losses or sometimes gained forgiveness.” He concludes that “these men deserve admiration for that reason.” He also speaks of the large population of our nation, stating, “The Persians previously took away tens of thousands of our people to Babylon, and not a few tens of thousands were moved after Alexander's death to Egypt and Phoenicia due to the conflict that arose in Syria.” This same individual notes in his history the vast area we inhabit and its excellent quality, saying, “The land inhabited by the Jews covers three million arourae, and is generally incredibly fertile; Judea is not of smaller dimensions.” Additionally, he describes our city, Jerusalem, as having an excellent structure, being very large, and inhabited since ancient times. He discusses the many people in it and the construction of our temple as follows: “There are many strongholds and villages in the land of Judea, but one strong city, approximately fifty furlongs in circumference, is inhabited by around one hundred and twenty thousand people: they call this city Jerusalem. In the center of the city is a stone wall measuring five hundred feet in length, a hundred cubits in width, with double colonnades; within, there is a square altar made not of hewn stone but built from gathered white stones, each side measuring twenty cubits long and its height ten cubits. Nearby is a large structure containing an altar and a candlestick, both made of gold and weighing two talents: there is a light on these that is never extinguished, day or night. There is no image or anything else, nor any offerings; nothing is planted there, neither grove nor anything similar. The priests dwell there both night and day, performing certain purifications and drink not a drop of wine while in the temple.” Moreover, he affirms that we Jews served as auxiliaries alongside King Alexander and afterward with his successors. I will add what he claimed to learn while he was with the same army regarding the actions of a Jewish man. His words are: “As I was on my way to the Red Sea, a man named Mosollam followed us; he was one of the Jewish horsemen guiding us, a person of great courage, well-built, and widely considered the most skilled archer among both Greeks and non-Greeks. As many people passed along the road and an augur was observing an omen from a bird and instructed them all to remain still, he asked why they were stalling. The augur then showed him the bird he was using for his augury and said that if the bird stayed put, they should all remain still; but if it took off and flew away, they should proceed; and if it flew back, they needed to retreat. Mosollam didn’t respond but drew his bow, shot at the bird, and killed it; as the augur and some others were very upset and cursed him, he replied: ‘Why are you so foolish as to take this miserable bird seriously? How can this bird provide us with accurate guidance for our journey when it couldn’t even foresee its own demise? If it had that ability, it wouldn’t have come here but would have been fearful that Mosollam the Jew would shoot it and end its life.’” As for Hecateus’s testimonies, we have covered enough; for those wanting more can easily find it in his book. However, I think it’s also worth mentioning Agatharchides, who referred to us Jews, albeit mockingly regarding our simplicity, as he perceives it. While discussing the matters of Stratonice, “how she left her husband Demetrius to come from Macedonia into Syria, while Seleucus wouldn’t marry her as she hoped, but during his preparations for an army in Babylon ignited a conflict around Antioch; afterwards, when the king returned and captured Antioch, she fled to Seleucia and had the chance to sail away but obeyed a dream that prohibited her from doing so, thus she was caught and executed.” After introducing this tale and mocking Stratonice for her superstition, Agatharchides gives a similar example regarding us, writing: “There is a people called Jews, who reside in the strongest of all cities, which the inhabitants call Jerusalem, and they are accustomed to rest every seventh day on which they do not use weapons, engage in agriculture, or attend to any daily affairs; instead, they extend their hands in their holy places and pray until evening. It so happened that when Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, entered this city with his army, these men, adhering to their foolish custom, failed to guard the city, allowing their land to submit to a cruel ruler; thus their law was clearly established to command a foolish practice. This incident taught all other men, except the Jews, to disregard such dreams and avoid following similar idle notions as a law, especially when faced with the uncertainty of human reasoning in their dilemmas.” Agatharchides considers this practice ridiculous, but for those who view it impartially, it stands out as remarkable and deserving of praise; I mean, when individuals constantly prioritize the observance of their laws and their devotion to God over their own survival and that of their homeland.
23. Now that some writers have omitted to mention our nation, not because they knew nothing of us, but because they envied us, or for some other unjustifiable reasons, I think I can demonstrate by particular instances; for Hieronymus, who wrote the History of Alexander's Successors, lived at the same time with Hecateus, and was a friend of king Antigonus, and president of Syria. Now it is plain that Hecateus wrote an entire book concerning us, while Hieronymus never mentions us in his history, although he was bred up very near to the places where we live. Thus different from one another are the inclinations of men; while the one thought we deserved to be carefully remembered, as some ill-disposed passion blinded the other's mind so entirely, that he could not discern the truth. And now certainly the foregoing records of the Egyptians, and Chaldeans, and Phoenicians, together with so many of the Greek writers, will be sufficient for the demonstration of our antiquity. Moreover, besides those forementioned, Theophilus, and Theodotus, and Mnaseas, and Aristophanes, and Hermogenes, Euhemerus also, and Conon, and Zopyrion, and perhaps many others, [for I have not lighted upon all the Greek books,] have made distinct mention of us. It is true, many of the men before mentioned have made great mistakes about the true accounts of our nation in the earliest times, because they had not perused our sacred books; yet have they all of them afforded their testimony to our antiquity, concerning which I am now treating. However, Demetrius Phalereus, and the elder Philo, with Eupolemus, have not greatly missed the truth about our affairs; whose lesser mistakes ought therefore to be forgiven them; for it was not in their power to understand our writings with the utmost accuracy.
23. Some writers have chosen not to mention our nation, not because they were unaware of us, but because they envied us or for some other unfair reasons. I can illustrate this with specific examples; for Hieronymus, who wrote the History of Alexander's Successors, lived at the same time as Hecateus, and was a friend of King Antigonus and the governor of Syria. It’s clear that Hecateus wrote an entire book about us, while Hieronymus never mentions us in his history, despite being very close to where we live. This highlights how different people's attitudes can be; one recognized that we deserved to be remembered, while the other was blinded by some negative bias, preventing him from recognizing the truth. The previous writings of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Phoenicians, along with so many Greek writers, are more than enough to showcase our ancient history. Furthermore, beyond those already mentioned, Theophilus, Theodotus, Mnaseas, Aristophanes, Hermogenes, Euhemerus, Conon, Zopyrion, and perhaps many others—since I haven’t come across all Greek writings—have specifically acknowledged us. It's true that many of the men mentioned earlier made significant errors regarding the true history of our nation in ancient times because they hadn’t consulted our sacred texts. Yet, they have all contributed to the evidence of our antiquity, which I am currently discussing. However, Demetrius Phalereus, the elder Philo, and Eupolemus haven’t strayed too far from the truth about our matters; their minor mistakes should be forgiven, as it wasn’t possible for them to fully comprehend our writings with complete precision.
24. One particular there is still remaining behind of what I at first proposed to speak to, and that is, to demonstrate that those calumnies and reproaches which some have thrown upon our nation, are lies, and to make use of those writers' own testimonies against themselves; and that in general this self-contradiction hath happened to many other authors by reason of their ill-will to some people, I conclude, is not unknown to such as have read histories with sufficient care; for some of them have endeavored to disgrace the nobility of certain nations, and of some of the most glorious cities, and have cast reproaches upon certain forms of government. Thus hath Theopompus abused the city of Athens, Polycrates that of Lacedemon, as hath he hat wrote the Tripoliticus [for he is not Theopompus, as is supposed by some] done by the city of Thebes. Timeils also hath greatly abused the foregoing people and others also; and this ill-treatment they use chiefly when they have a contest with men of the greatest reputation; some out of envy and malice, and others as supposing that by this foolish talking of theirs they may be thought worthy of being remembered themselves; and indeed they do by no means fail of their hopes, with regard to the foolish part of mankind, but men of sober judgment still condemn them of great malignity.
24. There’s one specific point I still want to address, and that is to show that the slanders and insults some have directed at our nation are false, and to use those writers' own statements against them. In general, this inconsistency has occurred with many other authors because of their bias against certain groups, which is something that anyone who has carefully read history would recognize. Some of them have tried to tarnish the reputation of the nobility in particular nations and some of the most renowned cities, while also criticizing specific forms of government. For instance, Theopompus has insulted the city of Athens, Polycrates has done the same for Lacedemon, and the author of the Tripoliticus [who is not Theopompus, as some believe] has targeted the city of Thebes. Timeils has also harshly criticized the aforementioned peoples and others; this mistreatment often comes when they compete against highly regarded individuals. Some act out of jealousy and spite, while others think that by speaking foolishly, they might be remembered themselves. Indeed, they often achieve their aims among the less discerning people, but those of clear judgment still condemn them for their malice.
25. Now the Egyptians were the first that cast reproaches upon us; in order to please which nation, some others undertook to pervert the truth, while they would neither own that our forefathers came into Egypt from another country, as the fact was, nor give a true account of our departure thence. And indeed the Egyptians took many occasions to hate us and envy us: in the first place, because our ancestors had had the dominion over their country? and when they were delivered from them, and gone to their own country again, they lived there in prosperity. In the next place, the difference of our religion from theirs hath occasioned great enmity between us, while our way of Divine worship did as much exceed that which their laws appointed, as does the nature of God exceed that of brute beasts; for so far they all agree through the whole country, to esteem such animals as gods, although they differ one from another in the peculiar worship they severally pay to them. And certainly men they are entirely of vain and foolish minds, who have thus accustomed themselves from the beginning to have such bad notions concerning their gods, and could not think of imitating that decent form of Divine worship which we made use of, though, when they saw our institutions approved of by many others, they could not but envy us on that account; for some of them have proceeded to that degree of folly and meanness in their conduct, as not to scruple to contradict their own ancient records, nay, to contradict themselves also in their writings, and yet were so blinded by their passions as not to discern it.
25. The Egyptians were the first to insult us; to please them, some others twisted the truth. They wouldn’t admit that our ancestors came to Egypt from another country, as it really happened, nor would they give an accurate account of our departure from there. In fact, the Egyptians found many reasons to hate and envy us: first, because our ancestors once ruled over their land; and when they were freed from us and returned to their own country, they prospered there. Next, the differences in our religions created significant hostility between us. Our way of worship was far superior to what their laws prescribed, just as the nature of God is far greater than that of animals. Throughout the country, they all agreed to worship such animals as gods, even though they had different practices for each one. It’s clear that they are foolish and misguided, having long held such poor views about their gods, and they couldn’t bring themselves to adopt the dignified form of worship we practiced. Even when they saw many others approving of our traditions, they couldn’t help but feel envious. Some of them have gone as far as to contradict their ancient records and even their own writings, completely blinded by their biases.
26. And now I will turn my discourse to one of their principal writers, whom I have a little before made use of as a witness to our antiquity; I mean Manetho. 22 He promised to interpret the Egyptian history out of their sacred writings, and premised this: that "our people had come into Egypt, many ten thousands in number, and subdued its inhabitants;" and when he had further confessed that "we went out of that country afterward, and settled in that country which is now called Judea, and there built Jerusalem and its temple." Now thus far he followed his ancient records; but after this he permits himself, in order to appear to have written what rumors and reports passed abroad about the Jews, and introduces incredible narrations, as if he would have the Egyptian multitude, that had the leprosy and other distempers, to have been mixed with us, as he says they were, and that they were condemned to fly out of Egypt together; for he mentions Amenophis, a fictitious king's name, though on that account he durst not set down the number of years of his reign, which yet he had accurately done as to the other kings he mentions; he then ascribes certain fabulous stories to this king, as having in a manner forgotten how he had already related that the departure of the shepherds for Jerusalem had been five hundred and eighteen years before; for Tethmosis was king when they went away. Now, from his days, the reigns of the intermediate kings, according to Manethe, amounted to three hundred and ninety-three years, as he says himself, till the two brothers Sethos and Hermeus; the one of whom, Sethos, was called by that other name of Egyptus, and the other, Hermeus, by that of Danaus. He also says that Sethos east the other out of Egypt, and reigned fifty-nine years, as did his eldest son Rhampses reign after him sixty-six years. When Manethe therefore had acknowledged that our forefathers were gone out of Egypt so many years ago, he introduces his fictitious king Amenophis, and says thus: "This king was desirous to become a spectator of the gods, as had Orus, one of his predecessors in that kingdom, desired the same before him; he also communicated that his desire to his namesake Amenophis, who was the son of Papis, and one that seemed to partake of a divine nature, both as to wisdom and the knowledge of futurities." Manethe adds, "how this namesake of his told him that he might see the gods, if he would clear the whole country of the lepers and of the other impure people; that the king was pleased with this injunction, and got together all that had any defect in their bodies out of Egypt; and that their number was eighty thousand; whom he sent to those quarries which are on the east side of the Nile, that they might work in them, and might be separated from the rest of the Egyptians." He says further, that "there were some of the learned priests that were polluted with the leprosy; but that still this Amenophis, the wise man and the prophet, was afraid that the gods would be angry at him and at the king, if there should appear to have been violence offered them; who also added this further, [out of his sagacity about futurities,] that certain people would come to the assistance of these polluted wretches, and would conquer Egypt, and keep it in their possession thirteen years; that, however, he durst not tell the king of these things, but that he left a writing behind him about all those matters, and then slew himself, which made the king disconsolate." After which he writes thus verbatim: "After those that were sent to work in the quarries had continued in that miserable state for a long while, the king was desired that he would set apart the city Avaris, which was then left desolate of the shepherds, for their habitation and protection; which desire he granted them. Now this city, according to the ancient theology, was Typho's city. But when these men were gotten into it, and found the place fit for a revolt, they appointed themselves a ruler out of the priests of Hellopolis, whose name was Osarsiph, and they took their oaths that they would be obedient to him in all things. He then, in the first place, made this law for them, That they should neither worship the Egyptian gods, nor should abstain from any one of those sacred animals which they have in the highest esteem, but kill and destroy them all; that they should join themselves to nobody but to those that were of this confederacy. When he had made such laws as these, and many more such as were mainly opposite to the customs of the Egyptians, 23 he gave order that they should use the multitude of the hands they had in building walls about their City, and make themselves ready for a war with king Amenophis, while he did himself take into his friendship the other priests, and those that were polluted with them, and sent ambassadors to those shepherds who had been driven out of the land by Tefilmosis to the city called Jerusalem; whereby he informed them of his own affairs, and of the state of those others that had been treated after such an ignominious manner, and desired that they would come with one consent to his assistance in this war against Egypt. He also promised that he would, in the first place, bring them back to their ancient city and country Avaris, and provide a plentiful maintenance for their multitude; that he would protect them and fight for them as occasion should require, and would easily reduce the country under their dominion. These shepherds were all very glad of this message, and came away with alacrity all together, being in number two hundred thousand men; and in a little time they came to Avaris. And now Amenophis the king of Egypt, upon his being informed of their invasion, was in great confusion, as calling to mind what Amenophis, the son of Papis, had foretold him; and, in the first place, he assembled the multitude of the Egyptians, and took counsel with their leaders, and sent for their sacred animals to him, especially for those that were principally worshipped in their temples, and gave a particular charge to the priests distinctly, that they should hide the images of their gods with the utmost care he also sent his son Sethos, who was also named Ramesses, from his father Rhampses, being but five years old, to a friend of his. He then passed on with the rest of the Egyptians, being three hundred thousand of the most warlike of them, against the enemy, who met them. Yet did he not join battle with them; but thinking that would be to fight against the gods, he returned back and came to Memphis, where he took Apis and the other sacred animals which he had sent for to him, and presently marched into Ethiopia, together with his whole army and multitude of Egyptians; for the king of Ethiopia was under an obligation to him, on which account he received him, and took care of all the multitude that was with him, while the country supplied all that was necessary for the food of the men. He also allotted cities and villages for this exile, that was to be from its beginning during those fatally determined thirteen years. Moreover, he pitched a camp for his Ethiopian army, as a guard to king Amenophis, upon the borders of Egypt. And this was the state of things in Ethiopia. But for the people of Jerusalem, when they came down together with the polluted Egyptians, they treated the men in such a barbarous manner, that those who saw how they subdued the forementioned country, and the horrid wickedness they were guilty of, thought it a most dreadful thing; for they did not only set the cities and villages on fire but were not satisfied till they had been guilty of sacrilege, and destroyed the images of the gods, and used them in roasting those sacred animals that used to be worshipped, and forced the priests and prophets to be the executioners and murderers of those animals, and then ejected them naked out of the country. It was also reported that the priest, who ordained their polity and their laws, was by birth of Hellopolls, and his name Osarsiph, from Osyris, who was the god of Hellopolls; but that when he was gone over to these people, his name was changed, and he was called Moses."
26. Now, I will focus my discussion on one of their main writers, whom I previously mentioned as evidence of our ancient history; I’m referring to Manetho. 22 He promised to interpret Egyptian history from their sacred texts, stating that "our people entered Egypt, in great numbers, and conquered its inhabitants"; and he further acknowledged that "we later left that country and settled in what is now called Judea, where we built Jerusalem and its temple." Up to this point, he adhered to his ancient records; but then he diverged, seemingly to include the rumors and stories that circulated about the Jews, introducing unbelievable accounts. He claimed, for instance, that those afflicted with leprosy and other ailments among the Egyptians were mixed with us, and that they were all banished from Egypt together. He even mentions Amenophis, a fictional king, but he didn't dare specify the duration of his reign, even though he had accurately recorded the reigns of other kings. He attributed various legendary tales to this king, despite having previously stated that the shepherds left for Jerusalem five hundred and eighteen years before, while Tethmosis was king at that time. According to Manetho, the reigns of the kings before the two brothers Sethos and Hermeus lasted three hundred and ninety-three years. Sethos, one of the brothers, was also known as Egyptus, while Hermeus was referred to as Danaus. He claimed that Sethos drove the other brother out of Egypt and reigned for fifty-nine years, while his firstborn son Rhampses reigned for sixty-six years after him. Now, after Manetho had confirmed that our ancestors had exited Egypt so long ago, he introduces his fictional king Amenophis, who supposedly wished to witness the gods as Orus, one of his predecessors, had before him. Amenophis shared his wish with his namesake, Amenophis, the son of Papis, who seemed to possess divine qualities in both wisdom and prophetic insight. Manetho adds that this namesake advised him that he could see the gods if he cleansed the country of lepers and other impure people; the king liked this suggestion and rounded up all the physically imperfect people from Egypt, totaling eighty thousand, sending them to the quarries east of the Nile so they could work there, separated from the other Egyptians. He further states that some educated priests had been afflicted with leprosy; however, this Amenophis, being wise and prophetic, feared that the gods would punish him and the king if it appeared they had been harmed. He foresaw that certain people would ally with these afflicted individuals, conquer Egypt, and maintain control for thirteen years; yet he dared not inform the king of any of this, instead leaving behind a written account of all that happened, ultimately leading him to take his own life, which left the king despondent. Afterward, he records: "After those sent to toil in the quarries had endured a long time in their miserable state, the king was asked to dedicate the city Avaris, which had been left empty by the shepherds, for their settlement and protection, a request he granted. According to ancient tradition, this city was Typho’s. Once these men entered and found the place suitable for revolt, they chose a leader from the priests of Hellopolis named Osarsiph, pledging their loyalty to him in all matters. He then first established a law that they should neither honor the Egyptian gods nor abstain from killing any of the sacred animals they valued, but rather exterminate them all; they were instructed to only associate with members of their coalition. After instituting such laws, along with many more that directly contradicted Egyptian customs, 23 he ordered them to utilize the many hands they had to construct walls around their city and prepare for war against king Amenophis. Meanwhile, he formed alliances with other priests, the polluted individuals, and sent envoys to the shepherds who had been ousted from the land by Tethmosis to the city known as Jerusalem. He shared his own situation and that of those unjustly treated, calling for united assistance in the war against Egypt. He promised initially to return them to their ancient city and homeland Avaris, ensure ample provisions for their numbers, and protect and fight for them as needed, vowing to easily reclaim land under their control. The shepherds welcomed this message eagerly, departing together with two hundred thousand men, and soon arrived at Avaris. Upon learning of their invasion, Amenophis, the king of Egypt, was thrown into turmoil, recalling what Amenophis, the son of Papis, had predicted. He first gathered the Egyptians, consulted their leaders, and summoned their sacred animals, especially those primarily worshiped in their temples, giving special instructions to the priests to hide the images of their gods as securely as possible. He also sent his son Sethos, also called Ramesses after his father Rhampses, merely five years old, to a family friend. He then marched out with the most valiant three hundred thousand Egyptians against the enemy, although he did not engage directly in battle; thinking it would be sacrilegious to fight against the gods, he retreated back to Memphis, where he collected Apis and the other sacred animals that he had summoned, and promptly marched into Ethiopia, along with his entire army and multitude of Egyptians. The king of Ethiopia owed him a favor, so he welcomed him and provided for all the people accompanying him, as the land supplied every necessity for their sustenance. Cities and villages were allocated for this exile, which would be supported throughout those fateful thirteen years. Additionally, he established a camp for his Ethiopian forces to guard king Amenophis at the borders of Egypt. This was the situation in Ethiopia. For the people of Jerusalem, upon joining forces with the polluted Egyptians, they executed the men in such a brutal fashion that onlookers were horrified by how they decimated the aforementioned land and the unspeakable crimes they committed. They not only set fire to cities and villages but also engaged in sacrilege and demolished the idols of the gods, using them to roast the sacred animals they used to worship, coercing the priests and prophets into becoming murderers of those animals, thereafter expelling them naked from the land. Furthermore, it was said that the priest who set up their governing system and laws was originally from Hellopolis, named Osarsiph, after Osyris, the god of Hellopolis; once he joined this group, his name was changed to Moses."
27. This is what the Egyptians relate about the Jews, with much more, which I omit for the sake of brevity. But still Manetho goes on, that "after this, Amenophis returned back from Ethiopia with a great army, as did his son Ahampses with another army also, and that both of them joined battle with the shepherds and the polluted people, and beat them, and slew a great many of them, and pursued them to the bounds of Syria." These and the like accounts are written by Manetho. But I will demonstrate that he trifles, and tells arrant lies, after I have made a distinction which will relate to what I am going to say about him; for this Manetho had granted and confessed that this nation was not originally Egyptian, but that they had come from another country, and subdued Egypt, and then went away again out of it. But that those Egyptians who were thus diseased in their bodies were not mingled with us afterward, and that Moses who brought the people out was not one of that company, but lived many generations earlier, I shall endeavor to demonstrate from Manetho's own accounts themselves.
27. This is what the Egyptians say about the Jews, along with a lot more that I’ll skip for brevity. However, Manetho continues by stating that "after this, Amenophis returned from Ethiopia with a large army, as did his son Ahampses with another army, and both of them fought against the shepherds and the impure people, defeated them, killed many of them, and chased them to the borders of Syria." These and similar stories are recorded by Manetho. But I will show that he is making trivial statements and telling outright lies, after I make a clarification related to what I’m going to say about him; for Manetho has admitted that this nation was not originally Egyptian, but that they had come from another place, conquered Egypt, and then left it again. Additionally, that the Egyptians who were suffering from diseases were never mixed with us afterward, and that Moses, who led the people out, was not part of that group but lived many generations earlier, I will try to prove using Manetho's own writings.
28. Now, for the first occasion of this fiction, Manetho supposes what is no better than a ridiculous thing; for he says that, "King Amenophis desired to see the gods." What gods, I pray, did he desire to see? If he meant the gods whom their laws ordained to be worshipped, the ox, the goat, the crocodile, and the baboon, he saw them already; but for the heavenly gods, how could he see them, and what should occasion this his desire? To be sure? it was because another king before him had already seen them. He had then been informed what sort of gods they were, and after what manner they had been seen, insomuch that he did not stand in need of any new artifice for obtaining this sight. However, the prophet by whose means the king thought to compass his design was a wise man. If so, how came he not to know that such his desire was impossible to be accomplished? for the event did not succeed. And what pretense could there be to suppose that the gods would not be seen by reason of the people's maims in their bodies, or leprosy? for the gods are not angry at the imperfection of bodies, but at wicked practices; and as to eighty thousand lepers, and those in an ill state also, how is it possible to have them gathered together in one day? nay, how came the king not to comply with the prophet? for his injunction was, that those that were maimed should be expelled out of Egypt, while the king only sent them to work in the quarries, as if he were rather in want of laborers, than intended to purge his country. He says further, that, "this prophet slew himself, as foreseeing the anger of the gods, and those events which were to come upon Egypt afterward; and that he left this prediction for the king in writing." Besides, how came it to pass that this prophet did not foreknow his own death at the first? nay, how came he not to contradict the king in his desire to see the gods immediately? how came that unreasonable dread upon him of judgments that were not to happen in his lifetime? or what worse thing could he suffer, out of the fear of which he made haste to kill himself? But now let us see the silliest thing of all:—The king, although he had been informed of these things, and terrified with the fear of what was to come, yet did not he even then eject these maimed people out of his country, when it had been foretold him that he was to clear Egypt of them; but, as Manetho says, "he then, upon their request, gave them that city to inhabit, which had formerly belonged to the shepherds, and was called Avaris; whither when they were gone in crowds," he says, "they chose one that had formerly been priest of Hellopolls; and that this priest first ordained that they should neither worship the gods, nor abstain from those animals that were worshipped by the Egyptians, but should kill and eat them all, and should associate with nobody but those that had conspired with them; and that he bound the multitude by oaths to be sure to continue in those laws; and that when he had built a wall about Avaris, he made war against the king." Manetho adds also, that "this priest sent to Jerusalem to invite that people to come to his assistance, and promised to give them Avaris; for that it had belonged to the forefathers of those that were coming from Jerusalem, and that when they were come, they made a war immediately against the king, and got possession of all Egypt." He says also that "the Egyptians came with an army of two hundred thousand men, and that Amenophis, the king of Egypt, not thinking that he ought to fight against the gods, ran away presently into Ethiopia, and committed Apis and certain other of their sacred animals to the priests, and commanded them to take care of preserving them." He says further, that, "the people of Jerusalem came accordingly upon the Egyptians, and overthrew their cities, and burnt their temples, and slew their horsemen, and, in short, abstained from no sort of wickedness nor barbarity; and for that priest who settled their polity and their laws," he says, "he was by birth of Hellopolis, and his name was Osarsiph, from Osyris the god of Hellopolis, but that he changed his name, and called himself Moses." He then says that "on the thirteenth year afterward, Amenophis, according to the fatal time of the duration of his misfortunes, came upon them out of Ethiopia with a great army, and joining battle with the shepherds and with the polluted people, overcame them in battle, and slew a great many of them, and pursued them as far as the bounds of Syria."
28. Now, for the first time in this story, Manetho suggests something quite ridiculous; he claims that, "King Amenophis wanted to see the gods." What gods, I ask, did he want to see? If he meant the gods that their laws commanded to be worshipped—the ox, the goat, the crocodile, and the baboon—then he had already seen them. But as for the heavenly gods, how could he see them, and what prompted this desire? Surely it was because another king before him had seen them. He must have learned what kind of gods they were and how they were seen, enough that he didn't need any new trick to achieve this vision. However, the prophet who the king believed could help him was a wise person. If that's the case, why didn't he know that such a desire was impossible to fulfill? Because the outcome was unsuccessful. And what kind of excuse could there be for thinking that the gods wouldn't be seen because of the people's physical ailments or leprosy? The gods are not angered by bodily imperfections but by wicked actions; and as for eighty thousand lepers, especially in bad shape, how could they be gathered together in a single day? Furthermore, why did the king not listen to the prophet? The prophet instructed that the maimed should be banished from Egypt, while the king only sent them to work in the quarries, as if he was more in need of laborers than wanting to cleanse his land. He also states that, "this prophet killed himself, foreseeing the wrath of the gods and the disasters that were to befall Egypt afterward, leaving a written prediction for the king." Additionally, how did this prophet not foresee his own death at the outset? And why didn't he contradict the king’s wish to see the gods right away? Why did he have such an irrational fear of judgments that wouldn’t happen in his lifetime? What worse thing could he have faced that made him rush to end his own life? But now let’s look at the most absurd part: the king, despite being informed and frightened of the impending doom, still didn't expel the maimed people from his land, even though it was foretold that he should cleanse Egypt of them; instead, as Manetho says, "he then, at their request, gave them the city formerly owned by the shepherds, called Avaris; when they arrived in droves," he says, "they chose someone who had previously been a priest of Hellopolis; and this priest first declared that they should neither worship the gods nor refrain from the animals worshipped by the Egyptians, but rather kill and eat them all, and associate only with those who conspired with them; he bound the masses by oaths to ensure they followed these laws; and after building a wall around Avaris, he waged war against the king." Manetho also adds that "this priest sent to Jerusalem to invite that people for help, promising to give them Avaris, as it had belonged to the ancestors of those coming from Jerusalem, and when they arrived, they immediately declared war on the king and took control of all Egypt." He mentions that "the Egyptians assembled an army of two hundred thousand men, and that Amenophis, the king of Egypt, deciding he should not fight against the gods, fled quickly to Ethiopia, leaving Apis and some other sacred animals to the priests, instructing them to protect them." He adds that, "the people from Jerusalem attacked the Egyptians, destroying their cities, burning their temples, killing their cavalry, and engaging in every sort of wickedness and brutality; and as for the priest who established their government and laws," he says, "he was originally from Hellopolis and his name was Osarsiph, derived from Osiris the god of Hellopolis, but he changed his name to Moses." He goes on to say that "in the thirteenth year later, Amenophis, marked by the disastrous timing of his misfortunes, came against them from Ethiopia with a large army, engaged in battle with the shepherds and the defiled people, defeated them, killed many, and pursued them all the way to the borders of Syria."
29. Now Manetho does not reflect upon the improbability of his lie; for the leprous people, and the multitude that was with them, although they might formerly have been angry at the king, and at those that had treated them so coarsely, and this according to the prediction of the prophet; yet certainly, when they were come out of the mines, and had received of the king a city, and a country, they would have grown milder towards him. However, had they ever so much hated him in particular, they might have laid a private plot against himself, but would hardly have made war against all the Egyptians; I mean this on the account of the great kindred they who were so numerous must have had among them. Nay still, if they had resolved to fight with the men, they would not have had impudence enough to fight with their gods; nor would they have ordained laws quite contrary to those of their own country, and to those in which they had been bred up themselves. Yet are we beholden to Manethe, that he does not lay the principal charge of this horrid transgression upon those that came from Jerusalem, but says that the Egyptians themselves were the most guilty, and that they were their priests that contrived these things, and made the multitude take their oaths for doing so. But still how absurd is it to suppose that none of these people's own relations or friends should be prevailed with to revolt, nor to undergo the hazards of war with them, while these polluted people were forced to send to Jerusalem, and bring their auxiliaries from thence! What friendship, I pray, or what relation was there formerly between them that required this assistance? On the contrary, these people were enemies, and greatly differed from them in their customs. He says, indeed, that they complied immediately, upon their praising them that they should conquer Egypt; as if they did not themselves very well know that country out of which they had been driven by force. Now had these men been in want, or lived miserably, perhaps they might have undertaken so hazardous an enterprise; but as they dwelt in a happy city, and had a large country, and one better than Egypt itself, how came it about that, for the sake of those that had of old been their enemies, of those that were maimed in their bodies, and of those whom none of their own relations would endure, they should run such hazards in assisting them? For they could not foresee that the king would run away from them: on the contrary, he saith himself that "Amenophis's son had three hundred thousand men with him, and met them at Pelusium." Now, to be sure, those that came could not be ignorant of this; but for the king's repentance and flight, how could they possibly guess at it? He then says, that "those who came from Jerusalem, and made this invasion, got the granaries of Egypt into their possession, and perpetrated many of the most horrid actions there." And thence he reproaches them, as though he had not himself introduced them as enemies, or as though he might accuse such as were invited from another place for so doing, when the natural Egyptians themselves had done the same things before their coming, and had taken oaths so to do. However, "Amenophis, some time afterward, came upon them, and conquered them in battle, and slew his enemies, and drove them before him as far as Syria." As if Egypt were so easily taken by people that came from any place whatsoever, and as if those that had conquered it by war, when they were informed that Amenophis was alive, did neither fortify the avenues out of Ethiopia into it, although they had great advantages for doing it, nor did get their other forces ready for their defense! but that he followed them over the sandy desert, and slew them as far as Syria; while yet it is rot an easy thing for an army to pass over that country, even without fighting.
29. Now Manetho doesn’t think about how unlikely his story is; because the leprous people and the many with them, although they might have once been angry at the king and those who treated them poorly, as the prophet predicted, would have definitely become more forgiving once they came out of the mines and received a city and land from the king. However, even if they had hated him individually, they might have plotted against him but wouldn’t likely have gone to war against all the Egyptians, considering how many relatives they must have had among them. Moreover, if they had decided to fight the men, they wouldn’t have had the audacity to fight their gods; nor would they have made laws that were completely different from those of their homeland and the upbringing they had received. Yet we owe Manetho some credit for not placing the main blame for this terrible act on those from Jerusalem, but instead saying the Egyptians themselves were most guilty, and that their priests were behind these actions, convincing the people to take oaths to support them. Still, how ridiculous is it to think that not a single one of these people's relatives or friends would be persuaded to rebel or to face the dangers of war with them, while these outcasts had to send to Jerusalem for help? What kind of friendship or relationship was there before that required this support? On the contrary, these were enemies, with customs that greatly differed from theirs. He claims that they complied immediately when they were told they would conquer Egypt; as if they didn’t clearly know about the country they had been forcefully driven from. If these men had been in need or lived poorly, maybe they would have dared to undertake such a risky venture; but since they lived in a prosperous city with a significant territory, better than Egypt itself, why would they take such risks to assist those who had once been their enemies, those who were physically impaired, and those whom none of their own loved ones would tolerate? They couldn’t have predicted the king would abandon them; on the contrary, he himself stated that “Amenophis’s son had three hundred thousand men with him and met them at Pelusium.” Now, surely those who came wouldn’t have been unaware of this; but how could they possibly foresee the king’s regret and flight? He then states that “those who came from Jerusalem and made this invasion took control of Egypt’s granaries and committed many horrific acts there.” And then he criticized them, as if he hadn’t previously introduced them as enemies, or as if he could blame those who had been invited from elsewhere for their actions when the native Egyptians themselves had committed the same acts before they arrived and had taken oaths to do so. However, “Amenophis, some time afterward, confronted them, defeated them in battle, and chased them all the way to Syria.” As if Egypt could be easily taken by anyone from anywhere, and as if those who had conquered it through war, once they learned Amenophis was alive, didn’t prepare to secure the routes from Ethiopia into Egypt, despite having great advantages to do so, nor did they gather their other forces for defense! Instead, he followed them across the sandy desert and defeated them as far as Syria; while it is certainly not easy for an army to traverse that territory, even without a battle.
30. Our nation, therefore, according to Manetho, was not derived from Egypt, nor were any of the Egyptians mingled with us. For it is to be supposed that many of the leprous and distempered people were dead in the mines, since they had been there a long time, and in so ill a condition; many others must be dead in the battles that happened afterward, and more still in the last battle and flight after it.
30. According to Manetho, our nation didn’t come from Egypt, and none of the Egyptians mixed with us. It can be assumed that many of those with leprosy and other ailments died in the mines since they had been there for a long time and in such poor condition. Many others must have died in the battles that followed, and even more in the final battle and the retreat after it.
31. It now remains that I debate with Manetho about Moses. Now the Egyptians acknowledge him to have been a wonderful and a divine person; nay, they would willingly lay claim to him themselves, though after a most abusive and incredible manner, and pretend that he was of Heliopolis, and one of the priests of that place, and was ejected out of it among the rest, on account of his leprosy; although it had been demonstrated out of their records that he lived five hundred and eighteen years earlier, and then brought our forefathers out of Egypt into the country that is now inhabited by us. But now that he was not subject in his body to any such calamity, is evident from what he himself tells us; for he forbade those that had the leprosy either to continue in a city, or to inhabit in a village, but commanded that they should go about by themselves with their clothes rent; and declares that such as either touch them, or live under the same roof with them, should be esteemed unclean; nay, more, if any one of their disease be healed, and he recover his natural constitution again, he appointed them certain purifications, and washings with spring water, and the shaving off all their hair, and enjoins that they shall offer many sacrifices, and those of several kinds, and then at length to be admitted into the holy city; although it were to be expected that, on the contrary, if he had been under the same calamity, he should have taken care of such persons beforehand, and have had them treated after a kinder manner, as affected with a concern for those that were to be under the like misfortunes with himself. Nor was it only those leprous people for whose sake he made these laws, but also for such as should be maimed in the smallest part of their body, who yet are not permitted by him to officiate as priests; nay, although any priest, already initiated, should have such a calamity fall upon him afterward, he ordered him to be deprived of his honor of officiating. How can it then be supposed that Moses should ordain such laws against himself, to his own reproach and damage who so ordained them? Nor indeed is that other notion of Manetho at all probable, wherein he relates the change of his name, and says that "he was formerly called Osarsiph;" and this a name no way agreeable to the other, while his true name was Mosses, and signifies a person who is preserved out of the water, for the Egyptians call water Moil. I think, therefore, I have made it sufficiently evident that Manetho, while he followed his ancient records, did not much mistake the truth of the history; but that when he had recourse to fabulous stories, without any certain author, he either forged them himself, without any probability, or else gave credit to some men who spake so out of their ill-will to us.
31. Now I need to discuss Moses with Manetho. The Egyptians recognize him as an extraordinary and divine figure; in fact, they would love to claim him for themselves, though in a really twisted and unbelievable way. They pretend he was from Heliopolis and one of its priests, and that he was kicked out because of his leprosy. However, their own records show that he lived five hundred eighteen years earlier and led our ancestors out of Egypt into the land we inhabit now. It's clear that he wasn't afflicted with any such condition, as he himself stated; he instructed that those with leprosy should not stay in cities or live in villages, but rather, they should wander alone with torn clothes. He also declared that anyone who touched them or lived under the same roof would be considered unclean. Furthermore, if someone with this disease was healed and returned to health, he required specific purifications, washings in spring water, shaving off all their hair, and offering multiple sacrifices of various kinds before they could finally enter the holy city. Logically, if he were under the same condition, he would have cared for such individuals and treated them more compassionately, understanding their suffering. His laws were not just for those with leprosy but also for anyone who was injured even slightly; they were still not allowed to serve as priests. Moreover, if a priest who had already been initiated suffered such a condition later, he was to be stripped of his ability to officiate. So how could Moses possibly establish laws that are detrimental to himself? The idea that Manetho suggests about a name change is also quite unlikely; he says, “he was formerly called Osarsiph,” which doesn't even line up with his true name, Moses, meaning someone who is saved from the water, since the Egyptians refer to water as Moil. Therefore, I believe I have clearly shown that while Manetho adhered to his ancient records, he didn't stray too far from the truth of the history; but when he resorted to mythical tales without any reliable source, he either created them himself without any basis or relied on those who spoke out of malice toward us.
32. And now I have done with Manetho, I will inquire into what Cheremon says. For he also, when he pretended to write the Egyptian history, sets down the same name for this king that Manetho did, Amenophis, as also of his son Ramesses, and then goes on thus: "The goddess Isis appeared to Amenophis in his sleep, and blamed him that her temple had been demolished in the war. But that Phritiphantes, the sacred scribe, said to him, that in case he would purge Egypt of the men that had pollutions upon them, he should be no longer troubled with such frightful apparitions. That Amenophis accordingly chose out two hundred and fifty thousand of those that were thus diseased, and cast them out of the country: that Moses and Joseph were scribes, and Joseph was a sacred scribe; that their names were Egyptian originally; that of Moses had been Tisithen, and that of Joseph, Peteseph: that these two came to Pelusium, and lighted upon three hundred and eighty thousand that had been left there by Amenophis, he not being willing to carry them into Egypt; that these scribes made a league of friendship with them, and made with them an expedition against Egypt: that Amenophis could not sustain their attacks, but fled into Ethiopia, and left his wife with child behind him, who lay concealed in certain caverns, and there brought forth a son, whose name was Messene, and who, when he was grown up to man's estate, pursued the Jews into Syria, being about two hundred thousand, and then received his father Amenophis out of Ethiopia."
32. Now that I've finished with Manetho, I’ll take a look at what Cheremon says. He also, while claiming to write the history of Egypt, gives the same name for this king as Manetho did: Amenophis, along with his son Ramesses. He continues: "The goddess Isis appeared to Amenophis in his sleep and scolded him for the destruction of her temple during the war. Phritiphantes, the sacred scribe, advised him that if he wanted to cleanse Egypt of the impure people, he wouldn’t have to deal with such terrifying visions anymore. So, Amenophis picked out two hundred and fifty thousand of those afflicted and expelled them from the country. He also noted that Moses and Joseph were scribes, with Joseph being a sacred scribe; that their names were originally Egyptian; that Moses was originally called Tisithen, and Joseph was called Peteseph. These two arrived in Pelusium and found three hundred and eighty thousand people who had been left behind by Amenophis, who didn’t want to bring them into Egypt. The scribes formed a friendship with them and planned an attack against Egypt. Amenophis couldn't withstand their assaults, so he fled to Ethiopia, leaving his pregnant wife behind, who hid in certain caves and gave birth to a son named Messene. When Messene grew up, he pursued the Jews into Syria with about two hundred thousand men and then brought his father Amenophis back from Ethiopia."
33. This is the account Cheremon gives us. Now I take it for granted that what I have said already hath plainly proved the falsity of both these narrations; for had there been any real truth at the bottom, it was impossible they should so greatly disagree about the particulars. But for those that invent lies, what they write will easily give us very different accounts, while they forge what they please out of their own heads. Now Manetho says that the king's desire of seeing the gods was the origin of the ejection of the polluted people; but Cheremon feigns that it was a dream of his own, sent upon him by Isis, that was the occasion of it. Manetho says that the person who foreshowed this purgation of Egypt to the king was Amenophis; but this man says it was Phritiphantes. As to the numbers of the multitude that were expelled, they agree exceedingly well 24 the former reckoning them eighty thousand, and the latter about two hundred and fifty thousand! Now, for Manetho, he describes those polluted persons as sent first to work in the quarries, and says that the city Avaris was given them for their habitation. As also he relates that it was not till after they had made war with the rest of the Egyptians, that they invited the people of Jerusalem to come to their assistance; while Cheremon says only that they were gone out of Egypt, and lighted upon three hundred and eighty thousand men about Pelusium, who had been left there by Amenophis, and so they invaded Egypt with them again; that thereupon Amenophis fled into Ethiopia. But then this Cheremon commits a most ridiculous blunder in not informing us who this army of so many ten thousands were, or whence they came; whether they were native Egyptians, or whether they came from a foreign country. Nor indeed has this man, who forged a dream from Isis about the leprous people, assigned the reason why the king would not bring them into Egypt. Moreover, Cheremon sets down Joseph as driven away at the same time with Moses, who yet died four generations 25 before Moses, which four generations make almost one hundred and seventy years. Besides all this, Ramesses, the son of Amenophis, by Manetho's account, was a young man, and assisted his father in his war, and left the country at the same time with him, and fled into Ethiopia. But Cheremon makes him to have been born in a certain cave, after his father was dead, and that he then overcame the Jews in battle, and drove them into Syria, being in number about two hundred thousand. O the levity of the man! for he had neither told us who these three hundred and eighty thousand were, nor how the four hundred and thirty thousand perished; whether they fell in war, or went over to Ramesses. And, what is the strangest of all, it is not possible to learn out of him who they were whom he calls Jews, or to which of these two parties he applies that denomination, whether to the two hundred and fifty thousand leprous people, or to the three hundred and eighty thousand that were about Pelusium. But perhaps it will be looked upon as a silly thing in me to make any larger confutation of such writers as sufficiently confute themselves; for had they been only confuted by other men, it had been more tolerable.
33. This is what Cheremon tells us. I assume that what I've already said clearly shows the falsehood of both of these accounts; if there had been any real truth in them, they wouldn’t disagree so much about the details. When it comes to those who create lies, their writings can easily present very different versions, as they invent whatever they want from their own imaginations. Manetho says that the king's wish to see the gods led to the expulsion of the contaminated people; but Cheremon pretends that it was his own dream, sent by Isis, that caused it. Manetho claims that Amenophis was the one who warned the king about the cleansing of Egypt, while this man says it was Phritiphantes. As for the number of people who were expelled, they agree quite well 24 with Manetho counting eighty thousand, and the other estimating about two hundred and fifty thousand! Manetho describes those polluted individuals as sent first to work in the quarries and claims that the city of Avaris was given to them as their home. He also mentions that it wasn’t until after they fought against the rest of the Egyptians that they invited the people of Jerusalem for help; while Cheremon simply says that they left Egypt and stumbled upon three hundred and eighty thousand men near Pelusium, who had been left there by Amenophis, and then they invaded Egypt with them again, which made Amenophis flee to Ethiopia. But then Cheremon makes a ridiculous mistake by not telling us who these tens of thousands were or where they came from; whether they were native Egyptians or foreigners. Furthermore, this man, who fabricated a dream from Isis about the leprous people, fails to explain why the king wouldn’t let them into Egypt. Also, Cheremon claims that Joseph was sent away at the same time as Moses, even though Joseph actually died four generations 25 before Moses, which is almost one hundred seventy years. Additionally, according to Manetho, Ramesses, the son of Amenophis, was a young man who assisted his father in battle and left the country at the same time as him to flee to Ethiopia. But Cheremon says he was born in a cave after his father died, and that he later defeated the Jews in battle, driving about two hundred thousand of them into Syria. Oh, the foolishness of this man! He didn’t tell us who these three hundred and eighty thousand were or how the four hundred and thirty thousand died; whether they fell in battle or joined Ramesses. And, most strangely, you can’t figure out from him who he refers to as Jews, or to which of the two groups he gives that label, whether to the two hundred and fifty thousand leprous people or the three hundred and eighty thousand by Pelusium. But perhaps it seems foolish of me to refute writers who clearly contradict themselves; if they were only disproven by others, that would be more acceptable.
34. I shall now add to these accounts about Manethoand Cheremon somewhat about Lysimachus, who hath taken the same topic of falsehood with those forementioned, but hath gone far beyond them in the incredible nature of his forgeries; which plainly demonstrates that he contrived them out of his virulent hatred of our nation. His words are these: "The people of the Jews being leprous and scabby, and subject to certain other kinds of distempers, in the days of Bocchoris, king of Egypt, they fled to the temples, and got their food there by begging: and as the numbers were very great that were fallen under these diseases, there arose a scarcity in Egypt. Hereupon Bocehoris, the king of Egypt, sent some to consult the oracle of [Jupiter] Hammon about his scarcity. The god's answer was this, that he must purge his temples of impure and impious men, by expelling them out of those temples into desert places; but as to the scabby and leprous people, he must drown them, and purge his temples, the sun having an indignation at these men being suffered to live; and by this means the land will bring forth its fruits. Upon Bocchoris's having received these oracles, he called for their priests, and the attendants upon their altars, and ordered them to make a collection of the impure people, and to deliver them to the soldiers, to carry them away into the desert; but to take the leprous people, and wrap them in sheets of lead, and let them down into the sea. Hereupon the scabby and leprous people were drowned, and the rest were gotten together, and sent into desert places, in order to be exposed to destruction. In this case they assembled themselves together, and took counsel what they should do, and determined that, as the night was coming on, they should kindle fires and lamps, and keep watch; that they also should fast the next night, and propitiate the gods, in order to obtain deliverance from them. That on the next day there was one Moses, who advised them that they should venture upon a journey, and go along one road till they should come to places fit for habitation: that he charged them to have no kind regards for any man, nor give good counsel to any, but always to advise them for the worst; and to overturn all those temples and altars of the gods they should meet with: that the rest commended what he had said with one consent, and did what they had resolved on, and so traveled over the desert. But that the difficulties of the journey being over, they came to a country inhabited, and that there they abused the men, and plundered and burnt their temples; and then came into that land which is called Judea, and there they built a city, and dwelt therein, and that their city was named Hierosyla, from this their robbing of the temples; but that still, upon the success they had afterwards, they in time changed its denomination, that it might not be a reproach to them, and called the city Hierosolyma, and themselves Hierosolymites."
34. Now, I’ll add to these accounts about Manetho and Cheremon some information about Lysimachus, who, like the others mentioned, has also spread lies but has gone much further in the outrageousness of his fabrications; it’s clear that he made them out of his deep hatred for our people. Here’s what he said: "The Jews, being leprous and scabby and suffering from other illnesses, fled to the temples during the reign of Bocchoris, the king of Egypt, and begged for food there. Because so many were affected by these diseases, a shortage arose in Egypt. In response, Bocchoris sent representatives to consult the oracle of Jupiter Hammon about the shortage. The god’s response was that he needed to cleanse his temples of impure and irreverent people by driving them out into the wilderness; and for the leprous and scabby individuals, he must drown them to cleanse the temples, as the sun was angry that such people were allowed to live; and that by doing this, the land would produce its crops again. After receiving these oracles, Bocchoris called upon the priests and altar attendants, instructing them to gather the impure people and hand them over to the soldiers to be taken to the desert; but to take the leprous individuals, wrap them in lead sheets, and let them down into the sea. As a result, the leprous and scabby people were drowned, and the others were collected and sent to desolate places to face destruction. In this situation, they gathered together, deliberated on what to do, and decided that since night was approaching, they should light fires and lamps and keep watch; they also planned to fast the next night and appease the gods to seek deliverance from their plight. The following day, a man named Moses advised them to embark on a journey, following a certain path until they reached habitable areas; he instructed them not to show kindness to anyone or give good advice, but always to suggest the worst; and to destroy any temples and altars of the gods they encountered. The others unanimously approved his suggestion and acted on their plan, traveling across the desert. After overcoming the challenges of the journey, they arrived in a populated region where they mistreated the local people, looted, and burned their temples; eventually, they entered the land known as Judea, where they built a city and settled there, naming it Hierosyla because of their looting of the temples. However, over time, due to their later success, they changed its name to avoid the shame and called the city Hierosolyma and themselves Hierosolymites."
35. Now this man did not discover and mention the same king with the others, but feigned a newer name, and passing by the dream and the Egyptian prophet, he brings him to [Jupiter] Hammon, in order to gain oracles about the scabby and leprous people; for he says that the multitude of Jews were gathered together at the temples. Now it is uncertain whether he ascribes this name to these lepers, or to those that were subject to such diseases among the Jews only; for he describes them as a people of the Jews. What people does he mean? foreigners, or those of that country? Why then' dost thou call them Jews, if they were Egyptians? But if they were foreigners, why dost thou not tell us whence they came? And how could it be that, after the king had drowned many of them in the sea, and ejected the rest into desert places, there should be still so great a multitude remaining? Or after what manner did they pass over the desert, and get the land which we now dwell in, and build our city, and that temple which hath been so famous among all mankind? And besides, he ought to have spoken more about our legislator than by giving us his bare name; and to have informed us of what nation he was, and what parents he was derived from; and to have assigned the reasons why he undertook to make such laws concerning the gods, and concerning matters of injustice with regard to men during that journey. For in case the people were by birth Egyptians, they would not on the sudden have so easily changed the customs of their country; and in case they had been foreigners, they had for certain some laws or other which had been kept by them from long custom. It is true, that with regard to those who had ejected them, they might have sworn never to bear good-will to them, and might have had a plausible reason for so doing. But if these men resolved to wage an implacable war against all men, in case they had acted as wickedly as he relates of them, and this while they wanted the assistance of all men, this demonstrates a kind of mad conduct indeed; but not of the men themselves, but very greatly so of him that tells such lies about them. He hath also impudence enough to say that a name, implying "Robbers of the temples," 26 was given to their city, and that this name was afterward changed. The reason of which is plain, that the former name brought reproach and hatred upon them in the times of their posterity, while, it seems, those that built the city thought they did honor to the city by giving it such a name. So we see that this fine fellow had such an unbounded inclination to reproach us, that he did not understand that robbery of temples is not expressed By the same word and name among the Jews as it is among the Greeks. But why should a man say any more to a person who tells such impudent lies? However, since this book is arisen to a competent length, I will make another beginning, and endeavor to add what still remains to perfect my design in the following book.
35. This man didn't mention the same king as the others but instead made up a new name. Skipping over the dream and the Egyptian prophet, he leads us to [Jupiter] Hammon to get oracles about the leprous and scabby people. He claims that a large group of Jews gathered at the temples. It's unclear whether he's referring to these lepers or just to those with such diseases among the Jews; he describes them as a Jewish people. Which people does he mean? Foreigners or locals? If they were Egyptians, why call them Jews? If they were foreigners, why don’t you tell us where they came from? How is it possible that after the king drowned many of them in the sea and drove the rest into the wilderness, so many remained? How did they cross the desert, settle the land we're in now, build our city, and construct that famous temple? Moreover, he should have said more about our lawgiver than just mentioning his name; he should clarify what nation he belonged to and who his parents were. He should also explain why he chose to establish such laws regarding gods and issues of justice during that journey. If those people were originally Egyptians, they wouldn't have easily changed their customs on a whim. And if they were foreigners, they likely had their own long-standing laws they adhered to. True, those who expelled them might have sworn never to be kind to them, and they would have valid reasons for that. But if these people decided to wage a relentless war against everyone, assuming they behaved as wickedly as he claims, while needing assistance from all, that shows a level of insanity; not on the part of those men, but definitely on the part of the one telling such lies. He even has the audacity to say that their city was originally called something implying "Robbers of the temples," 26 and that this name was later changed. The straightforward reason for this is that the original name brought shame and hatred upon them in later generations, while those who built the city thought the name honored it. It's clear that this guy had such a relentless desire to defame us that he didn't realize that the term for temple robbery among Jews isn't the same as among Greeks. But why waste more words on someone who tells such outrageous lies? Anyway, since this book has reached a decent length, I'll start again and try to add what's still needed to complete my goal in the next book.
APION BOOK 1 FOOTNOTES
1 (return)
[ This first book has a wrong
title. It is not written against Apion, as is the first part of the second
book, but against those Greeks in general who would not believe Josephus's
former accounts of the very ancient state of the Jewish nation, in his 20
books of Antiquities; and particularly against Agatharelddes, Manetho,
Cheremon, and Lysimachus. it is one of the most learned, excellent, and
useful books of all antiquity; and upon Jerome's perusal of this and the
following book, he declares that it seems to him a miraculous thing "how
one that was a Hebrew, who had been from his infancy instructed in sacred
learning, should be able to pronounce such a number of testimonies out of
profane authors, as if he had read over all the Grecian libraries," Epist.
8. ad Magnum; and the learned Jew, Manasseh-Ben-Israel, esteemed these two
books so excellent, as to translate them into the Hebrew; this we learn
from his own catalogue of his works, which I have seen. As to the time and
place when and where these two books were written, the learned have not
hitherto been able to determine them any further than that they were
written some time after his Antiquities, or some time after A.D. 93; which
indeed is too obvious at their entrance to be overlooked by even a
careless peruser, they being directly intended against those that would
not believe what he had advanced in those books con-the great of the
Jewish nation As to the place, they all imagine that these two books were
written where the former were, I mean at Rome; and I confess that I myself
believed both those determinations, till I came to finish my notes upon
these books, when I met with plain indications that they were written not
at Rome, but in Judea, and this after the third of Trajan, or A.D. 100.]
1 (return)
[ This first book has a misleading title. It's not written against Apion, as the first part of the second book is, but rather against those Greeks in general who wouldn't accept Josephus's earlier accounts of the very ancient state of the Jewish nation in his 20 books of Antiquities; specifically targeting Agatharelddes, Manetho, Cheremon, and Lysimachus. It is one of the most scholarly, remarkable, and useful books from antiquity; when Jerome read this and the next book, he remarked that it seems incredible "how someone who was a Hebrew and educated in sacred learning from childhood could cite so many testimonies from non-religious authors, as if he had gone through all the Greek libraries," Epist. 8. ad Magnum; and the learned Jew, Manasseh-Ben-Israel, valued these two books so highly that he translated them into Hebrew; we know this from his own list of works, which I have seen. Regarding when and where these two books were written, scholars haven't yet been able to pinpoint the specifics beyond the fact that they were written sometime after his Antiquities, or after A.D. 93; this is quite evident from the outset, even to an inattentive reader, as they are directly aimed at those who refused to accept what he had advanced in those books about the significance of the Jewish nation. As for the location, everyone believes these two books were written where the others were, I mean at Rome; and I admit that I too believed both those points until I finished my notes on these books, when I found clear evidence that they were written not in Rome but in Judea, and this after the third year of Trajan, or A.D. 100.]
2 (return)
[ Take Dr. Hudson's note
here, which as it justly contradicts the common opinion that Josephus
either died under Domitian, or at least wrote nothing later than his days,
so does it perfectly agree to my own determination, from Justus of
Tiberias, that he wrote or finished his own Life after the third of
Trajan, or A.D. 100. To which Noldius also agrees, de Herod, No. 383
[Epaphroditus]. "Since Florius Josephus," says Dr. Hudson, "wrote [or
finished] his books of Antiquities on the thirteenth of Domitian, [A.D.
93,] and after that wrote the Memoirs of his own Life, as an appendix to
the books of Antiquities, and at last his two books against Apion, and yet
dedicated all those writings to Epaphroditus; he can hardly be that
Epaphroditus who was formerly secretary to Nero, and was slain on the
fourteenth [or fifteenth] of Domitian, after he had been for a good while
in banishment; but another Epaphroditas, a freed-man, and procurator of
Trajan, as says Grotius on Luke 1:3."]
2 (return)
[ Take Dr. Hudson's note here, which rightly challenges the common belief that Josephus either died during Domitian's rule or at least didn't write anything after that time. It also perfectly aligns with my own conclusion, based on Justus of Tiberias, that he wrote or completed his own Life after the third year of Trajan, or A.D. 100. Noldius supports this as well, in de Herod, No. 383 [Epaphroditus]. "Since Flavius Josephus," says Dr. Hudson, "wrote [or finished] his books on Antiquities in the thirteenth year of Domitian, [A.D. 93,] and afterwards wrote the Memoirs of his own Life as an appendix to the Antiques, and finally his two books against Apion, dedicating all these works to Epaphroditus; it's unlikely he could be the same Epaphroditus who was previously Nero's secretary and was killed on the fourteenth [or fifteenth] year of Domitian after being in exile for a while; rather, he is another Epaphroditus, a freedman and procurator of Trajan, as Grotius mentions regarding Luke 1:3."]
3 (return)
[ The preservation of Homer's
Poems by memory, and not by his own writing them down, and that thence
they were styled Rhapsodies, as sung by him, like ballads, by parts, and
not composed and connected together in complete works, are opinions well
known from the ancient commentators; though such supposal seems to myself,
as well as to Fabricius Biblioth. Grace. I. p. 269, and to others, highly
improbable. Nor does Josephus say there were no ancienter writings among
the Greeks than Homer's Poems, but that they did not fully own any
ancienter writings pretending to such antiquity, which is trite.]
3 (return)
[ The preservation of Homer's Poems was done through memory rather than him writing them down himself, which is why they were called Rhapsodies, sung by him in sections like ballads, and not created and linked together into complete works. This view is well established by ancient commentators; however, it seems highly unlikely to me, as well as to Fabricius Biblioth. Grace. I. p. 269, and others. Additionally, Josephus does not claim there are no older writings among the Greeks than Homer's Poems, but rather that they did not fully accept any older writings that claimed such ancient origins, which is a common point.]
4 (return)
[ It well deserves to be
considered, that Josephus here says how all the following Greek historians
looked on Herodotus as a fabulous author; and presently, sect. 14, how
Manetho, the most authentic writer of the Egyptian history, greatly
complains of his mistakes in the Egyptian affairs; as also that Strabo, B.
XI. p. 507, the most accurate geographer and historian, esteemed him such;
that Xenophon, the much more accurate historian in the affairs of Cyrus,
implies that Herodotus's account of that great man is almost entirely
romantic. See the notes on Antiq. B. XI. ch. 2. sect. 1, and Hutchinson's
Prolegomena to his edition of Xenophon's, that we have already seen in the
note on Antiq. B. VIII. ch. 10. sect. 3, how very little Herodotus knew
about the Jewish affairs and country, and that he greatly affected what we
call the marvelous, as Monsieur Rollin has lately and justly determined;
whence we are not always to depend on the authority of Herodotus, where it
is unsupported by other evidence, but ought to compare the other evidence
with his, and if it preponderate, to prefer it before his. I do not mean
by this that Herodotus willfully related what he believed to be false, [as
Cteeias seems to have done,] but that he often wanted evidence, and
sometimes preferred what was marvelous to what was best attested as really
true.]
4 (return)
[ It’s important to note that Josephus mentions how all the subsequent Greek historians regarded Herodotus as a writer of fiction. Then, in section 14, he discusses how Manetho, the most reliable author of Egyptian history, heavily criticizes Herodotus for his errors regarding Egyptian matters. Strabo, in Book XI, page 507, who is considered a precise geographer and historian, also held the same view. Additionally, Xenophon, a much more accurate historian about Cyrus, suggests that Herodotus's portrayal of that great figure is mostly made up. Refer to the notes on Antiquities Book XI, chapter 2, section 1, and Hutchinson's Prolegomena to his edition of Xenophon's work. We've already noted in Antiquities Book VIII, chapter 10, section 3, how little Herodotus understood about Jewish affairs and the country, and that he had a strong penchant for what we now call the marvelous, as Monsieur Rollin has recently and rightly pointed out. Therefore, we shouldn't always rely on Herodotus’s authority where it lacks support from other evidence; instead, we should compare other evidence with his and prioritize it if it outweighs his. I don’t mean to imply that Herodotus intentionally reported what he thought was false, [as Cteeias seems to have done], but rather that he often lacked evidence and sometimes favored the extraordinary over what was well-supported by actual facts.]
6 (return)
[ It is here well worth our
observation, what the reasons are that such ancient authors as Herodotus,
Josephus, and others have been read to so little purpose by many learned
critics; viz. that their main aim has not been chronology or history, but
philology, to know words, and not things, they not much entering
oftentimes into the real contents of their authors, and judging which were
the most accurate discoverers of truth, and most to be depended on in the
several histories, but rather inquiring who wrote the finest style, and
had the greatest elegance in their expressions; which are things of small
consequence in comparison of the other. Thus you will sometimes find great
debates among the learned, whether Herodotus or Thucydides were the finest
historian in the Ionic and Attic ways of writing; which signify little as
to the real value of each of their histories; while it would be of much
more moment to let the reader know, that as the consequence of Herodotus's
history, which begins so much earlier, and reaches so much wider, than
that of Thucydides, is therefore vastly greater; so is the most part of
Thucydides, which belongs to his own times, and fell under his own
observation, much the most certain.]
6 (return)
[ It's important to recognize why ancient authors like Herodotus, Josephus, and others have often been read with little understanding by many learned critics. Their main focus has not been on chronology or history, but rather on philology—understanding words rather than the actual content. They often don't delve into the true meaning of their texts or judge which historians are the most accurate and reliable. Instead, they tend to analyze who has the best writing style and the most elegant expressions, which are relatively unimportant compared to the content itself. As a result, you may encounter heated discussions among scholars about whether Herodotus or Thucydides is the better historian based on their respective writing styles, which says little about the actual significance of their histories. It would be far more relevant for readers to understand that Herodotus's history covers a much broader timeline and scope than Thucydides's, making it significantly more impactful; in contrast, much of Thucydides's work, focused on his own era and experiences, is considerably more reliable.]
7 (return)
[ Of this accuracy of the
Jews before and in our Savior's time, in carefully preserving their
genealogies all along, particularly those of the priests, see Josephus's
Life, sect. 1. This accuracy. seems to have ended at the destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus, or, however, at that by Adrian.]
7 (return)
[Regarding the accuracy of the Jews before and during our Savior's time, particularly in meticulously maintaining their genealogies, especially those of the priests, refer to Josephus's Life, section 1. This attention to detail seems to have concluded with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, or at the very least, with that by Adrian.]
8 (return)
[ Which were these twenty-two
sacred books of the Old Testament, see the Supplement to the Essay of the
Old Testament, p. 25-29, viz. those we call canonical, all excepting the
Canticles; but still with this further exception, that the book of
apocryphal Esdras be taken into that number instead of our canonical Ezra,
which seems to be no more than a later epitome of the other; which two
books of Canticles and Ezra it no way appears that our Josephus ever saw.]
8 (return)
[These were the twenty-two sacred books of the Old Testament. For more details, see the Supplement to the Essay of the Old Testament, p. 25-29. These are the ones we consider canonical, with the exception of the Canticles. However, it should be noted that the apocryphal book of Esdras is included in this count instead of our canonical Ezra, which seems to be just a later summary of the other. It’s also unclear if our Josephus ever saw these two books, the Canticles and Ezra.]
9 (return)
[ Here we have an account of
the first building of the city of Jerusalem, according to Manetho, when
the Phoenician shepherds were expelled out of Egypt about thirty-seven
years before Abraham came out of Harsh.]
9 (return)
[ This is an account of the initial construction of the city of Jerusalem, based on Manetho's writings, when the Phoenician shepherds were driven out of Egypt approximately thirty-seven years before Abraham left Haran.]
11 (return)
[ In our copies of the book
of Genesis and of Joseph, this Joseph never calls himself "a captive,"
when he was with the king of Egypt, though he does call himself "a
servant," "a slave," or "captive," many times in the Testament of the
Twelve Patriarchs, under Joseph, sect. 1, 11, 13-16.]
11 (return)
[ In our copies of the book of Genesis and of Joseph, this Joseph never refers to himself as "a captive" when he was with the king of Egypt, although he does call himself "a servant," "a slave," or "captive" many times in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, under Joseph, sect. 1, 11, 13-16.]
12 (return)
[ Of this Egyptian
chronology of Manetho, as mistaken by Josephus, and of these Phoenician
shepherds, as falsely supposed by him, and others after him, to have been
the Israelites in Egypt, see Essay on the Old Testament, Appendix, p.
182-188. And note here, that when Josephus tells us that the Greeks or
Argives looked on this Danaus as "a most ancient," or "the most ancient,"
king of Argos, he need not be supposed to mean, in the strictest sense,
that they had no one king so ancient as he; for it is certain that they
owned nine kings before him, and Inachus at the head of them. See
Authentic Records, Part II. p. 983, as Josephus could not but know very
well; but that he was esteemed as very ancient by them, and that they knew
they had been first of all denominated "Danai" from this very ancient king
Danaus. Nor does this superlative degree always imply the "most ancient"
of all without exception, but is sometimes to be rendered "very ancient"
only, as is the case in the like superlative degrees of other words also.]
12 (return)
[ Regarding this Egyptian timeline from Manetho, which Josephus misunderstood, and these Phoenician shepherds that he and others mistakenly identified as the Israelites in Egypt, see the Essay on the Old Testament, Appendix, p. 182-188. Also, note that when Josephus mentions that the Greeks or Argives regarded Danaus as "most ancient" or "the most ancient" king of Argos, he doesn't have to be understood as saying that they had no other king older than him; it’s clear that they recognized nine kings before him, with Inachus as the first. See Authentic Records, Part II, p. 983, something Josephus would undoubtedly have known; rather, he was considered very ancient by them, and they were aware that they had originally been called “Danai” after this very ancient king, Danaus. Additionally, this superlative doesn’t always mean "the most ancient" of all without exception; sometimes, it simply means "very ancient," similar to other words with comparable superlative forms.]
13 (return)
[ Authentic Records, Part
II. p. 983, as Josephus could not but know very well; but that he was
esteemed as very ancient by them, and that they knew they had been first
of all denominated "Danai" from this very ancient king Danaus. Nor does
this superlative degree always imply the "most ancient" of all without
exception, but is sometimes to be rendered "very ancient" only, as is the
case in the like superlative degrees of other words also.]
13 (return)
[ Authentic Records, Part II. p. 983, as Josephus surely knew; they regarded him as very ancient, and they recognized that they were first called "Danai" after this ancient king Danaus. Moreover, this superlative doesn't always mean "the most ancient" without exception, but can sometimes just mean "very ancient," similar to other words with superlative forms.]
14 (return)
[ This number in Josephus,
that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple in the eighteenth year of his
reign, is a mistake in the nicety of chronology; for it was in the
nineteenth. The true number here for the year of Darius, in which the
second temple was finished, whether the second with our present copies, or
the sixth with that of Syncellus, or the tenth with that of Eusebius, is
very uncertain; so we had best follow Josephus's own account elsewhere,
Antiq.;B. XI. ch. 3. sect. 4, which shows us that according to his copy of
the Old Testament, after the second of Cyrus, that work was interrupted
till the second of Darius, when in seven years it was finished in the
ninth of Darius.]
14 (return)
[ The number in Josephus stating that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple in the eighteenth year of his reign is a mistake in the details of chronology; it actually happened in the nineteenth year. The exact year during Darius's reign when the second temple was completed—whether referring to the second as per our current copies, the sixth according to Syncellus, or the tenth according to Eusebius—is quite uncertain; so it's best to follow Josephus's own account from elsewhere, Antiq.;B. XI. ch. 3. sect. 4, which indicates that according to his version of the Old Testament, after the second year of Cyrus, that work was paused until the second year of Darius, when it was completed in the ninth year of Darius after seven years.]
15 (return)
[ This is a thing well
known by the learned, that we are not secure that we have any genuine
writings of Pythagoras; those Golden Verses, which are his best remains,
being generally supposed to have been written not by himself, but by some
of his scholars only, in agreement with what Josephus here affirms of
him.]
15 (return)
[ It's well known among scholars that we can't be sure we have any authentic writings of Pythagoras. The Golden Verses, his most famous works, are widely believed to have been written not by him but by some of his students, which aligns with what Josephus claims about him.]
16 (return)
[ Whether these verses of
Cherilus, the heathen poet, in the days of Xerxes, belong to the Solymi in
Pisidia, that were near a small lake, or to the Jews that dwelt on the
Solymean or Jerusalem mountains, near the great and broad lake
Asphaltitis, that were a strange people, and spake the Phoenician tongue,
is not agreed on by the learned. If is yet certain that Josephus here, and
Eusebius, Prep. IX. 9. p. 412, took them to be Jews; and I confess I
cannot but very much incline to the same opinion. The other Solymi were
not a strange people, but heathen idolaters, like the other parts of
Xerxes's army; and that these spake the Phoenician tongue is next to
impossible, as the Jews certainly did; nor is there the least evidence for
it elsewhere. Nor was the lake adjoining to the mountains of the Solvmi at
all large or broad, in comparison of the Jewish lake Asphaltitis; nor
indeed were these so considerable a people as the Jews, nor so likely to
be desired by Xerxes for his army as the Jews, to whom he was always very
favorable. As for the rest of Cherilus's description, that "their heads
were sooty; that they had round rasures on their heads; that their heads
and faces were like nasty horse-heads, which had been hardened in the
smoke;" these awkward characters probably fitted the Solymi of Pisidi no
better than they did the Jews in Judea. And indeed this reproachful
language, here given these people, is to me a strong indication that they
were the poor despicable Jews, and not the Pisidian Solymi celebrated in
Homer, whom Cherilus here describes; nor are we to expect that either
Cherilus or Hecateus, or any other pagan writers cited by Josephus and
Eusebius, made no mistakes in the Jewish history. If by comparing their
testimonies with the more authentic records of that nation we find them
for the main to confirm the same, as we almost always do, we ought to be
satisfied, and not expect that they ever had an exact knowledge of all the
circumstances of the Jewish affairs, which indeed it was almost always
impossible for them to have. See sect. 23.]
16 (return)
[ There's some debate among scholars about whether the lines from Cherilus, the pagan poet from the time of Xerxes, refer to the Solymi living near a small lake in Pisidia or to the Jews who lived in the Solymean or Jerusalem mountains near the large and deep Lake Asphaltitis. The Jews were a unique group who spoke the Phoenician language. It's clear that Josephus and Eusebius, in Prep. IX. 9. p. 412, believed they were Jews, and I must say I lean toward that interpretation as well. The other Solymi were not a distinct group but rather pagan idol worshipers, similar to others in Xerxes's army. It seems unlikely that they spoke the Phoenician language as the Jews did, and there’s no evidence to suggest it. Additionally, the lake near the Solymi mountains wasn’t large or deep compared to Lake Asphaltitis; nor were the Solymi as significant a people as the Jews, who Xerxes favored. Regarding Cherilus's description that "their heads were black; they had shaved heads; their heads and faces resembled filthy horse heads that had been hardened in smoke,” it seems this description likely applies just as poorly to the Solymi of Pisidia as it would to the Jews of Judea. This derogatory language makes me strongly believe that he was referring to the lowly and despised Jews, not the Pisidian Solymi praised by Homer. We shouldn't expect Cherilus, Hecateus, or other pagan writers cited by Josephus and Eusebius to be accurate in their portrayal of Jewish history. If we find that their accounts generally align with the more reliable records of that nation, as they usually do, we should be content and not expect them to have had a clear understanding of all the details of Jewish affairs, which was often nearly impossible for them to achieve. See sect. 23.]
17 (return)
[ This Hezekiah, who is
here called a high priest, is not named in Josephus's catalogue; the real
high priest at that time being rather Onias, as Archbishop Usher supposes.
However, Josephus often uses the word high priests in the plural number,
as living many at the same time. See the note on Antiq. B. XX. ch. 8.
sect. 8.]
17 (return)
[This Hezekiah, referred to here as a high priest, doesn’t appear in Josephus's list; the actual high priest at that time was likely Onias, as Archbishop Usher suggests. However, Josephus frequently uses the term high priests in the plural, implying that there were many serving simultaneously. See the note on Antiq. B. XX. ch. 8. sect. 8.]
18 (return)
[ So I read the text with
Havercamp, though the place be difficult.]
18 (return)
[ So I read the text with Havercamp, even though the place is challenging.]
19 (return)
[ This number of arourae or
Egyptian acres, 3,000,000, each aroura containing a square of 100 Egyptian
cubits, [being about three quarters of an English acre, and just twice the
area of the court of the Jewish tabernacle,] as contained in the country
of Judea, will be about one third of the entire number of arourae in the
whole land of Judea, supposing it 160 measured miles long and 70 such
miles broad; which estimation, for the fruitful parts of it, as perhaps
here in Hecateus, is not therefore very wide from the truth. The fifty
furlongs in compass for the city Jerusalem presently are not very wide
from the truth also, as Josephus himself describes it, who, Of the War, B.
V. ch. 4. sect. 3. makes its wall thirty-three furlongs, besides the
suburbs and gardens; nay, he says, B. V. ch. 12. sect. 2, that Titus's
wall about it at some small distance, after the gardens and suburbs were
destroyed, was not less than thirty-nine furlongs. Nor perhaps were its
constant inhabitants, in the days of Hecateus, many more than these
120,000, because room was always to be left for vastly greater numbers
which came up at the three great festivals; to say nothing of the probable
increase in their number between the days of Hecateus and Josephus, which
was at least three hundred years. But see a more authentic account of some
of these measures in my Description of the Jewish Temples. However, we are
not to expect that such heathens as Cherilus or Hecateus, or the rest that
are cited by Josephus and Eusebius, could avoid making many mistakes in
the Jewish history, while yet they strongly confirm the same history in
the general, and are most valuable attestations to those more authentic
accounts we have in the Scriptures and Josephus concerning them.]
19 (return)
[ This number of arourae or Egyptian acres, 3,000,000, each aroura containing a square of 100 Egyptian cubits, [which is about three quarters of an English acre and just twice the area of the court of the Jewish tabernacle,] as found in the region of Judea, will be around one third of the total number of arourae in all of Judea, assuming it is 160 measured miles long and 70 miles wide. This estimation, particularly for the fertile parts of it, as perhaps mentioned here by Hecateus, is not very far from the truth. The fifty furlongs in circumference for the city of Jerusalem are also fairly accurate, as described by Josephus himself, who, in Of the War, B. V. ch. 4. sect. 3, states that its wall is thirty-three furlongs, in addition to the suburbs and gardens. Moreover, he mentions, B. V. ch. 12. sect. 2, that Titus's wall around it at some distance, after the gardens and suburbs were destroyed, was no less than thirty-nine furlongs. Perhaps the regular population of its inhabitants during Hecateus's time was not much more than these 120,000, since space was always to be left for much larger crowds that came for the three major festivals; not to mention the likely increase in their number over the three hundred years from Hecateus to Josephus. For more details on some of these measurements, refer to my Description of the Jewish Temples. However, we shouldn’t expect that pagans like Cherilus, Hecateus, or others cited by Josephus and Eusebius would avoid making numerous mistakes in Jewish history. Yet, they strongly confirm this history in general and provide valuable evidence for the more reliable accounts we have in the Scriptures and Josephus regarding them.]
20 (return)
[ A glorious testimony this
of the observation of the sabbath by the Jews. See Antiq. B. XVI. ch. 2.
sect. 4, and ch. 6. sect. 2; the Life, sect. 54; and War, B. IV. ch. 9.
sect. 12.]
20 (return)
[ This is a wonderful example of how the Jews observe the Sabbath. Check out Antiq. B. XVI. ch. 2. sect. 4, and ch. 6. sect. 2; the Life, sect. 54; and War, B. IV. ch. 9. sect. 12.]
21 (return)
[ Not their law, but the
superstitious interpretation of their leaders which neither the Maccabees
nor our blessed Savior did ever approve of.]
21 (return)
[Not their law, but the superstitious interpretation of their leaders that neither the Maccabees nor our blessed Savior ever approved of.]
22 (return)
[ In reading this and the
remaining sections of this book, and some parts of the next, one may
easily perceive that our usually cool and candid author, Josephus, was too
highly offended with the impudent calumnies of Manethe, and the other
bitter enemies of the Jews, with whom he had now to deal, and was thereby
betrayed into a greater heat and passion than ordinary, and that by
consequence he does not hear reason with his usual fairness and
impartiality; he seems to depart sometimes from the brevity and sincerity
of a faithful historian, which is his grand character, and indulges the
prolixity and colors of a pleader and a disputant: accordingly, I confess,
I always read these sections with less pleasure than I do the rest of his
writings, though I fully believe the reproaches cast on the Jews, which he
here endeavors to confute and expose, were wholly groundless and
unreasonable.]
22 (return)
[ In reading this and the remaining sections of this book, along with some parts of the next, it’s clear that our usually cool and straightforward author, Josephus, was really offended by the audacious lies of Manethe and the other bitter enemies of the Jews that he had to confront. As a result, he lost his usual calm and fairness, making him less reasonable than he typically is. At times, he strays from the brevity and honesty expected from a faithful historian, which is his main characteristic, and instead allows himself to be more verbose and colorful like a lawyer or debater. Because of this, I admit that I always find these sections less enjoyable to read than the rest of his writings, even though I firmly believe that the accusations against the Jews that he attempts to refute here are completely baseless and unreasonable.]
23 (return)
[ This is a very valuable
testimony of Manetho, that the laws of Osarsiph, or Moses, were not made
in compliance with, but in opposition to, the customs of the Egyptians.
See the note on Antiq. B. III. ch. 8. sect. 9.]
23 (return)
[ This is a very valuable testimony from Manetho, stating that the laws of Osarsiph, or Moses, were not established to follow the customs of the Egyptians, but rather to oppose them. See the note on Antiq. B. III. ch. 8. sect. 9.]
25 (return)
[ Here we see that Josephus
esteemed a generation between Joseph and Moses to be about forty-two or
forty-three years; which, if taken between the earlier children, well
agrees with the duration of human life in those ages. See Antheat. Rec.
Part II. pages 966, 1019, 1020.]
25 (return)
[ Here we see that Josephus
considered a generation between Joseph and Moses to be around forty-two or
forty-three years; this aligns well with the average lifespan during those times. See Antheat. Rec.
Part II. pages 966, 1019, 1020.]
26 (return)
[ That is the meaning of
Hierosyla in Greek, not in Hebrew.]
26 (return)
[ That is the meaning of Hierosyla in Greek, not in Hebrew.]
BOOK II.
1. In the former book, most honored Epaphroditus, I have demonstrated our antiquity, and confirmed the truth of what I have said, from the writings of the Phoenicians, and Chaldeans, and Egyptians. I have, moreover, produced many of the Grecian writers as witnesses thereto. I have also made a refutation of Manetho and Cheremon, and of certain others of our enemies. I shall now 1 therefore begin a confutation of the remaining authors who have written any thing against us; although I confess I have had a doubt upon me about Apion 2 the grammarian, whether I ought to take the trouble of confuting him or not; for some of his writings contain much the same accusations which the others have laid against us, some things that he hath added are very frigid and contemptible, and for the greatest part of what he says, it is very scurrilous, and, to speak no more than the plain truth, it shows him to be a very unlearned person, and what he lays together looks like the work of a man of very bad morals, and of one no better in his whole life than a mountebank. Yet, because there are a great many men so very foolish, that they are rather caught by such orations than by what is written with care, and take pleasure in reproaching other men, and cannot abide to hear them commended, I thought it to be necessary not to let this man go off without examination, who had written such an accusation against us, as if he would bring us to make an answer in open court. For I also have observed, that many men are very much delighted when they see a man who first began to reproach another, to be himself exposed to contempt on account of the vices he hath himself been guilty of. However, it is not a very easy thing to go over this man's discourse, nor to know plainly what he means; yet does he seem, amidst a great confusion and disorder in his falsehoods, to produce, in the first place, such things as resemble what we have examined already, and relate to the departure of our forefathers out of Egypt; and, in the second place, he accuses those Jews that are inhabitants of Alexandria; as, in the third place, he mixes with those things such accusations as concern the sacred purifications, with the other legal rites used in the temple.
1. In the previous book, most respected Epaphroditus, I have shown our long history and validated what I’ve said using the writings of the Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and Egyptians. I've also included many Greek authors as proof. Additionally, I have refuted Manetho and Cheremon, along with some other critics of ours. Now, I will begin to address the other authors who have written against us; although I admit I’m unsure about Apion, the grammarian, and whether I should bother rebutting him or not. Some of his writings repeat the same accusations others have made against us, and some of his additions are quite dull and ridiculous. Much of what he says is offensive, and frankly, it shows him to be quite uneducated, with his arguments seeming to come from someone of very poor character, no better than a fraud. Still, because many people are so foolish that they’re more influenced by such speeches than by well-considered writing, enjoying the chance to insult others and disliking hearing them praised, I thought it necessary to not let this man escape scrutiny, given his accusations against us, as if he intends to make us defend ourselves in public. I’ve also noticed that many find it entertaining to see a person who starts insulting others be ridiculed for their own faults. However, it’s not easy to navigate through this man's discussion or to understand clearly what he means. Nevertheless, amidst the confusion and disorder of his falsehoods, he seems to first present things that are similar to what we’ve already examined regarding our ancestors’ departure from Egypt; secondly, he criticizes the Jews living in Alexandria; and thirdly, he mixes in accusations about sacred purifications and other legal rites practiced in the temple.
2. Now although I cannot but think that I have already demonstrated, and that abundantly more than was necessary, that our fathers were not originally Egyptians, nor were thence expelled, either on account of bodily diseases, or any other calamities of that sort; yet will I briefly take notice of what Apion adds upon that subject; for in his third book, which relates to the affairs of Egypt, he speaks thus: "I have heard of the ancient men of Egypt, that Moses was of Heliopolis, and that he thought himself obliged to follow the customs of his forefathers, and offered his prayers in the open air, towards the city walls; but that he reduced them all to be directed towards sun-rising, which was agreeable to the situation of Heliopolis; that he also set up pillars instead of gnomons, 3 under which was represented a cavity like that of a boat, and the shadow that fell from their tops fell down upon that cavity, that it might go round about the like course as the sun itself goes round in the other." This is that wonderful relation which we have given us by this grammarian. But that it is a false one is so plain, that it stands in need of few words to prove it, but is manifest from the works of Moses; for when he erected the first tabernacle to God, he did himself neither give order for any such kind of representation to be made at it, nor ordain that those that came after him should make such a one. Moreover, when in a future age Solomon built his temple in Jerusalem, he avoided all such needless decorations as Apion hath here devised. He says further, how he had "heard of the ancient men, that Moses was of Hellopolis." To be sure that was, because being a younger man himself, he believed those that by their elder age were acquainted and conversed with him. Now this grammarian, as he was, could not certainly tell which was the poet Homer's country, no more than he could which was the country of Pythagoras, who lived comparatively but a little while ago; yet does he thus easily determine the age of Moses, who preceded them such a vast number of years, as depending on his ancient men's relation, which shows how notorious a liar he was. But then as to this chronological determination of the time when he says he brought the leprous people, the blind, and the lame out of Egypt, see how well this most accurate grammarian of ours agrees with those that have written before him! Manetho says that the Jews departed out of Egypt, in the reign of Tethmosis, three hundred ninety-three years before Danaus fled to Argos; Lysimaehus says it was under king Bocchoris, that is, one thousand seven hundred years ago; Molo and some others determined it as every one pleased: but this Apion of ours, as deserving to be believed before them, hath determined it exactly to have been in the seventh olympiad, and the first year of that olympiad; the very same year in which he says that Carthage was built by the Phoenicians. The reason why he added this building of Carthage was, to be sure, in order, as he thought, to strengthen his assertion by so evident a character of chronology. But he was not aware that this character confutes his assertion; for if we may give credit to the Phoenician records as to the time of the first coming of their colony to Carthage, they relate that Hirom their king was above a hundred and fifty years earlier than the building of Carthage; concerning whom I have formerly produced testimonials out of those Phoenician records, as also that this Hirom was a friend of Solomon when he was building the temple of Jerusalem, and gave him great assistance in his building that temple; while still Solomon himself built that temple six hundred and twelve years after the Jews came out of Egypt. As for the number of those that were expelled out of Egypt, he hath contrived to have the very same number with Lysimaehus, and says they were a hundred and ten thousand. He then assigns a certain wonderful and plausible occasion for the name of Sabbath; for he says that "when the Jews had traveled a six days' journey, they had buboes in their groins; and that on this account it was that they rested on the seventh day, as having got safely to that country which is now called Judea; that then they preserved the language of the Egyptians, and called that day the Sabbath, for that malady of buboes on their groin was named Sabbatosis by the Egyptians." And would not a man now laugh at this fellow's trifling, or rather hate his impudence in writing thus? We must, it seems, fake it for granted that all these hundred and ten thousand men must have these buboes. But, for certain, if those men had been blind and lame, and had all sorts of distempers upon them, as Apion says they had, they could not have gone one single day's journey; but if they had been all able to travel over a large desert, and, besides that, to fight and conquer those that opposed them, they had not all of them had buboes on their groins after the sixth day was over; for no such distemper comes naturally and of necessity upon those that travel; but still, when there are many ten thousands in a camp together, they constantly march a settled space [in a day]. Nor is it at all probable that such a thing should happen by chance; this would be prodigiously absurd to be supposed. However, our admirable author Apion hath before told us that "they came to Judea in six days' time;" and again, that "Moses went up to a mountain that lay between Egypt and Arabia, which was called Sinai, and was concealed there forty days, and that when he came down from thence he gave laws to the Jews." But, then, how was it possible for them to tarry forty days in a desert place where there was no water, and at the same time to pass all over the country between that and Judea in the six days? And as for this grammatical translation of the word Sabbath, it either contains an instance of his great impudence or gross ignorance; for the words Sabbo and Sabbath are widely different from one another; for the word Sabbath in the Jewish language denotes rest from all sorts of work; but the word Sabbo, as he affirms, denotes among the Egyptians the malady of a bubo in the groin.
2. While I believe I have already shown, and more than enough, that our ancestors were not originally Egyptians, nor were they kicked out because of physical illnesses or other similar disasters, I will briefly address what Apion adds on this topic. In his third book, which discusses the history of Egypt, he claims: "I have heard from the ancient Egyptians that Moses was from Heliopolis, and that he felt obligated to follow the traditions of his ancestors, praying outdoors toward the city walls; however, he redirected all prayers toward the sunrise, which suited the location of Heliopolis. He also erected pillars as substitutes for gnomons, underneath which there was a hollow shape resembling a boat, so that the shadow cast from their tops would fall upon that hollow, mimicking the sun's path." This is the remarkable story shared by this grammarian. However, it is so evidently false that it requires little explanation to disprove it, as is clear from the works of Moses. When he built the first tabernacle for God, he neither commanded such a representation to be made nor authorized those after him to do so. Furthermore, when Solomon later constructed his temple in Jerusalem, he avoided such unnecessary decorations that Apion imagined. Additionally, Apion states that he "heard from the ancient men that Moses was from Heliopolis." This implies that, being younger, he believed those who were older and knew him. Now this grammarian, as he was, could not reliably determine the birthplace of the poet Homer, nor the country of Pythagoras, who lived not long ago; yet he easily specifies the era of Moses, who lived many years prior, based on the accounts of ancient people, revealing how notorious a liar he was. As for his timeline regarding when he claims Moses brought the leprous, blind, and lame out of Egypt, it's interesting to see how well this so-called accurate grammarian aligns with earlier writers! Manetho states that the Jews left Egypt during the reign of Tethmosis, three hundred ninety-three years before Danaus fled to Argos; Lysimachus claims it was under King Bocchoris, which was roughly one thousand seven hundred years ago; Molo and others agreed according to their own preferences. Yet Apion, who believes he is more credible than them, claims it happened exactly in the seventh Olympiad, the first year of that Olympiad—the same year he says the Phoenicians founded Carthage. He included the founding of Carthage to supposedly bolster his claim with a clear chronological reference. However, he failed to realize that this reference contradicts his claim; for if we trust Phoenician records regarding the time of their colony's founding in Carthage, they say that Hirom, their king, lived over a hundred fifty years before Carthage was built. I have previously provided evidence from the Phoenician records showing that this Hirom was a friend of Solomon during the construction of the temple in Jerusalem, assisting him greatly; meanwhile, Solomon completed that temple six hundred twelve years after the Jews left Egypt. As for the number of those expelled from Egypt, he coincidentally matches Lysimachus's count, claiming they were one hundred ten thousand. He then offers a rather remarkable and seemingly plausible explanation for the name "Sabbath," stating that "after the Jews had traveled for six days, they developed buboes in their groins, and for this reason, they rested on the seventh day after reaching the land now known as Judea; they retained the Egyptian language and referred to that day as the Sabbath because the malady of buboes was called Sabbatosis by the Egyptians." Who wouldn't find this guy's nonsense amusing, or rather detestable for his audacity in writing such drivel? We must accept that all these one hundred ten thousand men had buboes. However, if those people had been blind, lame, and suffering from various ailments, as Apion claims, they couldn't have traveled even one day's journey. But if they were all capable of traversing a vast desert and also had the ability to fight and defeat their enemies, not all of them would have developed buboes by the end of the sixth day, since such ailments don't typically arise from travel. Besides, when there are many thousands in a camp, they typically march a predetermined distance in a day. It's highly unlikely that such an occurrence would be purely coincidental; that would be incredibly foolish to believe. Yet, our esteemed author Apion previously claimed that "they reached Judea in six days"; and he also stated that "Moses ascended a mountain located between Egypt and Arabia, called Sinai, where he remained hidden for forty days, and when he descended, he gave laws to the Jews." But how could they possibly stay forty days in a desert with no water while also traversing the area between there and Judea in just six days? Regarding his grammatical interpretation of the word "Sabbath," it either reflects his blatant arrogance or gross ignorance; for the words "Sabbo" and "Sabbath" are vastly different. The word "Sabbath" in Hebrew signifies a break from all forms of work, whereas the term "Sabbo," as he claims, describes the condition of a bubo in the groin among the Egyptians.
3. This is that novel account which the Egyptian Apion gives us concerning the Jews' departure out of Egypt, and is no better than a contrivance of his own. But why should we wonder at the lies he tells about our forefathers, when he affirms them to be of Egyptian original, when he lies also about himself? for although he was born at Oasis in Egypt, he pretends to be, as a man may say, the top man of all the Egyptians; yet does he forswear his real country and progenitors, and by falsely pretending to be born at Alexandria, cannot deny the 4 pravity of his family; for you see how justly he calls those Egyptians whom he hates, and endeavors to reproach; for had he not deemed Egyptians to be a name of great reproach, he would not have avoided the name of an Egyptian himself; as we know that those who brag of their own countries value themselves upon the denomination they acquire thereby, and reprove such as unjustly lay claim thereto. As for the Egyptians' claim to be of our kindred, they do it on one of the following accounts; I mean, either as they value themselves upon it, and pretend to bear that relation to us; or else as they would draw us in to be partakers of their own infamy. But this fine fellow Apion seems to broach this reproachful appellation against us, [that we were originally Egyptians,] in order to bestow it on the Alexandrians, as a reward for the privilege they had given him of being a fellow citizen with them: he also is apprized of the ill-will the Alexandrians bear to those Jews who are their fellow citizens, and so proposes to himself to reproach them, although he must thereby include all the other Egyptians also; while in both cases he is no better than an impudent liar.
3. This is the strange account that the Egyptian Apion gives about the Jews leaving Egypt, and it's nothing more than a fabrication of his own. But why should we be surprised by the lies he tells about our ancestors, when he claims they are of Egyptian origin, while he lies about himself too? Although he was born in Oasis, Egypt, he pretends to be, in a way, the top man among all Egyptians; yet he denies his true homeland and ancestry. By falsely claiming to be from Alexandria, he can't hide the disgrace of his family; after all, it's clear how much he vilifies those Egyptians he despises. If he didn't think being called Egyptian was shameful, he wouldn't distance himself from that label; as we know, those who take pride in their own countries value the identity that comes with it, and criticize others who wrongfully claim it. As for the Egyptians claiming to be related to us, they do it for one of two reasons: either they take pride in it and pretend to have that connection to us, or they want to drag us into sharing their own disgrace. But this clever Apion seems to push this shameful claim against us, [that we were originally Egyptians,] to reward the Alexandrians for letting him be one of them: he is also aware of the resentment that Alexandrians have toward the Jews who live among them, and so he seeks to insult them, even though this will also affect all other Egyptians; in both cases, he is nothing more than an audacious liar.
4. But let us now see what those heavy and wicked crimes are which Apion charges upon the Alexandrian Jews. "They came [says he] out of Syria, and inhabited near the tempestuous sea, and were in the neighborhood of the dashing of the waves." Now if the place of habitation includes any thing that is reproached, this man reproaches not his own real country, [Egypt,] but what he pretends to be his own country, Alexandria; for all are agreed in this, that the part of that city which is near the sea is the best part of all for habitation. Now if the Jews gained that part of the city by force, and have kept it hitherto without impeachment, this is a mark of their valor; but in reality it was Alexander himself that gave them that place for their habitation, when they obtained equal privileges there with the Macedonians. Nor call I devise what Apion would have said, had their habitation been at Necropolis? and not been fixed hard by the royal palace [as it is]; nor had their nation had the denomination of Macedonians given them till this very day [as they have]. Had this man now read the epistles of king Alexander, or those of Ptolemy the son of Lagus, or met with the writings of the succeeding kings, or that pillar which is still standing at Alexandria, and contains the privileges which the great [Julius] Caesar bestowed upon the Jews; had this man, I say, known these records, and yet hath the impudence to write in contradiction to them, he hath shown himself to be a wicked man; but if he knew nothing of these records, he hath shown himself to be a man very ignorant: nay, when lie appears to wonder how Jews could be called Alexandrians, this is another like instance of his ignorance; for all such as are called out to be colonies, although they be ever so far remote from one another in their original, receive their names from those that bring them to their new habitations. And what occasion is there to speak of others, when those of us Jews that dwell at Antioch are named Antiochians, because Seleucns the founder of that city gave them the privileges belonging thereto? After the like manner do those Jews that inhabit Ephesus, and the other cities of Ionia, enjoy the same name with those that were originally born there, by the grant of the succeeding princes; nay, the kindness and humanity of the Romans hath been so great, that it hath granted leave to almost all others to take the same name of Romans upon them; I mean not particular men only, but entire and large nations themselves also; for those anciently named Iberi, and Tyrrheni, and Sabini, are now called Romani. And if Apion reject this way of obtaining the privilege of a citizen of Alexandria, let him abstain from calling himself an Alexandrian hereafter; for otherwise, how can he who was born in the very heart of Egypt be an Alexandrian, if this way of accepting such a privilege, of which he would have us deprived, be once abrogated? although indeed these Romans, who are now the lords of the habitable earth, have forbidden the Egyptians to have the privileges of any city whatsoever; while this fine fellow, who is willing to partake of such a privilege himself as he is forbidden to make use of, endeavors by calumnies to deprive those of it that have justly received it; for Alexander did not therefore get some of our nation to Alexandria, because he wanted inhabitants for this his city, on whose building he had bestowed so much pains; but this was given to our people as a reward, because he had, upon a careful trial, found them all to have been men of virtue and fidelity to him; for, as Hecateus says concerning us, "Alexander honored our nation to such a degree, that, for the equity and the fidelity which the Jews exhibited to him, he permitted them to hold the country of Samaria free from tribute. Of the same mind also was Ptolemy the son of Lagus, as to those Jews who dwelt at Alexandria." For he intrusted the fortresses of Egypt into their hands, as believing they would keep them faithfully and valiantly for him; and when he was desirous to secure the government of Cyrene, and the other cities of Libya, to himself, he sent a party of Jews to inhabit in them. And for his successor Ptolemy, who was called Philadelphus, he did not only set all those of our nation free who were captives under him, but did frequently give money [for their ransom]; and, what was his greatest work of all, he had a great desire of knowing our laws, and of obtaining the books of our sacred Scriptures; accordingly, he desired that such men might be sent him as might interpret our law to him; and, in order to have them well compiled, he committed that care to no ordinary persons, but ordained that Demetrius Phalereus, and Andreas, and Aristeas; the first, Demetrius, the most learned person of his age, and the others, such as were intrusted with the guard of his body; should take care of this matter: nor would he certainly have been so desirous of learning our law, and the philosophy of our nation, had he despised the men that made use of it, or had he not indeed had them in great admiration.
4. But now let’s look at the serious and unjust accusations that Apion makes against the Alexandrian Jews. "They came [he says] from Syria, and settled near the stormy sea, by the crashing waves." If where they live is something that can be criticized, then this man is not attacking his own homeland, [Egypt,] but what he pretends to be his own land, Alexandria; because everyone agrees that the part of the city by the sea is the best area to live in. If the Jews took that part of the city by force and have kept it without challenge, that shows their bravery; but the truth is that Alexander himself granted them that area to live in when they received equal rights with the Macedonians. I won’t even speculate about what Apion would have said if their settlement had been in Necropolis, away from the royal palace [as it is]; nor if their nation hadn't been called Macedonians until today [as they still are]. If this man had read the letters of King Alexander, or those of Ptolemy son of Lagus, or the writings of succeeding kings, or the pillar still standing in Alexandria that lists the privileges Julius Caesar granted to the Jews; if he had been aware of those records and still had the audacity to write against them, he has proven to be a wicked man; but if he was unaware of these records, he has shown himself to be very ignorant. Furthermore, when he seems to be surprised that Jews could be called Alexandrians, it reflects another instance of his ignorance; because anyone who is called to settle in a colony—no matter how far they are from their original home—receives their name from those who bring them to their new homes. Why mention others when we Jews living in Antioch are called Antiochians because Seleucus, the founder of that city, granted them the corresponding privileges? Similarly, those Jews living in Ephesus and other cities in Ionia share the same name as those who were originally born there, due to the granting of privileges by later rulers. Moreover, the Romans have been so generous that they have allowed almost everyone else to adopt the name of Romans; I’m not just talking about individual people, but entire large nations too; because those formerly known as Iberians, Tyrrhenians, and Sabines are now called Romans. And if Apion rejects this way of acquiring the privilege of being an Alexandrian citizen, he should refrain from calling himself an Alexandrian in the future; otherwise, how could someone born in the heart of Egypt consider themselves an Alexandrian if this method of obtaining such a privilege, which he wants to deny us, were ever revoked? Although, in reality, the Romans, who now rule the inhabited world, have forbidden Egyptians from claiming the privileges of any city at all; while this clever guy, who wants to enjoy a privilege himself that he is not allowed to, tries to slander those who rightfully have it; for Alexander did not bring some of our people to Alexandria because he lacked inhabitants for the city he worked so hard to build; rather, he offered this as a reward because he found them to be men of virtue and loyalty to him after careful consideration. As Hecateus noted about us, "Alexander honored our nation to such an extent that, for the fairness and loyalty the Jews showed him, he allowed them to keep their territory in Samaria tax-free. Ptolemy, son of Lagus, shared the same view about the Jews in Alexandria." He entrusted the fortresses of Egypt to them, believing they would guard them faithfully and bravely for him; when he wanted to secure the governance of Cyrene and other cities in Libya, he sent a group of Jews to settle there. And regarding his successor Ptolemy, known as Philadelphus, he not only freed all the Jews who were captives under him but often paid money [for their ransom]; and in what was his most significant act, he showed a strong desire to learn our laws and obtain the books of our sacred Scriptures; thus, he requested that knowledgeable individuals be sent to interpret our law for him; to ensure the texts were well compiled, he entrusted this task to no ordinary people, but appointed Demetrius Phalereus, Andreas, and Aristeas; Demetrius, the most learned man of his time, along with the others who were responsible for his protection, should manage it: he would certainly not have been so eager to understand our law and the philosophy of our people if he had looked down on those who practiced it, or if he did not genuinely admire them.
5. Now this Apion was unacquainted with almost all the kings of those Macedonians whom he pretends to have been his progenitors, who were yet very well affected towards us; for the third of those Ptolemies, who was called Euergetes, when he had gotten possession of all Syria by force, did not offer his thank-offerings to the Egyptian gods for his victory, but came to Jerusalem, and according to our own laws offered many sacrifices to God, and dedicated to him such gifts as were suitable to such a victory: and as for Ptolemy Philometer and his wife Cleopatra, they committed their whole kingdom to the Jews, when Onias and Dositheus, both Jews, whose names are laughed at by Apion, were the generals of their whole army. But certainly, instead of reproaching them, he ought to admire their actions, and return them thanks for saving Alexandria, whose citizen he pretends to be; for when these Alexandrians were making war with Cleopatra the queen, and were in danger of being utterly ruined, these Jews brought them to terms of agreement, and freed them from the miseries of a civil war. "But then [says Apion] Onias brought a small army afterward upon the city at the time when Thorruns the Roman ambassador was there present." Yes, do I venture to say, and that he did rightly and very justly in so doing; for that Ptolemy who was called Physco, upon the death of his brother Philometer, came from Cyrene, and would have ejected Cleopatra as well as her sons out of their kingdom, that he might obtain it for himself unjustly. 5 For this cause then it was that Onias undertook a war against him on Cleopatra's account; nor would he desert that trust the royal family had reposed in him in their distress. Accordingly, God gave a remarkable attestation to his righteous procedure; for when Ptolemy Physco 6 had the presumption to fight against Onias's army, and had caught all the Jews that were in the city [Alexandria], with their children and wives, and exposed them naked and in bonds to his elephants, that they might be trodden upon and destroyed, and when he had made those elephants drunk for that purpose, the event proved contrary to his preparations; for these elephants left the Jews who were exposed to them, and fell violently upon Physco's friends, and slew a great number of them; nay, after this Ptolemy saw a terrible ghost, which prohibited his hurting those men; his very concubine, whom he loved so well, [some call her Ithaca, and others Irene,] making supplication to him, that he would not perpetrate so great a wickedness. So he complied with her request, and repented of what he either had already done, or was about to do; whence it is well known that the Alexandrian Jews do with good reason celebrate this day, on the account that they had thereon been vouchsafed such an evident deliverance from God. However, Apion, the common calumniator of men, hath the presumption to accuse the Jews for making this war against Physco, when he ought to have commended them for the same. This man also makes mention of Cleopatra, the last queen of Alexandria, and abuses us, because she was ungrateful to us; whereas he ought to have reproved her, who indulged herself in all kinds of injustice and wicked practices, both with regard to her nearest relations and husbands who had loved her, and, indeed, in general with regard to all the Romans, and those emperors that were her benefactors; who also had her sister Arsinoe slain in a temple, when she had done her no harm: moreover, she had her brother slain by private treachery, and she destroyed the gods of her country and the sepulchers of her progenitors; and while she had received her kingdom from the first Caesar, she had the impudence to rebel against his son: 7 and successor; nay, she corrupted Antony with her love-tricks, and rendered him an enemy to his country, and made him treacherous to his friends, and [by his means] despoiled some of their royal authority, and forced others in her madness to act wickedly. But what need I enlarge upon this head any further, when she left Antony in his fight at sea, though he were her husband, and the father of their common children, and compelled him to resign up his government, with the army, and to follow her [into Egypt]? nay, when last of all Caesar had taken Alexandria, she came to that pitch of cruelty, that she declared she had some hope of preserving her affairs still, in case she could kill the Jews, though it were with her own hand; to such a degree of barbarity and perfidiousness had she arrived. And doth any one think that we cannot boast ourselves of any thing, if, as Apion says, this queen did not at a time of famine distribute wheat among us? However, she at length met with the punishment she deserved. As for us Jews, we appeal to the great Caesar what assistance we brought him, and what fidelity we showed to him against the Egyptians; as also to the senate and its decrees, and the epistles of Augustus Caesar, whereby our merits [to the Romans] are justified. Apion ought to have looked upon those epistles, and in particular to have examined the testimonies given on our behalf, under Alexander and all the Ptolemies, and the decrees of the senate and of the greatest Roman emperors. And if Germanicus was not able to make a distribution of corn to all the inhabitants of Alexandria, that only shows what a barren time it was, and how great a want there was then of corn, but tends nothing to the accusation of the Jews; for what all the emperors have thought of the Alexandrian Jews is well known, for this distribution of wheat was no otherwise omitted with regard to the Jews, than it was with regard to the other inhabitants of Alexandria. But they still were desirous to preserve what the kings had formerly intrusted to their care, I mean the custody of the river; nor did those kings think them unworthy of having the entire custody thereof, upon all occasions.
5. Now, Apion didn’t know most of the Macedonian kings he claims as his ancestors, who were actually quite friendly towards us. For instance, the third of the Ptolemies, known as Euergetes, after taking control of all of Syria by force, didn’t give thanks to the Egyptian gods for his victory. Instead, he came to Jerusalem, offered many sacrifices to God according to our laws, and dedicated suitable gifts for such a victory. As for Ptolemy Philometer and his wife Cleopatra, they trusted the Jews with their entire kingdom when Onias and Dositheus, both Jews, whom Apion mockingly names, were the generals of their entire army. Instead of criticizing them, he should admire their actions and thank them for saving Alexandria, which he claims to be a citizen of. When the Alexandrians were at war with Queen Cleopatra and facing complete ruin, the Jews negotiated peace and saved them from the horrors of a civil conflict. "But then," Apion says, "Onias later attacked the city when the Roman ambassador Thorruns was present." Yes, I would argue he did so rightly and justly; because Ptolemy, referred to as Physco, upon his brother Philometer's death, came from Cyrene and unjustly attempted to take the kingdom from Cleopatra and her sons. It was for this reason that Onias went to war for Cleopatra; he wouldn’t abandon the trust the royal family placed in him during their time of distress. Accordingly, God showed clear support for his righteous actions. When Ptolemy Physco had the arrogance to fight against Onias’s army and captured all the Jews in the city [Alexandria], along with their wives and children, exposing them naked and in chains to his elephants to be trampled, he had made those elephants drunk for this very purpose. But the outcome turned out to be the opposite of his plans; the elephants ignored the captured Jews and instead attacked Physco’s supporters, killing many of them. Moreover, Ptolemy saw a terrifying apparition that stopped him from harming those men, with even his beloved concubine [some call her Ithaca, others Irene] pleading with him not to commit such an evil. He agreed to her request and regretted what he had already done or was about to do, which is why it’s well known that the Jews of Alexandria reasonably celebrate this day, recognizing their clear deliverance from God. Yet, Apion, the common slanderer, dares to blame the Jews for waging war against Physco when he should be praising them. He also mentions Cleopatra, the last queen of Alexandria, and criticizes us for her ingratitude, when he should have scolded her for her countless injustices and wicked actions against her closest relatives, husbands who loved her, all Romans, and her benefactor emperors. She even had her sister Arsinoe killed in a temple when she had done her no harm and treachery led her to have her brother killed. She destroyed the gods of her homeland and the tombs of her ancestors. Although she received her kingdom from the first Caesar, she had the audacity to rebel against his son and successor. Furthermore, she seduced Antony with her charms, turning him against his country, making him betray his friends, and caused some to lose their royal power while compelling others to act immorally in her madness. Why should I elaborate further when she abandoned Antony during his naval battle, despite being his wife and the mother of their children, forcing him to yield his government and army and follow her to Egypt? Ultimately, when Caesar captured Alexandria, she reached such a level of cruelty that she declared she had some hope of salvaging her situation by killing the Jews herself, showcasing her deep barbarity and treachery. Does anyone truly believe we can't take pride in anything just because, as Apion claims, this queen did not distribute wheat to us during a famine? However, in the end, she got the punishment she deserved. As for us Jews, we appeal to the great Caesar, affirming our assistance and loyalty to him against the Egyptians, as well as the Senate, its decrees, and the letters of Augustus Caesar that validate our merits to the Romans. Apion should have reviewed those letters, particularly the testimonies on our behalf from Alexander and all the Ptolemies, along with the decrees from the Senate and the most significant Roman emperors. And if Germanicus couldn’t distribute grain to all the residents of Alexandria, it simply highlights how barren the time was and the dire lack of grain, not an indictment of the Jews since the distribution of wheat was equally lacking for the other residents of Alexandria. Still, they wished to maintain what the kings had once entrusted to their care, meaning the oversight of the river; those kings never deemed them unworthy of that complete responsibility on all occasions.
6. But besides this, Apion objects to us thus: "If the Jews [says he] be citizens of Alexandria, why do they not worship the same gods with the Alexandrians?" To which I give this answer: Since you are yourselves Egyptians, why do you fight it out one against another, and have implacable wars about your religion? At this rate we must not call you all Egyptians, nor indeed in general men, because you breed up with great care beasts of a nature quite contrary to that of men, although the nature of all men seems to be one and the same. Now if there be such differences in opinion among you Egyptians, why are you surprised that those who came to Alexandria from another country, and had original laws of their own before, should persevere in the observance of those laws? But still he charges us with being the authors of sedition; which accusation, if it be a just one, why is it not laid against us all, since we are known to be all of one mind. Moreover, those that search into such matters will soon discover that the authors of sedition have been such citizens of Alexandria as Apion is; for while they were the Grecians and Macedonians who were ill possession of this city, there was no sedition raised against us, and we were permitted to observe our ancient solemnities; but when the number of the Egyptians therein came to be considerable, the times grew confused, and then these seditions brake out still more and more, while our people continued uncorrupted. These Egyptians, therefore, were the authors of these troubles, who having not the constancy of Macedonians, nor the prudence of Grecians, indulged all of them the evil manners of the Egyptians, and continued their ancient hatred against us; for what is here so presumptuously charged upon us, is owing to the differences that are amongst themselves; while many of them have not obtained the privileges of citizens in proper times, but style those who are well known to have had that privilege extended to them all no other than foreigners: for it does not appear that any of the kings have ever formerly bestowed those privileges of citizens upon Egyptians, no more than have the emperors done it more lately; while it was Alexander who introduced us into this city at first, the kings augmented our privileges therein, and the Romans have been pleased to preserve them always inviolable. Moreover, Apion would lay a blot upon us, because we do not erect images for our emperors; as if those emperors did not know this before, or stood in need of Apion as their defender; whereas he ought rather to have admired the magnanimity and modesty of the Romans, whereby they do not compel those that are subject to them to transgress the laws of their countries, but are willing to receive the honors due to them after such a manner as those who are to pay them esteem consistent with piety and with their own laws; for they do not thank people for conferring honors upon them, When they are compelled by violence so to do. Accordingly, since the Grecians and some other nations think it a right thing to make images, nay, when they have painted the pictures of their parents, and wives, and children, they exult for joy; and some there are who take pictures for themselves of such persons as were no way related to them; nay, some take the pictures of such servants as they were fond of; what wonder is it then if such as these appear willing to pay the same respect to their princes and lords? But then our legislator hath forbidden us to make images, not by way of denunciation beforehand, that the Roman authority was not to be honored, but as despising a thing that was neither necessary nor useful for either God or man; and he forbade them, as we shall prove hereafter, to make these images for any part of the animal creation, and much less for God himself, who is no part of such animal creation. Yet hath our legislator no where forbidden us to pay honors to worthy men, provided they be of another kind, and inferior to those we pay to God; with which honors we willingly testify our respect to our emperors, and to the people of Rome; we also offer perpetual sacrifices for them; nor do we only offer them every day at the common expenses of all the Jews, but although we offer no other such sacrifices out of our common expenses, no, not for our own children, yet do we this as a peculiar honor to the emperors, and to them alone, while we do the same to no other person whomsoever. And let this suffice for an answer in general to Apion, as to what he says with relation to the Alexandrian Jews.
6. But besides this, Apion challenges us with this: "If the Jews are citizens of Alexandria, why don't they worship the same gods as the Alexandrians?" To which I respond: Since you are Egyptians, why do you fight against each other and engage in relentless wars over your religion? At this rate, we can't call you all Egyptians, or even humans, because you raise animals that are completely different from humans, even though all humans seem to share the same nature. If there are such differences of opinion among you Egyptians, why are you surprised that those who came to Alexandria from another country, with their own original laws, continue to follow those laws? Yet, he accuses us of being the source of discord; if that accusation is valid, why isn't it directed at all of us, since we are known to share the same beliefs. Furthermore, those who investigate these issues will soon find that the real sources of discord are citizens of Alexandria like Apion; during the time when the city was predominantly Grecian and Macedonian, there was no conflict against us, and we were allowed to observe our traditional ceremonies. But when the Egyptian population grew, chaos erupted, and these conflicts increased, while our people remained untainted. Therefore, these Egyptians are the true instigators of these troubles; lacking the steadiness of the Macedonians and the wisdom of the Greeks, they indulged in the harmful ways of the Egyptians and clung to their ancient animosity toward us. What they accuse us of stems from their internal differences, while many deny citizenship privileges at appropriate times, labeling those who clearly received those privileges as nothing more than foreigners. It doesn't seem that any kings have ever granted citizenship privileges to Egyptians, just as recent emperors have not done so either; it was Alexander who originally brought us into this city, the kings increased our privileges, and the Romans have consistently protected them. Moreover, Apion tries to tarnish our reputation because we don't create statues for our emperors, as if those emperors were unaware of this or needed Apion as their defender; he should instead admire the nobility and humility of the Romans, who don't force their subjects to violate their local laws but prefer to receive the honors due to them in a way that those paying them see as consistent with devotion and their own laws. They don’t thank people for honors granted under coercion. Accordingly, since the Greeks and some other nations think it right to create statues, and they rejoice when they paint pictures of their parents, wives, and children—some even create pictures of unrelated people or their favorite servants—why would it be surprising if they extend the same respect to their rulers? However, our lawgiver prohibited us from making statues not because he meant to imply that the Roman authority should not be honored, but because he deemed such acts unnecessary and useless for either God or man. He forbade us, as we will demonstrate later, from crafting images of any part of the animal kingdom, much less of God himself, who is not a part of that creation. Yet, our lawgiver has not forbidden us from honoring worthy individuals, as long as that honor is of a different kind and less than what we give to God; with those honors, we willingly show our respect to our emperors and to the people of Rome; we also make ongoing sacrifices for them. We don’t just make these sacrifices daily at the shared expense of all Jews, but even if we don't offer other such sacrifices from our common funds—none even for our own children—we do so specifically as a special honor to the emperors, and to them alone, while no other person receives the same. And let this serve as a general response to Apion regarding what he says about the Alexandrian Jews.
7. However, I cannot but admire those other authors who furnished this man with such his materials; I mean Possidonius and Apollonius [the son of] Molo, 8 who, while they accuse us for not worshipping the same gods whom others worship, they think themselves not guilty of impiety when they tell lies of us, and frame absurd and reproachful stories about our temple; whereas it is a most shameful thing for freemen to forge lies on any occasion, and much more so to forge them about our temple, which was so famous over all the world, and was preserved so sacred by us; for Apion hath the impudence to pretend that, "the Jews placed an ass's head in their holy place;" and he affirms that this was discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes spoiled our temple, and found that ass's head there made of gold, and worth a great deal of money. To this my first answer shall be this, that had there been any such thing among us, an Egyptian ought by no means to have thrown it in our teeth, since an ass is not a more contemptible animal than 9 and goats, and other such creatures, which among them are gods. But besides this answer, I say further, how comes it about that Apion does not understand this to be no other than a palpable lie, and to be confuted by the thing itself as utterly incredible? For we Jews are always governed by the same laws, in which we constantly persevere; and although many misfortunes have befallen our city, as the like have befallen others, and although Theos [Epiphanes], and Pompey the Great, and Licinius Crassus, and last of all Titus Caesar, have conquered us in war, and gotten possession of our temple; yet have they none of them found any such thing there, nor indeed any thing but what was agreeable to the strictest piety; although what they found we are not at liberty to reveal to other nations. But for Antiochus [Epiphanes], he had no just cause for that ravage in our temple that he made; he only came to it when he wanted money, without declaring himself our enemy, and attacked us while we were his associates and his friends; nor did he find any thing there that was ridiculous. This is attested by many worthy writers; Polybius of Megalopolis, Strabo of Cappadocia, Nicolaus of Damascus, Timagenes, Castor the chronotoger, and Apollodorus; 10 who all say that it was out of Antiochus's want of money that he broke his league with the Jews, and despoiled their temple when it was full of gold and silver. Apion ought to have had a regard to these facts, unless he had himself had either an ass's heart or a dog's impudence; of such a dog I mean as they worship; for he had no other external reason for the lies he tells of us. As for us Jews, we ascribe no honor or power to asses, as do the Egyptians to crocodiles and asps, when they esteem such as are seized upon by the former, or bitten by the latter, to be happy persons, and persons worthy of God. Asses are the same with us which they are with other wise men, viz. creatures that bear the burdens that we lay upon them; but if they come to our thrashing-floors and eat our corn, or do not perform what we impose upon them, we beat them with a great many stripes, because it is their business to minister to us in our husbandry affairs. But this Apion of ours was either perfectly unskillful in the composition of such fallacious discourses, or however, when he begun [somewhat better], he was not able to persevere in what he had undertaken, since he hath no manner of success in those reproaches he casts upon us.
7. However, I can't help but admire those other authors who provided this man with such materials; I mean Possidonius and Apollonius [the son of] Molo, 8 who, while they criticize us for not worshipping the same gods as others, don’t see themselves as guilty of impiety when they lie about us and create absurd and insulting stories about our temple. It’s truly shameful for free people to fabricate lies at any time, and even more so to make up lies about our temple, which was famous all over the world and highly revered by us. Apion has the audacity to claim that "the Jews placed an ass's head in their holy place," and he asserts that this was discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes plundered our temple and found that gold ass's head there, worth a lot of money. My first response to this is that if there had actually been such a thing among us, an Egyptian should not have the right to throw it in our faces, since an ass is no more contemptible than 9 and goats and other similar animals, which they consider to be gods. Moreover, I further question how Apion fails to recognize this as nothing more than a blatant lie, easily disproven by the fact itself as utterly unbelievable. We Jews are always governed by the same laws, which we consistently uphold; and although our city has faced many misfortunes, similar to those of others, and although Theos [Epiphanes], Pompey the Great, Licinius Crassus, and finally Titus Caesar have defeated us in battle and taken over our temple, none of them found anything there except what was in complete agreement with the strictest piety; and while we can’t reveal what they found to other nations, we can affirm that Antiochus [Epiphanes] had no justification for his devastation of our temple. He came only when he needed money, not declaring himself our enemy, and attacked us while we were his allies and friends; and he didn’t find anything there that was ridiculous. Many respected writers attest to this: Polybius of Megalopolis, Strabo of Cappadocia, Nicolaus of Damascus, Timagenes, Castor the chronologer, and Apollodorus; 10 all state that it was Antiochus’s need for money that caused him to break his pact with the Jews and rob their temple when it was full of gold and silver. Apion should have considered these facts unless he had either an ass's heart or a dog's audacity; I mean a dog like the ones they worship; since he had no other obvious reason for the lies he tells about us. As for us Jews, we don’t attribute any honor or power to asses, unlike the Egyptians who regard crocodiles and asps as sacred, believing that those who are seized by the former or bitten by the latter are blessed and deserving of God’s favor. Asses are viewed by us as they are by other wise people, as creatures that carry the burdens we place on them; however, if they come to our threshing floors and eat our grain, or fail to do what we expect of them, we beat them harshly because it’s their job to assist us in our agricultural tasks. But this Apion of ours was either completely unskilled in crafting such misleading narratives, or, when he started out somewhat better, he just couldn’t maintain what he set out to do since he has no success in the accusations he directs at us.
8. He adds another Grecian fable, in order to reproach us. In reply to which, it would be enough to say, that they who presume to speak about Divine worship ought not to be ignorant of this plain truth, that it is a degree of less impurity to pass through temples, than to forge wicked calumnies of its priests. Now such men as he are more zealous to justify a sacrilegious king, than to write what is just and what is true about us, and about our temple; for when they are desirous of gratifying Antiochus, and of concealing that perfidiousness and sacrilege which he was guilty of, with regard to our nation, when he wanted money, they endeavor to disgrace us, and tell lies even relating to futurities. Apion becomes other men's prophet upon this occasion, and says that "Antiochus found in our temple a bed, and a man lying upon it, with a small table before him, full of dainties, from the [fishes of the] sea, and the fowls of the dry land; that this man was amazed at these dainties thus set before him; that he immediately adored the king, upon his coming in, as hoping that he would afford him all possible assistance; that he fell down upon his knees, and stretched out to him his right hand, and begged to be released; and that when the king bid him sit down, and tell him who he was, and why he dwelt there, and what was the meaning of those various sorts of food that were set before him the man made a lamentable complaint, and with sighs, and tears in his eyes, gave him this account of the distress he was in; and said that he was a Greek and that as he went over this province, in order to get his living, he was seized upon by foreigners, on a sudden, and brought to this temple, and shut up therein, and was seen by nobody, but was fattened by these curious provisions thus set before him; and that truly at the first such unexpected advantages seemed to him matter of great joy; that after a while, they brought a suspicion him, and at length astonishment, what their meaning should be; that at last he inquired of the servants that came to him and was by them informed that it was in order to the fulfilling a law of the Jews, which they must not tell him, that he was thus fed; and that they did the same at a set time every year: that they used to catch a Greek foreigner, and fat him thus up every year, and then lead him to a certain wood, and kill him, and sacrifice with their accustomed solemnities, and taste of his entrails, and take an oath upon this sacrificing a Greek, that they would ever be at enmity with the Greeks; and that then they threw the remaining parts of the miserable wretch into a certain pit." Apion adds further, that, "the man said there were but a few days to come ere he was to be slain, and implored of Antiochus that, out of the reverence he bore to the Grecian gods, he would disappoint the snares the Jews laid for his blood, and would deliver him from the miseries with which he was encompassed." 11 Now this is such a most tragical fable as is full of nothing but cruelty and impudence; yet does it not excuse Antiochus of his sacrilegious attempt, as those who write it in his vindication are willing to suppose; for he could not presume beforehand that he should meet with any such thing in coming to the temple, but must have found it unexpectedly. He was therefore still an impious person, that was given to unlawful pleasures, and had no regard to God in his actions. But [as for Apion], he hath done whatever his extravagant love of lying hath dictated to him, as it is most easy to discover by a consideration of his writings; for the difference of our laws is known not to regard the Grecians only, but they are principally opposite to the Egyptians, and to some other nations also for while it so falls out that men of all countries come sometimes and sojourn among us, how comes it about that we take an oath, and conspire only against the Grecians, and that by the effusion of their blood also? Or how is it possible that all the Jews should get together to these sacrifices, and the entrails of one man should be sufficient for so many thousands to taste of them, as Apion pretends? Or why did not the king carry this man, whosoever he was, and whatsoever was his name, [which is not set down in Apion's book,] with great pomp back into his own country? when he might thereby have been esteemed a religious person himself, and a mighty lover of the Greeks, and might thereby have procured himself great assistance from all men against that hatred the Jews bore to him. But I leave this matter; for the proper way of confuting fools is not to use bare words, but to appeal to the things themselves that make against them. Now, then, all such as ever saw the construction of our temple, of what nature it was, know well enough how the purity of it was never to be profaned; for it had four several courts 12 encompassed with cloisters round about, every one of which had by our law a peculiar degree of separation from the rest. Into the first court every body was allowed to go, even foreigners, and none but women, during their courses, were prohibited to pass through it; all the Jews went into the second court, as well as their wives, when they were free from all uncleanness; into the third court went in the Jewish men, when they were clean and purified; into the fourth went the priests, having on their sacerdotal garments; but for the most sacred place, none went in but the high priests, clothed in their peculiar garments. Now there is so great caution used about these offices of religion, that the priests are appointed to go into the temple but at certain hours; for in the morning, at the opening of the inner temple, those that are to officiate receive the sacrifices, as they do again at noon, till the doors are shut. Lastly, it is not so much as lawful to carry any vessel into the holy house; nor is there any thing therein, but the altar [of incense], the table [of shew-bread], the censer, and the candlestick, which are all written in the law; for there is nothing further there, nor are there any mysteries performed that may not be spoken of; nor is there any feasting within the place. For what I have now said is publicly known, and supported by the testimony of the whole people, and their operations are very manifest; for although there be four courses of the priests, and every one of them have above five thousand men in them, yet do they officiate on certain days only; and when those days are over, other priests succeed in the performance of their sacrifices, and assemble together at mid-day, and receive the keys of the temple, and the vessels by tale, without any thing relating to food or drink being carried into the temple; nay, we are not allowed to offer such things at the altar, excepting what is prepared for the sacrifices.
8. He brings up another Greek fable to criticize us. In response, it’s enough to point out that those who dare to discuss Divine worship shouldn’t ignore this simple truth: it’s less impure to walk through temples than to create wicked slanders about their priests. People like him are more eager to justify a sacrilegious king than to write honestly and truthfully about us and our temple. When they aim to please Antiochus and hide the treachery and sacrilege he committed against our nation because he wanted money, they try to tarnish our reputation and spread lies about the future. Apion plays the role of someone else’s prophet here, claiming that "Antiochus found a bed in our temple, and a man lying on it, with a small table in front of him filled with delicacies from the sea and land; that this man was astonished by the delicacies presented to him; that upon seeing the king, he immediately worshipped him, hoping for all possible help; that he knelt down, stretched out his right hand, and begged to be freed; and that when the king told him to sit down and asked who he was, why he was there, and the significance of the various foods in front of him, the man made a heartbreaking complaint, sighing and tearing up. He explained that he was a Greek, traveling through this province to make a living, but was suddenly seized by foreigners, brought to this temple, and held captive, unseen by anyone, while being fed these fancy provisions. At first, he found this unexpected situation joyful, but after a while, suspicion turned into confusion about what it all meant. Finally, he asked the servants who visited him, and they informed him that he was fed in order to fulfill a Jewish law that they couldn’t disclose; that they did this same thing every year. They caught a Greek foreigner, fattened him up each year, then took him to a certain woods, killed him, sacrificed him with their usual rituals, tasted his entrails, and swore an oath upon sacrificing a Greek that they would remain enemies of the Greeks; then they discarded the remains of the unfortunate man into a pit." Apion further adds that "the man said there were only a few days left before he was to be killed, and he begged Antiochus, out of respect for the Greek gods, to thwart the traps the Jews set for his blood and help him escape the torment surrounding him." 11 This is such a tragic fable filled with nothing but cruelty and audacity; yet it doesn’t absolve Antiochus of his sacrilegious actions, as those who write in his defense would like to believe. He couldn’t have assumed beforehand that he would encounter anything like that when he came to the temple; he must have found it entirely unexpected. He was, therefore, still a wicked person, indulging in unlawful pleasures, with no regard for God in his actions. But [as for Apion], he’s done whatever his wild love for lying dictated to him, which is easy to see through a consideration of his writings. The differences in our laws aren’t just directed at Greeks but are primarily opposed to Egyptians and other nations as well. While people from all countries sometimes come and stay among us, how is it that we conspire only against the Greeks, even shedding blood? Or how can all Jews come together for these sacrifices, while the entrails of just one person are supposedly enough for thousands to share, as Apion claims? Why didn’t the king take this man, whoever he was, and whatever his name was [which isn’t noted in Apion’s account], back to his own country with great ceremony? He could have been seen as a religious man and a great lover of Greeks, gaining him significant support against the animosity the Jews held toward him. But I’ll leave this matter be; the best way to refute fools is not to simply use words, but to refer to reality that contradicts them. Now, everyone who has seen the structure of our temple understands that its purity must never be violated; it has four distinct courts 12 surrounded by porticos, each with its own unique level of separation. Anyone can enter the first court, even foreigners, except women during their menstrual cycles; all Jews, along with their wives when they are clean, enter the second court; Jewish men who have purified themselves enter the third court; the priests, dressed in their sacred garments, enter the fourth court; but only the high priests in their specific attire enter the most sacred place. There is such strict caution regarding these religious duties that priests can only enter the temple at designated times; in the morning, when the inner temple opens, those on duty receive the sacrifices, and they do the same at noon, until the doors are closed. Lastly, it’s even against the law to bring any vessel into the holy house; the only items within are the altar [of incense], the table [of showbread], the censer, and the candlestick, all specified in the law; nothing else exists there, and no sacred rituals take place that can't be discussed; nor is there any feasting in that place. What I’ve just stated is well known and supported by the testimony of the entire community, and their practices are very clear; even though there are four groups of priests, each containing over five thousand men, they serve only on specific days. When those days are done, other priests take over the responsibilities of their sacrifices, gathering at midday to receive the keys of the temple and the items, with nothing related to food or drink being brought into the temple; indeed, we can’t even offer such things at the altar, except for what’s prepared for the sacrifices.
9. What then can we say of Apion, but that he examined nothing that concerned these things, while still he uttered incredible words about them? but it is a great shame for a grammarian not to be able to write true history. Now if he knew the purity of our temple, he hath entirely omitted to take notice of it; but he forges a story about the seizing of a Grecian, about ineffable food, and the most delicious preparation of dainties; and pretends that strangers could go into a place whereinto the noblest men among the Jews are not allowed to enter, unless they be priests. This, therefore, is the utmost degree of impiety, and a voluntary lie, in order to the delusion of those who will not examine into the truth of matters; whereas such unspeakable mischiefs as are above related have been occasioned by such calumnies that are raised upon us.
9. What can we say about Apion? He didn't investigate any of these matters, yet still he made unbelievable claims about them. It's a huge shame for a scholar not to be able to write accurate history. If he understood the integrity of our temple, he completely ignored it; instead, he creates a story about the kidnapping of a Greek, about unbelievable food, and the most exquisite dishes; and he suggests that outsiders can enter a place that the most distinguished men among the Jews cannot access unless they are priests. This is the peak of disrespect and a deliberate falsehood, intended to mislead those who won't bother to check the facts; meanwhile, the outrageous harm described above has arisen from such slanders against us.
10. Nay, this miracle or piety derides us further, and adds the following pretended facts to his former fable; for he says that this man related how, "while the Jews were once in a long war with the Idumeans, there came a man out of one of the cities of the Idumeans, who there had worshipped Apollo. This man, whose name is said to have been Zabidus, came to the Jews, and promised that he would deliver Apollo, the god of Dora, into their hands, and that he would come to our temple, if they would all come up with him, and bring the whole multitude of the Jews with them; that Zabidus made him a certain wooden instrument, and put it round about him, and set three rows of lamps therein, and walked after such a manner, that he appeared to those that stood a great way off him to be a kind of star, walking upon the earth; that the Jews were terribly affrighted at so surprising an appearance, and stood very quiet at a distance; and that Zabidus, while they continued so very quiet, went into the holy house, and carried off that golden head of an ass, [for so facetiously does he write,] and then went his way back again to Dora in great haste." And say you so, sir! as I may reply; then does Apion load the ass, that is, himself, and lays on him a burden of fooleries and lies; for he writes of places that have no being, and not knowing the cities he speaks of, he changes their situation; for Idumea borders upon our country, and is near to Gaza, in which there is no such city as Dora; although there be, it is true, a city named Dora in Phoenicia, near Mount Carmel, but it is four days' journey from Idumea. Now, then, why does this man accuse us, because we have not gods in common with other nations, if our fathers were so easily prevailed upon to have Apollo come to them, and thought they saw him walking upon the earth, and the stars with him? for certainly those who have so many festivals, wherein they light lamps, must yet, at this rate, have never seen a candlestick! But still it seems that while Zabidus took his journey over the country, where were so many ten thousands of people, nobody met him. He also, it seems, even in a time of war, found the walls of Jerusalem destitute of guards. I omit the rest. Now the doors of the holy house were seventy 13 cubits high, and twenty cubits broad; they were all plated over with gold, and almost of solid gold itself, and there were no fewer than twenty 14 men required to shut them every day; nor was it lawful ever to leave them open, though it seems this lamp-bearer of ours opened them easily, or thought he opened them, as he thought he had the ass's head in his hand. Whether, therefore, he returned it to us again, or whether Apion took it, and brought it into the temple again, that Antiochus might find it, and afford a handle for a second fable of Apion's, is uncertain.
10. No, this miracle or act of devotion makes fun of us even more and adds the following fabricated details to his earlier story. He claims that this man recounted how, "during a lengthy war between the Jews and the Idumeans, a man from one of the Idumean cities, where he worshipped Apollo, approached the Jews. This man's name was supposedly Zabidus. He promised the Jews that he would deliver Apollo, the god of Dora, into their hands and would come to our temple if they all joined him and brought the entire Jewish populace with them. Zabidus created a wooden device, wrapped it around himself, set up three rows of lamps in it, and walked in such a way that those who were far away saw him as a sort of star walking on the earth. The Jews were terrified by this surprising sight and stood quietly at a distance. While they remained silent, Zabidus entered the holy house and took away the golden head of an ass, [as humorously as he may describe it], and then hurried back to Dora." Is that right, sir! As I may answer; then Apion burdens the ass, meaning himself, with absurdities and lies. He writes about places that don't exist and, not knowing the cities he mentions, mixes up their locations; Idumea is close to our country and near Gaza, which has no city named Dora. It's true there’s a city called Dora in Phoenicia, near Mount Carmel, but it’s a four-day journey from Idumea. So why does this man blame us for not sharing gods with other nations if our ancestors were so easily convinced to have Apollo come to them and believed they saw him walking on the earth along with stars? Clearly, those who have so many festivals where they light lamps must not have ever seen a candlestick! Plus, it seems that while Zabidus traveled through a land filled with countless people, no one encountered him. He also allegedly found the walls of Jerusalem unguarded, even during war. I'll skip the rest. The doors of the holy house were seventy 13 cubits high and twenty cubits wide; they were covered in gold, virtually made of solid gold, and required no fewer than twenty 14 men to close them every day. It was never allowed to leave them open, yet it seems this lamp-bearer of ours somehow managed to open them easily, or at least thought he did, just as he believed he held the ass's head in his hand. Whether he returned it to us or Apion took it back and placed it in the temple again for Antiochus to find, which would give Apion another chance to spin another tale, remains unclear.
11. Apion also tells a false story, when he mentions an oath of ours, as if we "swore by God, the Maker of the heaven, and earth, and sea, to bear no good will to any foreigner, and particularly to none of the Greeks." Now this liar ought to have said directly that, "we would bear no good-will to any foreigner, and particularly to none of the Egyptians." For then his story about the oath would have squared with the rest of his original forgeries, in case our forefathers had been driven away by their kinsmen, the Egyptians, not on account of any wickedness they had been guilty of, but on account of the calamities they were under; for as to the Grecians, we were rather remote from them in place, than different from them in our institutions, insomuch that we have no enmity with them, nor any jealousy of them. On the contrary, it hath so happened that many of them have come over to our laws, and some of them have continued in their observation, although others of them had not courage enough to persevere, and so departed from them again; nor did any body ever hear this oath sworn by us: Apion, it seems, was the only person that heard it, for he indeed was the first composer of it.
11. Apion also tells a misleading story when he brings up an oath of ours, as if we “swore by God, the Creator of heaven, earth, and sea, to have no good will toward any foreigner, especially not toward the Greeks.” In reality, this liar should have said that “we would have no good will toward any foreigner, especially not toward the Egyptians.” That way, his story about the oath would have matched with his other fabrications, as our ancestors were driven away by their relatives, the Egyptians, not because of any wrongdoing on their part, but due to the hardships they faced. As for the Greeks, we were more separated by distance than by our way of life, meaning we have no hostility toward them, nor do we feel any jealousy. In fact, many of them have adopted our laws, and while some have stuck with them, others didn’t have the courage to continue and went back to their own ways. No one has ever heard us swear this oath: it seems Apion is the only one who did, as he was the one who invented it.
12. However, Apion deserves to be admired for his great prudence, as to what I am going to say, which is this, "That there is a plain mark among us, that we neither have just laws, nor worship God as we ought to do, because we are not governors, but are rather in subjection to Gentiles, sometimes to one nation, and sometimes to another; and that our city hath been liable to several calamities, while their city [Alexandria] hath been of old time an imperial city, and not used to be in subjection to the Romans." But now this man had better leave off this bragging, for every body but himself would think that Apion said what he hath said against himself; for there are very few nations that have had the good fortune to continue many generations in the principality, but still the mutations in human affairs have put them into subjection under others; and most nations have been often subdued, and brought into subjection by others. Now for the Egyptians, perhaps they are the only nation that have had this extraordinary privilege, to have never served any of those monarchs who subdued Asia and Europe, and this on account, as they pretend, that the gods fled into their country, and saved themselves by being changed into the shapes of wild beasts! Whereas these Egyptians 15 are the very people that appear to have never, in all the past ages, had one day of freedom, no, not so much as from their own lords. For I will not reproach them with relating the manner how the Persians used them, and this not once only, but many times, when they laid their cities waste, demolished their temples, and cut the throats of those animals whom they esteemed to be gods; for it is not reasonable to imitate the clownish ignorance of Apion, who hath no regard to the misfortunes of the Athenians, or of the Lacedemonians, the latter of whom were styled by all men the most courageous, and the former the most religious of the Grecians. I say nothing of such kings as have been famous for piety, particularly of one of them, whose name was Cresus, nor what calamities he met with in his life; I say nothing of the citadel of Athens, of the temple at Ephesus, of that at Delphi, nor of ten thousand others which have been burnt down, while nobody cast reproaches on those that were the sufferers, but on those that were the actors therein. But now we have met with Apion, an accuser of our nation, though one that still forgets the miseries of his own people, the Egyptians; but it is that Sesostris who was once so celebrated a king of Egypt that hath blinded him. Now we will not brag of our kings, David and Solomon, though they conquered many nations; accordingly we will let them alone. However, Apion is ignorant of what every body knows, that the Egyptians were servants to the Persians, and afterwards to the Macedonians, when they were lords of Asia, and were no better than slaves, while we have enjoyed liberty formerly; nay, more than that, have had the dominion of the cities that lie round about us, and this nearly for a hundred and twenty years together, until Pompeius Magnus. And when all the kings every where were conquered by the Romans, our ancestors were the only people who continued to be esteemed their confederates and friends, on account of their fidelity to them.16
12. However, Apion deserves some respect for his great caution regarding what I'm about to say: "There’s a clear indication that we neither have fair laws nor worship God as we should, because we are not rulers but are instead subject to foreigners, sometimes to one nation and sometimes to another. Our city has faced many disasters, while their city [Alexandria] has long been an imperial city and hasn’t been under Roman control." But really, this guy should stop boasting, because everyone except him would think Apion is talking about himself. Very few nations have been fortunate enough to maintain their leadership for many generations; instead, changes in human circumstances have often put them under the control of others, and most nations have been frequently conquered and subjected to others. The Egyptians might be the only nation that claims the unusual privilege of never having served any of the monarchs who conquered Asia and Europe, supposedly because their gods fled to their land and saved themselves by turning into wild animals! But these Egyptians 15 seem to have never, throughout history, had a single day of freedom, not even from their own lords. I won't even mention how the Persians treated them repeatedly, when they ravaged their cities, destroyed their temples, and slaughtered the animals they considered sacred; it’s unreasonable to mimic Apion’s ignorant arrogance, who ignores the hardships of the Athenians or the Spartans, the latter being known as the bravest and the former as the most devout of the Greeks. I won’t even talk about kings famous for their piety, like Cresus, nor the misfortunes he faced; I won’t mention the Acropolis of Athens, the temple at Ephesus, the one at Delphi, or countless others that have been burned, where no one blamed the victims, only the perpetrators. But now we have Apion, an accuser of our nation, who still seems to forget the suffering of his own people, the Egyptians; it’s that famous king of Egypt, Sesostris, who has clouded his judgment. We won’t brag about our kings, David and Solomon, even though they conquered many nations; we’ll leave that be. However, Apion is unaware of what everyone knows: that the Egyptians were servants to the Persians and later to the Macedonians when they ruled Asia, and were no better than slaves, while we once enjoyed freedom; in fact, we dominated the surrounding cities for nearly a hundred and twenty years until Pompeius Magnus. Even when all the kings were defeated by the Romans, our ancestors were the only ones who were still regarded as their allies and friends, due to their loyalty. 16
13. "But," says Apion, "we Jews have not had any wonderful men amongst us, not any inventors of arts, nor any eminent for wisdom." He then enumerates Socrates, and Zeno, and Cleanthes, and some others of the same sort; and, after all, he adds himself to them, which is the most wonderful thing of all that he says, and pronounces Alexandria to be happy, because it hath such a citizen as he is in it; for he was the fittest man to be a witness to his own deserts, although he hath appeared to all others no better than a wicked mountebank, of a corrupt life and ill discourses; on which account one may justly pity Alexandria, if it should value itself upon such a citizen as he is. But as to our own men, we have had those who have been as deserving of commendation as any other whosoever, and such as have perused our Antiquities cannot be ignorant of them.
13. "But," says Apion, "we Jews haven't had any remarkable people among us, no inventors of arts, or anyone notable for their wisdom." He then lists Socrates, Zeno, Cleanthes, and a few others like them; and, after all that, he includes himself in that list, which is the most surprising thing he says, and claims that Alexandria is fortunate to have someone like him as a citizen; because he sees himself as the best witness to his own worth, even though to everyone else he appears no better than a deceitful charlatan, with a corrupt life and questionable beliefs; for this reason, one could rightly feel sorry for Alexandria if it took pride in such a citizen. But as for our own people, we have had individuals who are as deserving of praise as anyone else, and those who have studied our history can't be unaware of them.
14. As to the other things which he sets down as blameworthy, it may perhaps be the best way to let them pass without apology, that he may be allowed to be his own accuser, and the accuser of the rest of the Egyptians. However, he accuses us for sacrificing animals, and for abstaining from swine's flesh, and laughs at us for the circumcision of our privy members. Now as for our slaughter of tame animals for sacrifices, it is common to us and to all other men; but this Apion, by making it a crime to sacrifice them, demonstrates himself to be an Egyptian; for had he been either a Grecian or a Macedonian, [as he pretends to be,] he had not shown any uneasiness at it; for those people glory in sacrificing whole hecatombs to the gods, and make use of those sacrifices for feasting; and yet is not the world thereby rendered destitute of cattle, as Apion was afraid would come to pass. Yet if all men had followed the manners of the Egyptians, the world had certainly been made desolate as to mankind, but had been filled full of the wildest sort of brute beasts, which, because they suppose them to be gods, they carefully nourish. However, if any one should ask Apion which of the Egyptians he thinks to be the most wise and most pious of them all, he would certainly acknowledge the priests to be so; for the histories say that two things were originally committed to their care by their kings' injunctions, the worship of the gods, and the support of wisdom and philosophy. Accordingly, these priests are all circumcised, and abstain from swine's flesh; nor does any one of the other Egyptians assist them in slaying those sacrifices they offer to the gods. Apion was therefore quite blinded in his mind, when, for the sake of the Egyptians, he contrived to reproach us, and to accuse such others as not only make use of that conduct of life which he so much abuses, but have also taught other men to be circumcised, as says Herodotus; which makes me think that Apion is hereby justly punished for his casting such reproaches on the laws of his own country; for he was circumcised himself of necessity, on account of an ulcer in his privy member; and when he received no benefit by such circumcision, but his member became putrid, he died in great torment. Now men of good tempers ought to observe their own laws concerning religion accurately, and to persevere therein, but not presently to abuse the laws of other nations, while this Apion deserted his own laws, and told lies about ours. And this was the end of Apion's life, and this shall be the conclusion of our discourse about him.
14. Regarding the other things he claims are wrong, it might be best to let them slide without making excuses, allowing him to be his own accuser and to criticize the rest of the Egyptians. However, he criticizes us for sacrificing animals and for not eating pork, and mocks us for circumcising our private parts. About our practice of sacrificing domesticated animals, it’s normal for us and for others; yet Apion, by labeling this as a crime, shows himself to be an Egyptian. If he were really Greek or Macedonian, as he claims, he wouldn’t be bothered by it because those cultures take pride in offering large sacrifices to the gods and using them for feasting. Still, this doesn’t leave the world with a shortage of livestock, despite Apion's fears. If everyone had followed the customs of the Egyptians, the world would surely have been a barren place for people, instead filled with wild animals that they mistakenly worship as gods. However, if someone asked Apion who he considers the wisest and most devout of all Egyptians, he would undoubtedly say it’s the priests. History tells us that their kings entrusted them with two things: the worship of the gods and the preservation of wisdom and philosophy. Consequently, all these priests are circumcised and refrain from eating pork, and no other Egyptians assist them in slaughtering the animals they offer to the gods. Clearly, Apion was not thinking straight when he tried to shame us for living in a way that he criticizes while also teaching others to be circumcised, as Herodotus states. This suggests that Apion deserved to be punished for insulting the laws of his own country; he was circumcised out of necessity due to a sore on his private area, and when he gained no benefit from the circumcision and his member became infected, he died in agony. People with good character should follow their own religious laws diligently and stick to them, rather than immediately criticize the laws of others, while Apion abandoned his own laws and lied about ours. This was the end of Apion's life, and this will conclude our discussion about him.
15. But now, since Apollonius Molo, and Lysimachus, and some others, write treatises about our lawgiver Moses, and about our laws, which are neither just nor true, and this partly out of ignorance, but chiefly out of ill-will to us, while they calumniate Moses as an impostor and deceiver, and pretend that our laws teach us wickedness, but nothing that is virtuous, I have a mind to discourse briefly, according to my ability, about our whole constitution of government, and about the particular branches of it. For I suppose it will thence become evident, that the laws we have given us are disposed after the best manner for the advancement of piety, for mutual communion with one another, for a general love of mankind, as also for justice, and for sustaining labors with fortitude, and for a contempt of death. And I beg of those that shall peruse this writing of mine, to read it without partiality; for it is not my purpose to write an encomium upon ourselves, but I shall esteem this as a most just apology for us, and taken from those our laws, according to which we lead our lives, against the many and the lying objections that have been made against us. Moreover, since this Apollonius does not do like Apion, and lay a continued accusation against us, but does it only by starts, and up and clown his discourse, while he sometimes reproaches us as atheists, and man-haters, and sometimes hits us in the teeth with our want of courage, and yet sometimes, on the contrary, accuses us of too great boldness and madness in our conduct; nay, he says that we are the weakest of all the barbarians, and that this is the reason why we are the only people who have made no improvements in human life; now I think I shall have then sufficiently disproved all these his allegations, when it shall appear that our laws enjoin the very reverse of what he says, and that we very carefully observe those laws ourselves. And if I he compelled to make mention of the laws of other nations, that are contrary to ours, those ought deservedly to thank themselves for it, who have pretended to depreciate our laws in comparison of their own; nor will there, I think, be any room after that for them to pretend either that we have no such laws ourselves, an epitome of which I will present to the reader, or that we do not, above all men, continue in the observation of them.
15. But now, since Apollonius Molo, Lysimachus, and some others are writing about our lawgiver Moses and our laws, which are neither fair nor accurate, partly out of ignorance but mainly out of hostility towards us—while they slander Moses as a fraud and a deceiver, claiming that our laws promote evil instead of virtue—I want to briefly discuss, to the best of my ability, our overall system of government and its specific branches. I believe it will become clear that the laws we've been given are structured in the best way to promote piety, foster community among people, encourage a general love for humanity, and uphold justice, support hard work with courage, and encourage a disregard for death. I ask those who read my writing to do so impartially, as it is not my goal to praise ourselves, but rather to present a fair defense based on our laws, according to which we live our lives, against the numerous false accusations made against us. Moreover, since this Apollonius doesn't criticize us like Apion does, with persistent accusations, but instead alternates his attacks—sometimes calling us atheists and misanthropes, and at other times accusing us of lacking courage, or even, conversely, of being overly bold and reckless—he also claims that we are the weakest of all the barbarians, which is why we are the only people who haven't made advancements in human life. I believe I can thoroughly refute all of his claims when it becomes clear that our laws require the exact opposite of what he says, and that we strictly follow these laws ourselves. If I must mention the laws of other nations that contradict ours, those nations should rightly hold themselves accountable for disparaging our laws compared to their own; I think it will then be evident that they cannot claim we lack laws altogether, which I will present a summary of to the reader, nor can they argue that we do not, above all others, adhere to them faithfully.
16. To begin then a good way backward, I would advance this, in the first place, that those who have been admirers of good order, and of living under common laws, and who began to introduce them, may well have this testimony that they are better than other men, both for moderation and such virtue as is agreeable to nature. Indeed their endeavor was to have every thing they ordained believed to be very ancient, that they might not be thought to imitate others, but might appear to have delivered a regular way of living to others after them. Since then this is the case, the excellency of a legislator is seen in providing for the people's living after the best manner, and in prevailing with those that are to use the laws he ordains for them, to have a good opinion of them, and in obliging the multitude to persevere in them, and to make no changes in them, neither in prosperity nor adversity. Now I venture to say, that our legislator is the most ancient of all the legislators whom we have ally where heard of; for as for the Lycurguses, and Solons, and Zaleucus Locrensis, and all those legislators who are so admired by the Greeks, they seem to be of yesterday, if compared with our legislator, insomuch as the very name of a law was not so much as known in old times among the Grecians. Homer is a witness to the truth of this observation, who never uses that term in all his poems; for indeed there was then no such thing among them, but the multitude was governed by wise maxims, and by the injunctions of their king. It was also a long time that they continued in the use of these unwritten customs, although they were always changing them upon several occasions. But for our legislator, who was of so much greater antiquity than the rest, [as even those that speak against us upon all occasions do always confess,] he exhibited himself to the people as their best governor and counselor, and included in his legislation the entire conduct of their lives, and prevailed with them to receive it, and brought it so to pass, that those that were made acquainted with his laws did most carefully observe them.
16. To start off on a positive note, I want to point out that those who have valued good organization and living under shared rules, and who took steps to put these into practice, definitely deserve recognition for being better than others, thanks to their moderation and natural virtues. Their goal was to have everything they established seen as very old, so they wouldn’t be perceived as copying others, but rather as having passed down a structured way of living for future generations. Given this, a great legislator stands out by ensuring that people live in the best possible way and by encouraging those who will follow the laws they create to have a favorable view of them, compelling the masses to stick to these laws without making changes in good times or bad. Now, I dare say that our legislator is the oldest of all the legislators we have ever heard about; because when we look at Lycurgus, Solon, Zaleucus of Locris, and all those legislators admired by the Greeks, they seem like recent figures compared to our legislator, especially since the very term “law” wasn’t even known to the ancient Greeks. Homer confirms this observation, never using that term in his works; indeed, there was no such concept during his time; the people were governed by wise sayings and the directives of their king. They adhered to these unwritten customs for a long time, although they often changed them for various reasons. But concerning our legislator, who is so much older than the others, [as even those who oppose us consistently acknowledge,] he presented himself to the people as their best leader and advisor, encompassing the overall conduct of their lives in his legislation, persuading them to accept it, and ensuring that those familiar with his laws observed them diligently.
17. But let us consider his first and greatest work; for when it was resolved on by our forefathers to leave Egypt, and return to their own country, this Moses took the many tell thousands that were of the people, and saved them out of many desperate distresses, and brought them home in safety. And certainly it was here necessary to travel over a country without water, and full of sand, to overcome their enemies, and, during these battles, to preserve their children, and their wives, and their prey; on all which occasions he became an excellent general of an army, and a most prudent counselor, and one that took the truest care of them all; he also so brought it about, that the whole multitude depended upon him. And while he had them always obedient to what he enjoined, he made no manner of use of his authority for his own private advantage, which is the usual time when governors gain great powers to themselves, and pave the way for tyranny, and accustom the multitude to live very dissolutely; whereas, when our legislator was in so great authority, he, on the contrary, thought he ought to have regard to piety, and to show his great good-will to the people; and by this means he thought he might show the great degree of virtue that was in him, and might procure the most lasting security to those who had made him their governor. When he had therefore come to such a good resolution, and had performed such wonderful exploits, we had just reason to look upon ourselves as having him for a divine governor and counselor. And when he had first persuaded himself 17 that his actions and designs were agreeable to God's will, he thought it his duty to impress, above all things, that notion upon the multitude; for those who have once believed that God is the inspector of their lives, will not permit themselves in any sin. And this is the character of our legislator: he was no impostor, no deceiver, as his revilers say, though unjustly, but such a one as they brag Minos 18 to have been among the Greeks, and other legislators after him; for some of them suppose that they had their laws from Jupiter, while Minos said that the revelation of his laws was to be referred to Apollo, and his oracle at Delphi, whether they really thought they were so derived, or supposed, however, that they could persuade the people easily that so it was. But which of these it was who made the best laws, and which had the greatest reason to believe that God was their author, it will be easy, upon comparing those laws themselves together, to determine; for it is time that we come to that point. 19 Now there are innumerable differences in the particular customs and laws that are among all mankind, which a man may briefly reduce under the following heads: Some legislators have permitted their governments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies, and others under a republican form; but our legislator had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a Theocracy, 20 by ascribing the authority and the power to God, and by persuading all the people to have a regard to him, as the author of all the good things that were enjoyed either in common by all mankind, or by each one in particular, and of all that they themselves obtained by praying to him in their greatest difficulties. He informed them that it was impossible to escape God's observation, even in any of our outward actions, or in any of our inward thoughts. Moreover, he represented God as unbegotten, 21 and immutable, through all eternity, superior to all mortal conceptions in pulchritude; and, though known to us by his power, yet unknown to us as to his essence. I do not now explain how these notions of God are the sentiments of the wisest among the Grecians, and how they were taught them upon the principles that he afforded them. However, they testify, with great assurance, that these notions are just, and agreeable to the nature of God, and to his majesty; for Pythagoras, and Anaxagoras, and Plato, and the Stoic philosophers that succeeded them, and almost all the rest, are of the same sentiments, and had the same notions of the nature of God; yet durst not these men disclose those true notions to more than a few, because the body of the people were prejudiced with other opinions beforehand. But our legislator, who made his actions agree to his laws, did not only prevail with those that were his contemporaries to agree with these his notions, but so firmly imprinted this faith in God upon all their posterity, that it never could be removed. The reason why the constitution of this legislation was ever better directed to the utility of all than other legislations were, is this, that Moses did not make religion a part of virtue, but he saw and he ordained other virtues to be parts of religion; I mean justice, and fortitude, and temperance, and a universal agreement of the members of the community with one another; for all our actions and studies, and all our words, [in Moses's settlement,] have a reference to piety towards God; for he hath left none of these in suspense, or undetermined. For there are two ways of coming at any sort of learning and a moral conduct of life; the one is by instruction in words, the other by practical exercises. Now other lawgivers have separated these two ways in their opinions, and choosing one of those ways of instruction, or that which best pleased every one of them, neglected the other. Thus did the Lacedemonians and the Cretians teach by practical exercises, but not by words; while the Athenians, and almost all the other Grecians, made laws about what was to be done, or left undone, but had no regard to the exercising them thereto in practice.
17. But let’s think about his first and greatest work; when our ancestors decided to leave Egypt and return to their homeland, Moses led thousands of people, rescuing them from many dire situations and bringing them home safely. It was crucial to travel through a waterless land full of sand, to defeat their enemies, and during these battles, to protect their children, wives, and possessions; in these circumstances, he became an excellent military leader, a wise advisor, and someone who truly cared for them all. He made it so that the entire community relied on him. While he kept them obedient to his commands, he didn't misuse his authority for personal gain, which is often when leaders become powerful and pave the way for tyranny, leading the people to lead immoral lives. In contrast, when our lawgiver held such power, he focused on piety and showed great goodwill toward the people; through this, he demonstrated his virtue and aimed to provide lasting security for those who made him their leader. Having made such a commendable decision and achieved incredible feats, we had good reason to see him as a divine governor and advisor. After convincing himself that his actions aligned with God's will, he believed it was essential to instill this belief in the people; because those who believe God oversees their lives won’t allow themselves to sin. This is the essence of our lawgiver: he wasn't a fraud or a deceiver, as his critics unjustly claim, but someone like Minos, as the Greeks bragged, and other lawgivers after him; some believed their laws came from Jupiter, while Minos claimed his laws were revealed by Apollo and his oracle at Delphi, whether they truly believed that or thought they could easily persuade the people it was so. But which of these lawgivers created the best laws and had the strongest reasons to believe God was their source is easy to determine by comparing those laws. Now, there are countless differences in the specific customs and laws among all humanity, which can be broadly categorized: Some legislators allowed their governments to be monarchies, others established oligarchies, and still others adopted republican systems; but our lawgiver didn’t focus on any of these forms. He designed our government to be, in a strained sense, a Theocracy, attributing authority and power to God and encouraging everyone to regard Him as the source of all the good things shared by humanity or individually, and of everything they obtained by praying to Him in their greatest troubles. He taught them that it was impossible to escape God's notice, whether in their external actions or inner thoughts. Additionally, he portrayed God as uncreated and unchanging, eternal, beyond all human understanding, and though known to us through His power, still unknowable in His essence. I won’t delve into how these views of God align with the thoughts of the wisest Greeks, who were taught these ideas based on principles he established. However, they confidently affirm that these notions are accurate and reflect God's nature and majesty; for Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato, and subsequent Stoics, along with nearly all others, shared similar views on God's nature; yet they dared not reveal these true ideas to more than a select few, as the general population held differing beliefs. But our lawgiver, whose actions reflected his laws, not only convinced his contemporaries to accept these ideas but firmly instilled this faith in God in all their descendants, so it could never be erased. The reason the constitution of this legislation was always better aimed at the benefit of all than others is that Moses didn’t make religion a part of virtue; instead, he saw and established other virtues—justice, courage, temperance, and a mutual respect among community members—as parts of religion; for all our actions and efforts, and all our words, in Moses's framework have a connection to piety toward God, leaving none unresolved or undecided. There are two ways to achieve any form of learning and moral living: one through verbal instruction, and the other through practical application. Other lawgivers separated these two methods; choosing one method of teaching or what suited them best, they neglected the other. This is how the Spartans and Cretans taught through practice but not through words, while the Athenians and nearly all other Greeks made laws about actions to be taken or avoided without emphasizing their practical application.
18. But for our legislator, he very carefully joined these two methods of instruction together; for he neither left these practical exercises to go on without verbal instruction, nor did he permit the hearing of the law to proceed without the exercises for practice; but beginning immediately from the earliest infancy, and the appointment of every one's diet, he left nothing of the very smallest consequence to be done at the pleasure and disposal of the person himself. Accordingly, he made a fixed rule of law what sorts of food they should abstain from, and what sorts they should make use of; as also, what communion they should have with others what great diligence they should use in their occupations, and what times of rest should be interposed, that, by living under that law as under a father and a master, we might be guilty of no sin, neither voluntary nor out of ignorance; for he did not suffer the guilt of ignorance to go on without punishment, but demonstrated the law to be the best and the most necessary instruction of all others, permitting the people to leave off their other employments, and to assemble together for the hearing of the law, and learning it exactly, and this not once or twice, or oftener, but every week; which thing all the other legislators seem to have neglected.
18. But our legislator thoughtfully combined these two methods of teaching; he neither let practical exercises happen without verbal instructions, nor did he allow the study of the law to occur without practice sessions. Right from early childhood, starting with the planning of everyone’s meals, he ensured nothing, no matter how small, was left to individual discretion. He established clear rules about what foods to avoid and what ones to include, as well as how to interact with others, how diligently to engage in work, and when to take breaks. By living under this law, like we would under a father or a teacher, we wouldn't commit any sins, either intentionally or out of ignorance. He didn’t let the fault of ignorance go unpunished but showed that the law was the most valuable and essential form of instruction. He allowed people to pause their other activities to come together every week to hear and learn the law thoroughly, which is something that all the other legislators seem to have overlooked.
19. And indeed the greatest part of mankind are so far from living according to their own laws, that they hardly know them; but when they have sinned, they learn from others that they have transgressed the law. Those also who are in the highest and principal posts of the government, confess they are not acquainted with those laws, and are obliged to take such persons for their assessors in public administrations as profess to have skill in those laws; but for our people, if any body do but ask any one of them about our laws, he will more readily tell them all than he will tell his own name, and this in consequence of our having learned them immediately as soon as ever we became sensible of any thing, and of our having them as it were engraven on our souls. Our transgressors of them are but few, and it is impossible, when any do offend, to escape punishment.
19. Most people today are so far from following their own laws that they barely even know what they are; they only realize they've broken the law when someone else points it out. Even those in top government positions admit they aren't familiar with these laws, and they have to rely on others who claim to understand them for guidance in public matters. In contrast, if anyone asks us about our laws, we can recite them more easily than we can state our own names. This is because we learned them as soon as we became aware of anything, and they feel like they've been engraved on our souls. The number of people who break these laws is very small, and when someone does, it's almost impossible to avoid punishment.
20. And this very thing it is that principally creates such a wonderful agreement of minds amongst us all; for this entire agreement of ours in all our notions concerning God, and our having no difference in our course of life and manners, procures among us the most excellent concord of these our manners that is any where among mankind; for no other people but the Jews have avoided all discourses about God that any way contradict one another, which yet are frequent among other nations; and this is true not only among ordinary persons, according as every one is affected, but some of the philosophers have been insolent enough to indulge such contradictions, while some of them have undertaken to use such words as entirely take away the nature of God, as others of them have taken away his providence over mankind. Nor can any one perceive amongst us any difference in the conduct of our lives, but all our works are common to us all. We have one sort of discourse concerning God, which is conformable to our law, and affirms that he sees all things; as also we have but one way of speaking concerning the conduct of our lives, that all other things ought to have piety for their end; and this any body may hear from our women, and servants themselves.
20. This is what really creates a remarkable unity of thought among all of us; our complete agreement on everything related to God and our shared way of life leads to an exceptional harmony in our behaviors that isn't found anywhere else among people. No other group besides the Jews has managed to avoid conflicting discussions about God, which are common among other nations. This is true not only among regular individuals, who are influenced in different ways, but even some philosophers have been bold enough to entertain these contradictions. Some philosophers have used terms that completely undermine the nature of God, while others have denied His providence over humanity. Moreover, no one can notice any difference in how we conduct our lives; everything we do is common to us all. We have a unified understanding of God that aligns with our laws and asserts that He sees all things. Similarly, we have a singular approach to how we live, asserting that everything should ultimately aim for piety, a sentiment that anyone can hear expressed by our women and even our servants.
21. And, indeed, hence hath arisen that accusation which some make against us, that we have not produced men that have been the inventors of new operations, or of new ways of speaking; for others think it a fine thing to persevere in nothing that has been delivered down from their forefathers, and these testify it to be an instance of the sharpest wisdom when these men venture to transgress those traditions; whereas we, on the contrary, suppose it to be our only wisdom and virtue to admit no actions nor supposals that are contrary to our original laws; which procedure of ours is a just and sure sign that our law is admirably constituted; for such laws as are not thus well made are convicted upon trial to want amendment.
21. And, in fact, this is where the accusation some make against us comes from: that we haven’t produced people who have created new methods or new ways of speaking. Others believe it’s impressive to disregard everything handed down from their ancestors, and they see it as a sign of great wisdom when these people decide to break those traditions. Meanwhile, we believe that our only wisdom and virtue is to stick to our original laws and not accept any actions or beliefs that go against them. This approach of ours clearly shows that our laws are excellently structured because laws that aren’t well made will be proven to need improvement.
22. But while we are ourselves persuaded that our law was made agreeably to the will of God, it would be impious for us not to observe the same; for what is there in it that any body would change? and what can be invented that is better? or what can we take out of other people's laws that will exceed it? Perhaps some would have the entire settlement of our government altered. And where shall we find a better or more righteous constitution than ours, while this makes us esteem God to be the Governor of the universe, and permits the priests in general to be the administrators of the principal affairs, and withal intrusts the government over the other priests to the chief high priest himself? which priests our legislator, at their first appointment, did not advance to that dignity for their riches, or any abundance of other possessions, or any plenty they had as the gifts of fortune; but he intrusted the principal management of Divine worship to those that exceeded others in an ability to persuade men, and in prudence of conduct. These men had the main care of the law and of the other parts of the people's conduct committed to them; for they were the priests who were ordained to be the inspectors of all, and the judges in doubtful cases, and the punishers of those that were condemned to suffer punishment.
22. While we believe that our law aligns with God's will, it would be wrong for us not to follow it; after all, what would anyone want to change about it? What could possibly be better? Or what can we take from others' laws that would surpass it? Some might want to completely change our government. But where would we find a better or more just system than ours, which acknowledges God as the ruler of the universe and allows the priests to oversee the main affairs, while also entrusting the leadership of other priests to the chief high priest? Our lawmaker didn't elevate these priests to their positions because of their wealth or material possessions; rather, he assigned the important task of leading Divine worship to those who were most persuasive and prudent. These individuals were given the principal responsibility for the law and the conduct of the people; they served as the priests responsible for overseeing everything, judging difficult cases, and punishing those who were condemned.
23. What form of government then can be more holy than this? what more worthy kind of worship can be paid to God than we pay, where the entire body of the people are prepared for religion, where an extraordinary degree of care is required in the priests, and where the whole polity is so ordered as if it were a certain religious solemnity? For what things foreigners, when they solemnize such festivals, are not able to observe for a few days' time, and call them Mysteries and Sacred Ceremonies, we observe with great pleasure and an unshaken resolution during our whole lives. What are the things then that we are commanded or forbidden? They are simple, and easily known. The first command is concerning God, and affirms that God contains all things, and is a Being every way perfect and happy, self-sufficient, and supplying all other beings; the beginning, the middle, and the end of all things. He is manifest in his works and benefits, and more conspicuous than any other being whatsoever; but as to his form and magnitude, he is most obscure. All materials, let them be ever so costly, are unworthy to compose an image for him, and all arts are unartful to express the notion we ought to have of him. We can neither see nor think of any thing like him, nor is it agreeable to piety to form a resemblance of him. We see his works, the light, the heaven, the earth, the sun and the moon, the waters, the generations of animals, the productions of fruits. These things hath God made, not with hands, nor with labor, nor as wanting the assistance of any to cooperate with him; but as his will resolved they should be made and be good also, they were made and became good immediately. All men ought to follow this Being, and to worship him in the exercise of virtue; for this way of worship of God is the most holy of all others.
23. What form of government can be more sacred than this? What kind of worship can be more fitting for God than what we offer, where everyone in the community is devoted to religion, where the priests require a high level of care, and where the whole system is organized as if it were a religious ceremony? For those foreign nations who celebrate such festivals, observing them for only a few days and calling them Mysteries and Sacred Ceremonies, we follow these practices with great joy and unwavering commitment throughout our lives. So, what are the things we are instructed to do or avoid? They are straightforward and well-known. The first command deals with God, affirming that God encompasses all things, is perfect and complete in every way, self-sufficient, and provides for all other beings; He is the beginning, the middle, and the end of all things. He is evident in His works and blessings, more visible than any other being; yet in terms of His form and size, He is most elusive. No materials, no matter how valuable, are worthy of creating an image for Him, and no artistic skills can effectively convey the concept we should have of Him. We cannot see or imagine anything like Him, nor is it proper to create a likeness of Him. We see His creations: light, the heavens, the earth, the sun and the moon, the waters, the cycles of animals, the growth of fruits. God made these things not with hands, nor through effort, nor needing anyone's help; rather, as soon as He willed them to exist and to be good, they were made and became good immediately. All people should follow this Being and worship Him through virtuous actions, for this way of worship is the most sacred of all.
24. There ought also to be but one temple for one God; for likeness is the constant foundation of agreement. This temple ought to be common to all men, because he is the common God of all men. High priests are to be continually about his worship, over whom he that is the first by his birth is to be their ruler perpetually. His business must be to offer sacrifices to God, together with those priests that are joined with him, to see that the laws be observed, to determine controversies, and to punish those that are convicted of injustice; while he that does not submit to him shall be subject to the same punishment, as if he had been guilty of impiety towards God himself. When we offer sacrifices to him, we do it not in order to surfeit ourselves, or to be drunken; for such excesses are against the will of God, and would be an occasion of injuries and of luxury; but by keeping ourselves sober, orderly, and ready for our other occupations, and being more temperate than others. And for our duty at the sacrifices 22 themselves, we ought, in the first place, to pray for the common welfare of all, and after that for our own; for we are made for fellowship one with another, and he who prefers the common good before what is peculiar to himself is above all acceptable to God. And let our prayers and supplications be made humbly to God, not [so much] that he would give us what is good, [for he hath already given that of his own accord, and hath proposed the same publicly to all,] as that we may duly receive it, and when we have received it, may preserve it. Now the law has appointed several purifications at our sacrifices, whereby we are cleansed after a funeral, after what sometimes happens to us in bed, and after accompanying with our wives, and upon many other occasions, which it would be too long now to set down. And this is our doctrine concerning God and his worship, and is the same that the law appoints for our practice.
24. There should only be one temple for one God because similarity is the foundation of unity. This temple should be open to everyone since he is the God of all humanity. High priests should always be engaged in his worship, and the one who is first by birth is to be their permanent leader. His role is to offer sacrifices to God, along with the priests who support him, ensure that the laws are followed, resolve disputes, and punish those found guilty of wrongdoing; anyone who refuses to follow him should face the same punishment as if they had committed an offense against God himself. When we make sacrifices to him, we don't do it to indulge ourselves or get drunk, as such behavior is against God's will and could lead to harm and excess; instead, we should remain sober, organized, and ready for our other responsibilities, being more moderate than others. In our approach to the sacrifices 22 themselves, we should first pray for the well-being of everyone, and then for our own needs, since we are meant to support one another, and those who prioritize the common good over their personal interests are most pleasing to God. Let our prayers and requests be made humbly to God, not primarily asking him to give us what is good (since he has already granted that freely and offered it to everyone) but rather that we may receive it properly and, once received, may maintain it. The law has established various purifications for our sacrifices, which cleanse us after a funeral, certain situations in bed, after intimacy with our spouses, and many other occasions that would take too long to list now. This is our teaching about God and his worship, in alignment with what the law prescribes for our conduct.
25. But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death is its punishment. It commands us also, when we marry, not to have regard to portion, nor to take a woman by violence, nor to persuade her deceitfully and knavishly; but to demand her in marriage of him who hath power to dispose of her, and is fit to give her away by the nearness of his kindred; for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all things." 23 Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God hath given the authority to the husband. A husband, therefore, is to lie only with his wife whom he hath married; but to have to do with another man's wife is a wicked thing, which, if any one ventures upon, death is inevitably his punishment: no more can he avoid the same who forces a virgin betrothed to another man, or entices another man's wife. The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind; if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean. Moreover, the law enjoins, that after the man and wife have lain together in a regular way, they shall bathe themselves; for there is a defilement contracted thereby, both in soul and body, as if they had gone into another country; for indeed the soul, by being united to the body, is subject to miseries, and is not freed therefrom again but by death; on which account the law requires this purification to be entirely performed.
25. So, what are our laws about marriage? That law recognizes no other combination of sexes except the one that nature has defined: a man with his wife, and this is meant solely for having children. It rejects any combination of males; and if someone engages in that, the punishment is death. It also demands that when we marry, we shouldn’t focus on dowries, nor should we force a woman, or deceitfully persuade her; instead, we should seek her hand from someone who has the authority to give her away and is closely related to her. The Scripture says, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all things." 23 Therefore, she should be obedient to him, not so he can mistreat her, but so she can acknowledge her responsibilities to her husband, as God has given authority to the husband. A husband should only unite with his wife whom he has married; engaging with another man's wife is a wrongful act, and anyone who dares to do that faces certain death: the same applies to anyone who forces a virgin engaged to someone else or tries to seduce another man's wife. Additionally, the law requires us to raise all our children and forbids women from causing an abortion of what is conceived or destroying it afterward; if a woman is found to have done this, she becomes a murderer of her child by taking a living being and reducing human existence. Therefore, anyone who engages in such fornication or murder cannot be considered clean. Moreover, the law states that after a man and wife have had normal sexual relations, they should wash themselves; there is a spiritual and physical impurity attached to this act, as if they had traveled to a foreign land; indeed, the soul, by being united with the body, is subject to suffering and cannot be freed from this except by death; for this reason, the law requires complete purification.
26. Nay, indeed, the law does not permit us to make festivals at the births of our children, and thereby afford occasion of drinking to excess; but it ordains that the very beginning of our education should be immediately directed to sobriety. It also commands us to bring those children up in learning, and to exercise them in the laws, and make them acquainted with the acts of their predecessors, in order to their imitation of them, and that they might be nourished up in the laws from their infancy, and might neither transgress them, nor have any pretense for their ignorance of them.
26. No, the law doesn’t allow us to hold celebrations for the birth of our children that would lead to excessive drinking; instead, it requires that the very start of our children's education focuses on self-control. It also instructs us to raise those children with knowledge, to train them in the laws, and to inform them about the actions of those who came before them so they can emulate them, ensuring they are familiar with the laws from a young age, so they neither break them nor have any excuse for not knowing them.
27. Our law hath also taken care of the decent burial of the dead, but without any extravagant expenses for their funerals, and without the erection of any illustrious monuments for them; but hath ordered that their nearest relations should perform their obsequies; and hath showed it to be regular, that all who pass by when any one is buried should accompany the funeral, and join in the lamentation. It also ordains that the house and its inhabitants should be purified after the funeral is over, that every one may thence learn to keep at a great distance from the thoughts of being pure, if he hath been once guilty of murder.
27. Our law also ensures a respectful burial for the dead, but without any excessive spending on funerals or grand monuments. It requires that their closest relatives handle the burial rites and states that everyone who passes by during a burial should join in the procession and express their sorrow. Additionally, it mandates that the home and its residents should be purified once the funeral is complete, so that everyone understands the importance of staying far away from thoughts of purity if they have ever committed murder.
28. The law ordains also, that parents should be honored immediately after God himself, and delivers that son who does not requite them for the benefits he hath received from them, but is deficient on any such occasion, to be stoned. It also says that the young men should pay due respect to every elder, since God is the eldest of all beings. It does not give leave to conceal any thing from our friends, because that is not true friendship which will not commit all things to their fidelity: it also forbids the revelation of secrets, even though an enmity arise between them. If any judge takes bribes, his punishment is death: he that overlooks one that offers him a petition, and this when he is able to relieve him, he is a guilty person. What is not by any one intrusted to another ought not to be required back again. No one is to touch another's goods. He that lends money must not demand usury for its loan. These, and many more of the like sort, are the rules that unite us in the bands of society one with another.
28. The law also states that parents should be honored right after God himself, and it declares that a son who does not repay them for the benefits he has received is to be stoned if he fails to do so on any occasion. It also says that young men should show proper respect to every elder, since God is the oldest of all beings. It does not allow for hiding anything from our friends, because true friendship involves sharing everything with their trust: it also prohibits revealing secrets, even if there is a falling out between them. If a judge accepts bribes, his punishment is death: if he ignores someone who asks for help when he is able to assist, he is guilty. Nothing that is not entrusted to someone else should be demanded back. No one should touch another person's belongings. Anyone who lends money must not charge interest on the loan. These and many similar rules are what bind us together in society.
29. It will be also worth our while to see what equity our legislator would have us exercise in our intercourse with strangers; for it will thence appear that he made the best provision he possibly could, both that we should not dissolve our own constitution, nor show any envious mind towards those that would cultivate a friendship with us. Accordingly, our legislator admits all those that have a mind to observe our laws so to do; and this after a friendly manner, as esteeming that a true union which not only extends to our own stock, but to those that would live after the same manner with us; yet does he not allow those that come to us by accident only to be admitted into communion with us.
29. It’s also important to see what fairness our lawmaker wants us to show in our interactions with outsiders; this will show us that he did his best to ensure we don’t undermine our own society or harbor resentment towards those who want to befriend us. Therefore, our lawmaker welcomes anyone who is willing to follow our laws; this is done in a friendly way, as he believes in a true union that extends not just to our own people but also to those who wish to live in the same manner as us. However, he does not allow those who come to us merely by chance to join us in community.
30. However, there are other things which our legislator ordained for us beforehand, which of necessity we ought to do in common to all men; as to afford fire, and water, and food to such as want it; to show them the roads; not to let any one lie unburied. He also would have us treat those that are esteemed our enemies with moderation; for he doth not allow us to set their country on fire, nor permit us to cut down those trees that bear fruit; nay, further, he forbids us to spoil those that have been slain in war. He hath also provided for such as are taken captive, that they may not be injured, and especially that the women may not be abused. Indeed he hath taught us gentleness and humanity so effectually, that he hath not despised the care of brute beasts, by permitting no other than a regular use of them, and forbidding any other; and if any of them come to our houses, like supplicants, we are forbidden to slay them; nor may we kill the dams, together with their young ones; but we are obliged, even in an enemy's country, to spare and not kill those creatures that labor for mankind. Thus hath our lawgiver contrived to teach us an equitable conduct every way, by using us to such laws as instruct us therein; while at the same time he hath ordained that such as break these laws should be punished, without the allowance of any excuse whatsoever.
30. However, there are other things that our lawmaker established for us in advance, which we should all do together as human beings; like providing fire, water, and food to those in need; guiding them on their journeys; and making sure no one is left unburied. He also wants us to treat those considered our enemies with respect; he does not allow us to burn their land, nor does he permit us to cut down fruit-bearing trees; in fact, he even forbids us from looting the bodies of those killed in battle. He has also made provisions for captives, ensuring they are not harmed, especially that women are not mistreated. Indeed, he has taught us kindness and humanity so effectively that he has even shown care for animals, allowing only their proper use and forbidding any abuse; and if any animals come to our homes seeking help, we are not allowed to kill them; nor can we kill mother animals along with their young. We are obligated, even in enemy territory, to protect and not harm those creatures that serve humanity. Thus, our lawmaker has designed a way to teach us fair behavior in every aspect by setting laws that guide us accordingly; while at the same time, he has mandated that those who break these laws should be punished without any room for excuses.
31. Now the greatest part of offenses with us are capital; as if any one be guilty of adultery; if any one force a virgin; if any one be so impudent as to attempt sodomy with a male; or if, upon another's making an attempt upon him, he submits to be so used. There is also a law for slaves of the like nature, that can never be avoided. Moreover, if any one cheats another in measures or weights, or makes a knavish bargain and sale, in order to cheat another; if any one steals what belongs to another, and takes what he never deposited; all these have punishments allotted them; not such as are met with among other nations, but more severe ones. And as for attempts of unjust behavior towards parents, or for impiety against God, though they be not actually accomplished, the offenders are destroyed immediately. However, the reward for such as live exactly according to the laws is not silver or gold; it is not a garland of olive branches or of small age, nor any such public sign of commendation; but every good man hath his own conscience bearing witness to himself, and by virtue of our legislator's prophetic spirit, and of the firm security God himself affords such a one, he believes that God hath made this grant to those that observe these laws, even though they be obliged readily to die for them, that they shall come into being again, and at a certain revolution of things shall receive a better life than they had enjoyed before. Nor would I venture to write thus at this time, were it not well known to all by our actions that many of our people have many a time bravely resolved to endure any sufferings, rather than speak one word against our law.
31. Nowadays, most of the serious crimes we deal with are punishable by death. For example, anyone guilty of adultery, anyone who rapes a virgin, anyone who boldly attempts sodomy with a male, or anyone who submits to such acts when someone else tries to force them—these are all offenses that can lead to severe punishment. There are also similar laws for slaves that cannot be avoided. Additionally, if someone cheats another person using false measures or weights, or makes a dishonest deal to swindle someone, or steals someone else’s property—including items they never even handed over—there are punishments for these actions too. These penalties are harsher than those in other countries. As for attempts to treat parents unjustly or show disrespect towards God, even if these acts are not carried out, the offenders face immediate destruction. However, those who live according to the laws don’t receive rewards like silver, gold, olive wreaths, or any public acknowledgment. Instead, every good person has their own conscience to affirm their worth, and through the prophetic wisdom of our lawgiver and the strong protection provided by God, they believe that God grants those who follow these laws—even if it means they must be willing to die for them—a chance for rebirth and, at some point in the future, a better life than they had before. I wouldn’t risk writing this now if it weren’t clear to everyone from our actions that many of our people have repeatedly chosen to endure any suffering rather than say a single word against our law.
32. Nay, indeed, in case it had so fallen out, that our nation had not been so thoroughly known among all men as they are, and our voluntary submission to our laws had not been so open and manifest as it is, but that somebody had pretended to have written these laws himself, and had read them to the Greeks, or had pretended that he had met with men out of the limits of the known world, that had such reverent notions of God, and had continued a long time in the firm observance of such laws as ours, I cannot but suppose that all men would admire them on a reflection upon the frequent changes they had therein been themselves subject to; and this while those that have attempted to write somewhat of the same kind for politic government, and for laws, are accused as composing monstrous things, and are said to have undertaken an impossible task upon them. And here I will say nothing of those other philosophers who have undertaken any thing of this nature in their writings. But even Plato himself, who is so admired by the Greeks on account of that gravity in his manners, and force in his words, and that ability he had to persuade men beyond all other philosophers, is little better than laughed at and exposed to ridicule on that account, by those that pretend to sagacity in political affairs; although he that shall diligently peruse his writings will find his precepts to be somewhat gentle, and pretty near to the customs of the generality of mankind. Nay, Plato himself confesseth that it is not safe to publish the true notion concerning God among the ignorant multitude. Yet do some men look upon Plato's discourses as no better than certain idle words set off with great artifice. However, they admire Lycurgus as the principal lawgiver, and all men celebrate Sparta for having continued in the firm observance of his laws for a very long time. So far then we have gained, that it is to be confessed a mark of virtue to submit to laws. 24 But then let such as admire this in the Lacedemonians compare that duration of theirs with more than two thousand years which our political government hath continued; and let them further consider, that though the Lacedemonians did seem to observe their laws exactly while they enjoyed their liberty, yet that when they underwent a change of their fortune, they forgot almost all those laws; while we, having been under ten thousand changes in our fortune by the changes that happened among the kings of Asia, have never betrayed our laws under the most pressing distresses we have been in; nor have we neglected them either out of sloth or for a livelihood. 25 if any one will consider it, the difficulties and labors laid upon us have been greater than what appears to have been borne by the Lacedemonian fortitude, while they neither ploughed their land, nor exercised any trades, but lived in their own city, free from all such pains-taking, in the enjoyment of plenty, and using such exercises as might improve their bodies, while they made use of other men as their servants for all the necessaries of life, and had their food prepared for them by the others; and these good and humane actions they do for no other purpose but this, that by their actions and their sufferings they may be able to conquer all those against whom they make war. I need not add this, that they have not been fully able to observe their laws; for not only a few single persons, but multitudes of them, have in heaps neglected those laws, and have delivered themselves, together with their arms, into the hands of their enemies.
32. No, really, if it had turned out that our nation was not so well known to everyone, and our voluntary acceptance of our laws wasn’t so obvious and clear, but instead, someone claimed to have made these laws himself, and read them to the Greeks, or claimed to have met people beyond the known world who held such deep respect for God and had strictly followed laws like ours for a long time, I can only imagine that everyone would admire them when reflecting on the frequent changes they themselves have gone through. Meanwhile, those who have tried to write similar things about political governance and laws are criticized for creating bizarre works and are said to have taken on an impossible task. I won’t even mention other philosophers who have tackled similar subjects in their writings. Even Plato, who is highly regarded by the Greeks for his seriousness and persuasive ability, is hardly taken seriously and is mocked by those who claim to have insight into political matters. However, anyone who carefully reads his works will find his teachings quite gentle and closely aligned with common customs among people. In fact, Plato himself admits that it’s not safe to reveal the true nature of God to the uninformed crowd. Yet some people see Plato's discussions as nothing more than clever but empty words. On the other hand, they admire Lycurgus as the main lawgiver and celebrate Sparta for sticking to his laws for a very long time. So, we can acknowledge that it’s a sign of virtue to abide by laws. 24 But let those who admire this in the Spartans compare their timespan with the over two thousand years that our political system has persisted; and let them think about the fact that, although the Spartans appeared to strictly follow their laws while they were free, when their fortunes changed, they almost completely forgot those laws. In contrast, we have experienced countless changes due to the shifts among the kings of Asia and have never betrayed our laws even under the most challenging pressures we’ve faced; nor have we neglected them out of laziness or for survival. 25 If anyone looks into it, the struggles and hardships we've gone through have been far greater than what seems to have been endured by Spartan resilience, given that they neither farmed their land nor engaged in any trades, but instead lived comfortably in their city, free from such hard labor, enjoying abundance, and focusing on physical training while relying on others to handle their basic needs and prepare their meals. They perform these beneficial and humane acts solely to ensure they can overcome their enemies in war. I don't need to add that they weren't fully able to adhere to their laws; for not just a few individuals, but groups of them have abandoned those laws, surrendering themselves, arms and all, to their foes.
33. Now as for ourselves, I venture to say that no one can tell of so many; nay, not of more than one or two that have betrayed our laws, no, not out of fear of death itself; I do not mean such an easy death as happens in battles, but that which comes with bodily torments, and seems to be the severest kind of death of all others. Now I think those that have conquered us have put us to such deaths, not out of their hatred to us when they had subdued us, but rather out of their desire of seeing a surprising sight, which is this, whether there be such men in the world who believe that no evil is to them so great as to be compelled to do or to speak any thing contrary to their own laws. Nor ought men to wonder at us, if we are more courageous in dying for our laws than all other men are; for other men do not easily submit to the easier things in which we are instituted; I mean working with our hands, and eating but little, and being contented to eat and drink, not at random, or at every one's pleasure, or being under inviolable rules in lying with our wives, in magnificent furniture, and again in the observation of our times of rest; while those that can use their swords in war, and can put their enemies to flight when they attack them, cannot bear to submit to such laws about their way of living: whereas our being accustomed willingly to submit to laws in these instances, renders us fit to show our fortitude upon other occasions also.
33. Now, as for us, I dare say that no one can really point to so many people—actually, not more than one or two—who have betrayed our laws, not even out of fear of death; and I’m not talking about an easy death that happens in battles, but the kind that comes with physical pain, which seems to be the hardest kind of death of all. I believe that those who have conquered us have subjected us to such deaths not out of hatred towards us after having defeated us, but out of a desire to witness something astonishing: whether there are people in this world who think no evil is greater than being forced to act or speak against their own laws. People shouldn’t be surprised that we are more courageous in dying for our laws than others; after all, most people don’t easily accept the simpler things that we practice, like manual work, eating little, and being satisfied with moderation in food and drink, not indulging randomly or according to anyone's whims, and adhering strictly to rules about relationships with our wives, about lavish living, and about our times of rest. Meanwhile, those who can wield swords in battle and drive their enemies away struggle to accept these kinds of laws regarding their lifestyles. In contrast, our willingness to submit to these laws prepares us to demonstrate our courage in other situations as well.
34. Yet do the Lysimachi and the Molones, and some other writers, [unskillful sophists as they are, and the deceivers of young men,] reproach us as the vilest of all mankind. Now I have no mind to make an inquiry into the laws of other nations; for the custom of our country is to keep our own laws, but not to bring accusations against the laws of others. And indeed our legislator hath expressly forbidden us to laugh at and revile those that are esteemed gods by other people? on account of the very name of God ascribed to them. But since our antagonists think to run us down upon the comparison of their religion and ours, it is not possible to keep silence here, especially while what I shall say to confute these men will not be now first said, but hath been already said by many, and these of the highest reputation also; for who is there among those that have been admired among the Greeks for wisdom, who hath not greatly blamed both the most famous poets, and most celebrated legislators, for spreading such notions originally among the body of the people concerning the gods? such as these, that they may be allowed to be as numerous as they have a mind to have them; that they are begotten one by another, and that after all the kinds of generation you can imagine. They also distinguish them in their places and ways of living as they would distinguish several sorts of animals; as some to be under the earth; as some to be in the sea; and the ancientest of them all to be bound in hell; and for those to whom they have allotted heaven, they have set over them one, who in title is their father, but in his actions a tyrant and a lord; whence it came to pass that his wife, and brother, and daughter [which daughter he brought forth from his own head] made a conspiracy against him to seize upon him and confine hint, as he had himself seized upon and confined his own father before.
34. Yet the Lysimachi, the Molones, and some other writers, [clumsy sophists as they are, and deceivers of young men,] criticize us as the worst of all people. I’m not interested in examining the laws of other nations; the tradition of our country is to uphold our own laws without condemning the laws of others. Indeed, our legislator has specifically prohibited us from mocking or insulting those whom others regard as gods, due to the very title of "God" assigned to them. However, since our opponents believe they can discredit us by comparing their religion to ours, it’s impossible to stay silent here, especially given that what I'm about to say in response to these men has already been said many times before, by many highly respected individuals. After all, who among those admired for their wisdom by the Greeks hasn't criticized both the most famous poets and the most celebrated lawmakers for spreading such ideas among the people regarding the gods? Ideas like allowing them to be as numerous as they choose, that they are generated one from another, and that they come from all forms of reproduction you can think of. They even categorize them by their habitats and ways of living, just as one would classify different kinds of animals; some are said to dwell underground, others in the sea, and the oldest of them all is bound in hell. For those they assign to heaven, they've assigned a figure who is called their father but acts as a tyrant and a lord. Consequently, his wife, brother, and daughter [the daughter he produced from his own head] conspired against him to seize him and confine him, just as he had seized and confined his own father before.
35. And justly have the wisest men thought these notions deserved severe rebukes; they also laugh at them for determining that we ought to believe some of the gods to be beardless and young, and others of them to be old, and to have beards accordingly; that some are set to trades; that one god is a smith, and another goddess is a weaver; that one god is a warrior, and fights with men; that some of them are harpers, or delight in archery; and besides, that mutual seditions arise among them, and that they quarrel about men, and this so far, that they not only lay hands upon one another, but that they are wounded by men, and lament, and take on for such their afflictions. But what is the grossest of all in point of lasciviousness, are those unbounded lusts ascribed to almost all of them, and their amours; which how can it be other than a most absurd supposal, especially when it reaches to the male gods, and to the female goddesses also? Moreover, the chief of all their gods, and their first father himself, overlooks those goddesses whom he hath deluded and begotten with child, and suffers them to be kept in prison, or drowned in the sea. He is also so bound up by fate, that he cannot save his own offspring, nor can he bear their deaths without shedding of tears. These are fine things indeed! as are the rest that follow. Adulteries truly are so impudently looked on in heaven by the gods, that some of them have confessed they envied those that were found in the very act. And why should they not do so, when the eldest of them, who is their king also, hath not been able to restrain himself in the violence of his lust, from lying with his wife, so long as they might get into their bedchamber? Now some of the gods are servants to men, and will sometimes be builders for a reward, and sometimes will be shepherds; while others of them, like malefactors, are bound in a prison of brass. And what sober person is there who would not be provoked at such stories, and rebuke those that forged them, and condemn the great silliness of those that admit them for true? Nay, others there are that have advanced a certain timorousness and fear, as also madness and fraud, and any other of the vilest passions, into the nature and form of gods, and have persuaded whole cities to offer sacrifices to the better sort of them; on which account they have been absolutely forced to esteem some gods as the givers of good things, and to call others of them averters of evil. They also endeavor to move them, as they would the vilest of men, by gifts and presents, as looking for nothing else than to receive some great mischief from them, unless they pay them such wages.
35. It's no wonder that the wisest people have felt these ideas deserve serious criticism; they even laugh at the notion that we should believe some gods are young and beardless while others are old and bearded. They think it's ridiculous that some gods have jobs, like one being a blacksmith and another a weaver, or that one is a warrior who fights with humans, while others are musicians or skilled archers. Furthermore, it's absurd to think that these gods have feuds among themselves, quarreling over humans to the point of physically harming one another, being injured, and lamenting their suffering. The most ridiculous part involves the extreme lust attributed to nearly all of them and their affairs, which is a ridiculous assumption, especially considering the male and female gods alike. Moreover, the chief god, who is considered their first father, overlooks the goddesses he has deceived and fathered children with, allowing them to be imprisoned or drowned. He is so constrained by fate that he cannot save his own children, and he grieves their deaths with tears. These are truly remarkable matters, just like the other absurdities that follow. Adulteries are treated so shamelessly in heaven by the gods that some have admitted to envying those caught in the act. And why shouldn’t they, when their king, the oldest among them, can't control his lust from lying with his wife whenever they get the chance? Some gods act as servants to humans, working as builders for pay or as shepherds, while others, like criminals, are trapped in a prison of bronze. What reasonable person wouldn't be outraged by such stories, condemn those who create them, and criticize the sheer foolishness of those who believe them? Additionally, there are others who have attributed fear, madness, and dishonesty, along with other despicable emotions, to the nature and form of gods, convincing entire cities to offer sacrifices to the so-called better gods. As a result, people are forced to regard some gods as givers of good fortune while labeling others as sources of evil. They also try to influence them with gifts and offerings, fearing nothing more than receiving some terrible misfortune if they don't pay them off.
36. Wherefore it deserves our inquiry what should be the occasion of this unjust management, and of these scandals about the Deity. And truly I suppose it to be derived from the imperfect knowledge the heathen legislators had at first of the true nature of God; nor did they explain to the people even so far as they did comprehend of it: nor did they compose the other parts of their political settlements according to it, but omitted it as a thing of very little consequence, and gave leave both to the poets to introduce what gods they pleased, and those subject to all sorts of passions, and to the orators to procure political decrees from the people for the admission of such foreign gods as they thought proper. The painters also, and statuaries of Greece, had herein great power, as each of them could contrive a shape [proper for a god]; the one to be formed out of clay, and the other by making a bare picture of such a one. But those workmen that were principally admired, had the use of ivory and of gold as the constant materials for their new statues [whereby it comes to pass that some temples are quite deserted, while others are in great esteem, and adorned with all the rites of all kinds of purification]. Besides this, the first gods, who have long flourished in the honors done them, are now grown old [while those that flourished after them are come in their room as a second rank, that I may speak the most honorably of them I can]: nay, certain other gods there are who are newly introduced, and newly worshipped [as we, by way of digression, have said already, and yet have left their places of worship desolate]; and for their temples, some of them are already left desolate, and others are built anew, according to the pleasure of men; whereas they ought to have their opinion about God, and that worship which is due to him, always and immutably the same.
36. Therefore, it's worth looking into why there has been such unjust treatment and scandals surrounding the Deity. I believe this stems from the limited understanding that ancient lawmakers had about the true nature of God. They didn’t communicate even what they did understand to the people; nor did they shape other parts of their political systems around it, treating it as a detail of little importance. They allowed poets to create any gods they wanted, often characterized by all sorts of human emotions, and let orators persuade the public to accept whatever foreign gods they preferred. Artists in Greece, including painters and sculptors, had significant influence since they could create forms suited for a god, either from clay or as a simple image. However, those craftsmen who were most highly regarded worked with ivory and gold for their statues, leading to some temples being abandoned while others thrived and were richly decorated with various purification rituals. Additionally, the original gods who were once celebrated are now aging, and those that followed occupy a secondary position, which I mention as respectfully as possible. In fact, there are even newer gods that have emerged and are being worshipped—though, as I previously noted, many of their places of worship have fallen into neglect. Some temples are already abandoned, while new ones are constructed based on people's whims; meanwhile, the understanding of God and the worship owed to Him should always remain constant and unchanging.
37. But now, this Apollonius Molo was one of these foolish and proud men. However, nothing that I have said was unknown to those that were real philosophers among the Greeks, nor were they unacquainted with those frigid pretensions of allegories [which had been alleged for such things]; on which account they justly despised them, but have still agreed with us as to the true and becoming notions of God; whence it was that Plato would not have political settlements admit to of any one of the other poets, and dismisses even Homer himself, with a garland on his head, and with ointment poured upon him, and this because he should not destroy the right notions of God with his fables. Nay, Plato principally imitated our legislator in this point, that he enjoined his citizens to have he main regard to this precept, "That every one of them should learn their laws accurately." He also ordained, that they should not admit of foreigners intermixing with their own people at random; and provided that the commonwealth should keep itself pure, and consist of such only as persevered in their own laws. Apollonius Molo did no way consider this, when he made it one branch of his accusation against us, that we do not admit of such as have different notions about God, nor will we have fellowship with those that choose to observe a way of living different from ourselves, yet is not this method peculiar to us, but common to all other men; not among the ordinary Grecians only, but among such of those Grecians as are of the greatest reputation among them. Moreover, the Lacedemonians continued in their way of expelling foreigners, and would not indeed give leave to their own people to travel abroad, as suspecting that those two things would introduce a dissolution of their own laws: and perhaps there may be some reason to blame the rigid severity of the Lacedemonians, for they bestowed the privilege of their city on no foreigners, nor indeed would give leave to them to stay among them; whereas we, though we do not think fit to imitate other institutions, yet do we willingly admit of those that desire to partake of ours, which, I think, I may reckon to be a plain indication of our humanity, and at the same time of our magnanimity also.
37. But now, Apollonius Molo was one of those foolish and arrogant individuals. However, everything I've mentioned wasn't unknown to the true philosophers among the Greeks, nor were they unaware of the ridiculous claims made through allegories [which were alleged for such things]; for this reason, they justly looked down on them but still agreed with us on the true and proper ideas of God. This is why Plato wouldn’t allow political structures to include any of the other poets, dismissing even Homer himself, adorned with a garland and anointed, because he didn’t want the right ideas of God to be ruined by his myths. In fact, Plato mainly followed our legislator in this regard, insisting that his citizens pay special attention to the commandment that “each one of them should learn their laws thoroughly.” He also mandated that they shouldn’t allow foreigners to mix randomly with their own people and ensured that the commonwealth remained pure, consisting only of those who adhered to their own laws. Apollonius Molo completely disregarded this when he made it part of his accusation against us, stating that we do not accept those who have different views about God, nor do we associate with those who choose to live differently than we do. Yet, this approach isn’t unique to us; it’s common among all people, not just the ordinary Greeks, but especially among those esteemed in their society. Furthermore, the Spartans continued their practice of expelling foreigners and wouldn’t allow their own citizens to travel abroad, suspecting that these actions would lead to a breakdown of their own laws. Perhaps there is some reason to criticize the Spartans' strictness, as they denied city privileges to any foreigners and wouldn’t permit them to stay among them. In contrast, we, while not inclined to imitate other systems, willingly welcome those who wish to share in ours, which I believe is a clear sign of our humanity and also of our generosity.
38. But I shall say no more of the Lacedemonians. As for the Athenians, who glory in having made their city to be common to all men, what their behavior was Apollonius did not know, while they punished those that did but speak one word contrary to the laws about the gods, without any mercy; for on what other account was it that Socrates was put to death by them? For certainly he neither betrayed their city to its enemies, nor was he guilty of any sacrilege with regard to any of their temples; but it was on this account, that he swore certain new oaths 26 and that he affirmed either in earnest, or, as some say, only in jest, that a certain demon used to make signs to him [what he should not do]. For these reasons he was condemned to drink poison, and kill himself. His accuser also complained that he corrupted the young men, by inducing them to despise the political settlement and laws of their city: and thus was Socrates, the citizen of Athens, punished. There was also Anaxagoras, who, although he was of Clazomente, was within a few suffrages of being condemned to die, because he said the sun, which the Athenians thought to be a god, was a ball of fire. They also made this public proclamation, "That they would give a talent to any one who would kill Diagoras of Melos," because it was reported of him that he laughed at their mysteries. Protagoras also, who was thought to have written somewhat that was not owned for truth by the Athenians about the gods, had been seized upon, and put to death, if he had not fled away immediately. Nor need we at all wonder that they thus treated such considerable men, when they did not spare even women also; for they very lately slew a certain priestess, because she was accused by somebody that she initiated people into the worship of strange gods, it having been forbidden so to do by one of their laws; and a capital punishment had been decreed to such as introduced a strange god; it being manifest, that they who make use of such a law do not believe those of other nations to be really gods, otherwise they had not envied themselves the advantage of more gods than they already had. And this was the happy administration of the affairs of the Athenians! Now as to the Scythians, they take a pleasure in killing men, and differ but little from brute beasts; yet do they think it reasonable to have their institutions observed. They also slew Anacharsis, a person greatly admired for his wisdom among the Greeks, when he returned to them, because he appeared to come fraught with Grecian customs. One may also find many to have been punished among the Persians, on the very same account. And to be sure Apollonius was greatly pleased with the laws of the Persians, and was an admirer of them, because the Greeks enjoyed the advantage of their courage, and had the very same opinion about the gods which they had. This last was exemplified in the temples which they burnt, and their courage in coming, and almost entirely enslaving the Grecians. However, Apollonius has imitated all the Persian institutions, and that by his offering violence to other men's wives, and gelding his own sons. Now, with us, it is a capital crime, if any one does thus abuse even a brute beast; and as for us, neither hath the fear of our governors, nor a desire of following what other nations have in so great esteem, been able to withdraw us from our own laws; nor have we exerted our courage in raising up wars to increase our wealth, but only for the observation of our laws; and when we with patience bear other losses, yet when any persons would compel us to break our laws, then it is that we choose to go to war, though it be beyond our ability to pursue it, and bear the greatest calamities to the last with much fortitude. And, indeed, what reason can there be why we should desire to imitate the laws of other nations, while we see they are not observed by their own legislators 27 And why do not the Lacedemonians think of abolishing that form of their government which suffers them not to associate with any others, as well as their contempt of matrimony? And why do not the Eleans and Thebans abolish that unnatural and impudent lust, which makes them lie with males? For they will not show a sufficient sign of their repentance of what they of old thought to be very excellent, and very advantageous in their practices, unless they entirely avoid all such actions for the time to come: nay, such things are inserted into the body of their laws, and had once such a power among the Greeks, that they ascribed these sodomitical practices to the gods themselves, as a part of their good character; and indeed it was according to the same manner that the gods married their own sisters. This the Greeks contrived as an apology for their own absurd and unnatural pleasures.
38. But I won’t say anything more about the Spartans. As for the Athenians, who take pride in having made their city open to everyone, Apollonius didn’t know how they behaved, while they punished anyone who said just one word against their laws about the gods, without any mercy. After all, why else was Socrates executed by them? He never betrayed their city to its enemies, nor did he commit any sacrilege against their temples; it was solely because he swore new oaths 26 and claimed—either seriously or, as some say, jokingly—that a certain spirit gave him signs about what he should not do. For these reasons, he was condemned to drink poison and take his own life. His accuser also claimed that he corrupted the youth by encouraging them to disrespect their city's political structure and laws. And thus, Socrates, a citizen of Athens, was punished. Then there was Anaxagoras, who, although he was from Clazomenae, nearly faced execution because he stated that the sun, which the Athenians considered a god, was just a ball of fire. They even publicly declared, "We will pay a talent to anyone who kills Diagoras of Melos," because it was said that he laughed at their mysteries. Protagoras was also almost put to death for having written something that the Athenians didn’t consider true about the gods, had he not fled immediately. It’s not surprising that they treated such significant figures this way, given that they didn’t spare women either; recently, they executed a priestess because someone accused her of introducing people to the worship of strange gods, which one of their laws prohibited. A death penalty was established for those who introduced a foreign god, clearly indicating that those who enforce such a law don’t truly believe other nations’ gods are real, otherwise, they wouldn’t deny themselves the advantage of having more gods than they already possessed. And this was the glorious way the Athenians managed their affairs! Now, regarding the Scythians, they take pleasure in killing people and are hardly different from wild animals; yet they think it’s reasonable to enforce their customs. They even killed Anacharsis, a person highly respected for his wisdom among the Greeks, when he returned because he seemed to bring Greek customs with him. Many others among the Persians were punished for the same reason. It’s true that Apollonius was very impressed with the Persian laws and admired them since the Greeks benefited from their bravery and shared the same views about the gods. This was evident in the temples they burned and their bravery in nearly completely enslaving the Greeks. Nonetheless, Apollonius imitated all Persian customs, even going so far as to force himself on other men’s wives and castrate his own sons. For us, it’s a capital crime if anyone even mistreats an animal; and unlike them, neither fear of our leaders nor a desire to follow what other nations highly value has swayed us from our own laws; we haven’t exerted our strength to wage wars for wealth, but solely for the defense of our laws. While we patiently endure other losses, when anyone tries to force us to break our laws, that’s when we choose to go to war, even if we can’t fully pursue it, enduring the greatest hardships with great courage. And indeed, why should we want to imitate the laws of other nations when we see they aren’t even honored by their own lawmakers 27? Why don’t the Spartans consider abolishing their government structure, which prevents them from associating with others, as well as their disdain for marriage? And why don’t the Eleans and Thebans eliminate that unnatural and shameless desire that leads them to sleep with men? They don’t show enough signs of repentance for what they once thought was excellent and beneficial in their practices unless they fully abandon such actions going forward. In fact, such things are written into their laws and once held such power among the Greeks that they attributed these sodomitical practices to the gods themselves as part of their good character; it was also in this manner that the gods married their own sisters. The Greeks invented this as an excuse for their own absurd and unnatural desires.
39. I omit to speak concerning punishments, and how many ways of escaping them the greatest part of the legislators have afforded malefactors, by ordaining that, for adulteries, fines in money should be allowed, and for corrupting 28 [virgins] they need only marry them as also what excuses they may have in denying the facts, if any one attempts to inquire into them; for amongst most other nations it is a studied art how men may transgress their laws; but no such thing is permitted amongst us; for though we be deprived of our wealth, of our cities, or of the other advantages we have, our law continues immortal; nor can any Jew go so far from his own country, nor be so aftrighted at the severest lord, as not to be more aftrighted at the law than at him. If, therefore, this be the disposition we are under, with regard to the excellency of our laws, let our enemies make us this concession, that our laws are most excellent; and if still they imagine, that though we so firmly adhere to them, yet are they bad laws notwithstanding, what penalties then do they deserve to undergo who do not observe their own laws, which they esteem so far superior to them? Whereas, therefore, length of time is esteemed to be the truest touchstone in all cases, I would make that a testimonial of the excellency of our laws, and of that belief thereby delivered to us concerning God. For as there hath been a very long time for this comparison, if any one will but compare its duration with the duration of the laws made by other legislators, he will find our legislator to have been the ancientest of them all.
39. I’m skipping the topic of punishments and how many ways lawmakers have given criminals to avoid them, like allowing fines for adultery, and saying that if someone corrupts virgins, they just need to marry them. They also get to make excuses if anyone tries to question them. Among many nations, finding ways to break the law is a skill, but that’s not allowed here. Even if we lose our wealth, cities, or other advantages, our laws remain eternal; no Jew can stray too far from home or be more afraid of a harsh ruler than the law itself. So, if this is how we view the greatness of our laws, let our enemies admit that our laws are truly excellent. And if they still think that, despite our strong commitment to them, our laws are bad, then what punishment do those deserve who don’t follow their own laws, which they consider far superior? Since a long time is usually seen as the best measure in every case, I’d use that as proof of the excellence of our laws and the beliefs about God that have been passed down to us. Given the long history of this comparison, anyone who compares how long our laws have lasted to those of other lawmakers will see that ours are the oldest of them all.
40. We have already demonstrated that our laws have been such as have always inspired admiration and imitation into all other men; nay, the earliest Grecian philosophers, though in appearance they observed the laws of their own countries, yet did they, in their actions, and their philosophic doctrines, follow our legislator, and instructed men to live sparingly, and to have friendly communication one with another. Nay, further, the multitude of mankind itself have had a great inclination of a long time to follow our religious observances; for there is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come, and by which our fasts and lighting up lamps, and many of our prohibitions as to our food, are not observed; they also endeavor to imitate our mutual concord with one another, and the charitable distribution of our goods, and our diligence in our trades, and our fortitude in undergoing the distresses we are in, on account of our laws; and, what is here matter of the greatest admiration, our law hath no bait of pleasure to allure men to it, but it prevails by its own force; and as God himself pervades all the world, so hath our law passed through all the world also. So that if any one will but reflect on his own country, and his own family, he will have reason to give credit to what I say. It is therefore but just, either to condemn all mankind of indulging a wicked disposition, when they have been so desirous of imitating laws that are to them foreign and evil in themselves, rather than following laws of their own that are of a better character, or else our accusers must leave off their spite against us. Nor are we guilty of any envious behavior towards them, when we honor our own legislator, and believe what he, by his prophetic authority, hath taught us concerning God. For though we should not be able ourselves to understand the excellency of our own laws, yet would the great multitude of those that desire to imitate them, justify us, in greatly valuing ourselves upon them.
40. We have already shown that our laws have always inspired admiration and imitation in others; even the earliest Greek philosophers, while seeming to follow the laws of their own countries, actually acted in line with our legislator and taught people to live simply and communicate kindly with one another. Furthermore, people everywhere have long been inclined to follow our religious practices; there isn't a city of the Greeks or any other group where our custom of resting on the seventh day hasn't spread, along with our fasts, lighting of lamps, and many of our food restrictions. They also try to imitate our unity, our charitable sharing of resources, our hard work, and our resilience in facing difficulties because of our laws. What is most remarkable is that our law doesn’t rely on any enticing rewards to draw people in; it stands strong on its own merit. Just as God is present throughout the world, so too has our law spread across the globe. Anyone who reflects on their own country and family will find good reasons to believe what I’m saying. It is only fair to either condemn all of humanity for having a wicked disposition if they are so eager to imitate foreign laws that are harmful to them instead of following their own, which are better, or our critics need to stop their animosity toward us. We are not envious of them when we honor our legislator and believe what he has taught us about God through his prophetic authority. Even if we ourselves couldn't fully grasp the greatness of our own laws, the multitude of people who wish to imitate them justifies our pride in them.
41. But as for the [distinct] political laws by which we are governed, I have delivered them accurately in my books of Antiquities; and have only mentioned them now, so far as was necessary to my present purpose, without proposing to myself either to blame the laws of other nations, or to make an encomium upon our own; but in order to convict those that have written about us unjustly, and in an impudent affectation of disguising the truth. And now I think I have sufficiently completed what I proposed in writing these books. For whereas our accusers have pretended that our nation are a people of very late original, I have demonstrated that they are exceeding ancient; for I have produced as witnesses thereto many ancient writers, who have made mention of us in their books, while they had said that no such writer had so done. Moreover, they had said that we were sprung from the Egyptians, while I have proved that we came from another country into Egypt: while they had told lies of us, as if we were expelled thence on account of diseases on our bodies, it has appeared, on the contrary, that we returned to our country by our own choice, and with sound and strong bodies. Those accusers reproached our legislator as a vile fellow; whereas God in old time bare witness to his virtuous conduct; and since that testimony of God, time itself hath been discovered to have borne witness to the same thing.
41. But regarding the specific political laws that govern us, I have accurately recorded them in my books on Antiquities. I've only mentioned them here as needed for my current purpose, without intending to criticize the laws of other nations or to praise our own. My aim is to counter those who have written about us unfairly and shamelessly tried to hide the truth. I believe I have now sufficiently accomplished what I set out to do in writing these books. While our accusers claim that our nation is of very recent origin, I have shown that we are actually very ancient. I have provided evidence from many ancient writers who have referenced us in their works, despite their claims that no such writers existed. They also asserted that we descended from the Egyptians, while I have demonstrated that we actually came from another country into Egypt. They told lies about us being expelled because of diseases, but in reality, we chose to return to our homeland in good health and strength. Those accusers criticized our lawgiver as a base individual; however, God attested to his virtuous behavior in ancient times, and since that divine testimony, time itself has confirmed the same.
42. As to the laws themselves, more words are unnecessary, for they are visible in their own nature, and appear to teach not impiety, but the truest piety in the world. They do not make men hate one another, but encourage people to communicate what they have to one another freely; they are enemies to injustice, they take care of righteousness, they banish idleness and expensive living, and instruct men to be content with what they have, and to be laborious in their calling; they forbid men to make war from a desire of getting more, but make men courageous in defending the laws; they are inexorable in punishing malefactors; they admit no sophistry of words, but are always established by actions themselves, which actions we ever propose as surer demonstrations than what is contained in writing only: on which account I am so bold as to say that we are become the teachers of other men, in the greatest number of things, and those of the most excellent nature only; for what is more excellent than inviolable piety? what is more just than submission to laws? and what is more advantageous than mutual love and concord? and this so far that we are to be neither divided by calamities, nor to become injurious and seditious in prosperity; but to contemn death when we are in war, and in peace to apply ourselves to our mechanical occupations, or to our tillage of the ground; while we in all things and all ways are satisfied that God is the inspector and governor of our actions. If these precepts had either been written at first, or more exactly kept by any others before us, we should have owed them thanks as disciples owe to their masters; but if it be visible that we have made use of them more than any other men, and if we have demonstrated that the original invention of them is our own, let the Apions, and the Molons, with all the rest of those that delight in lies and reproaches, stand confuted; but let this and the foregoing book be dedicated to thee, Epaphroditus, who art so great a lover of truth, and by thy means to those that have been in like manner desirous to be acquainted with the affairs of our nation.
42. When it comes to the laws themselves, there's no need for more explanation, as they are clear in their essence and promote true piety rather than impiety. They don't breed hatred among people; instead, they encourage individuals to share freely with one another. They oppose injustice, uphold righteousness, discourage laziness and extravagance, and teach people to be satisfied with what they have and to work hard at their tasks. They forbid making war out of greed but inspire courage in defending the laws. They are strict in punishing wrongdoers and do not allow for clever arguments to undermine their principles, which are always validated by actions. For this reason, I confidently state that we've become teachers to others in many profound ways; what could be greater than unwavering piety? What is more just than following the laws? And what is more beneficial than mutual love and harmony? We should remain united in tough times and not become harmful or rebellious in good times; we should disregard death in war and focus on our daily work or farming in peace, always knowing that God oversees our actions. If these teachings had been written down initially or followed more carefully by anyone before us, we would owe them gratitude just like students do to their teachers. But since it's clear we have practiced them more than anyone else and have shown that we originated these ideas, let the Apions, the Molons, and all others who revel in falsehood and insults be proven wrong. Let this book and the previous one be dedicated to you, Epaphroditus, who loves the truth so much, and through you, to those who also seek to understand the matters of our nation.
APION BOOK 2 FOOTNOTES
1 (return)
[ The former part of this
second book is written against the calumnies of Apion, and then, more
briefly, against the like calumnies of Apollonius Molo. But after that,
Josephus leaves off any more particular reply to those adversaries of the
Jews, and gives us a large and excellent description and vindication of
that theocracy which was settled for the Jewish nation by Moses, their
great legislator.]
1 (return)
[ The first part of this second book is a response to the false accusations made by Apion, followed briefly by a rebuttal to similar claims from Apollonius Molo. After that, Josephus stops addressing those opponents of the Jews in detail and provides a comprehensive and well-crafted description and defense of the theocracy established for the Jewish nation by Moses, their great lawgiver.]
2 (return)
[ Called by Tiberius
Cymbalum Mundi, The drum of the world.]
2 (return)
[Called by Tiberius Cymbalum Mundi, The drum of the world.]
3 (return)
[ This seems to have been
the first dial that had been made in Egypt, and was a little before the
time that Ahaz made his [first] dial in Judea, and about anno 755, in the
first year of the seventh olympiad, as we shall see presently. See 2 Kings
20:11; Isaiah 38:8.]
3 (return)
[ This appears to be the first sundial created in Egypt, slightly before Ahaz made his [first] sundial in Judea, around the year 755, in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, as we will see shortly. See 2 Kings 20:11; Isaiah 38:8.]
4 (return)
[ The burial-place for dead
bodies, as I suppose.]
4 (return)
[ The place where dead bodies are buried, I think.]
5 (return)
[ Here begins a great defect
in the Greek copy; but the old Latin version fully supplies that defect.]
5 (return)
[ Here begins a significant flaw in the Greek copy; however, the old Latin version completely fills that gap.]
6 (return)
[ What error is here
generally believed to have been committed by our Josephus in ascribing a
deliverance of the Jews to the reign of Ptolemy Physco, the seventh of
those Ptolemus, which has been universally supposed to have happened under
Ptolemy Philopater, the fourth of them, is no better than a gross error of
the moderns, and not of Josephus, as I have fully proved in the Authentic.
Rec. Part I. p. 200-201, whither I refer the inquisitive reader.]
6 (return)
[ What mistake do people generally think Josephus made by attributing the rescue of the Jews to the reign of Ptolemy Physco, the seventh of the Ptolemies, when it is widely believed to have actually occurred under Ptolemy Philopater, the fourth? This is nothing more than a major error by modern scholars, not by Josephus, as I have thoroughly demonstrated in the Authentic. Rec. Part I. p. 200-201, to which I direct the curious reader.]
8 (return)
[ Called more properly Molo,
or Apollonius Molo, as hereafter; for Apollonins, the son of Molo, was
another person, as Strabo informs us, lib. xiv.]
8 (return)
[ More accurately referred to as Molo, or Apollonius Molo, as mentioned later; Apollonins, the son of Molo, was a different individual, according to Strabo, lib. xiv.]
9 (return)
[ Furones in the Latin,
which what animal it denotes does not now appear.]
9 (return)
[ Furones in Latin, which animal it refers to is not clear now.]
10 (return)
[ It is great pity that
these six pagan authors, here mentioned to have described the famous
profanation of the Jewish temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, should be all
lost; I mean so far of their writings as contained that description;
though it is plain Josephus perused them all as extant in his time.]
10 (return)
[It's a real shame that these six pagan authors, mentioned here for describing the infamous desecration of the Jewish temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, are all lost; I'm talking about the parts of their writings that included that account; although it's clear Josephus read them all while they were still available in his time.]
11 (return)
[ It is remarkable that
Josephus here, and, I think, no where else, reckons up four distinct
courts of the temple; that of the Gentiles, that of the women of Israel,
that of the men of Israel, and that of the priests; as also that the court
of the women admitted of the men, [I suppose only of the husbands of those
wives that were therein,] while the court of the men did not admit any
women into it at all.]
11 (return)
[It's interesting that Josephus here, and I believe nowhere else, lists four separate courts of the temple: the court of the Gentiles, the court of the women of Israel, the court of the men of Israel, and the court of the priests. He also notes that the court of the women allowed men to enter, [I assume only the husbands of those wives present there], while the court of the men did not allow any women at all.]
12 (return)
[ Judea, in the Greek, by
a gross mistake of the transcribers.]
12 (return)
[ Judea, in Greek, due to a major error by the transcribers.]
13 (return)
[ Seven in the Greek, by a
like gross mistake of the transcribers. See of the War, B. V. ch. 5. sect.
4.]
13 (return)
[ Seven in Greek, due to a similar significant error by the copyists. Refer to the War, B. V. ch. 5. sect. 4.]
14 (return)
[ Two hundred in the
Greek, contrary to the twenty in the War, B. VII. ch, 5. sect. 3.]
14 (return)
[ Two hundred in the Greek, as opposed to the twenty in the War, B. VII. ch, 5. sect. 3.]
15 (return)
[ This notorious disgrace
belonging peculiarly to the people of Egypt, ever since the times of the
old prophets of the Jews, noted both sect. 4 already, and here, may be
confirmed by the testimony of Isidorus, an Egyptian of Pelusium, Epist.
lib. i. Ep. 489. And this is a remarkable completion of the ancient
prediction of God by Ezekiel 29:14, 15, "that the Egyptians should be a
base kingdom, the basest of the kingdoms," and that, "it should not exalt
itself any more above the nations."]
15 (return)
[ This infamous shame associated specifically with the people of Egypt has been present since the days of the old Jewish prophets, as noted in both section 4 already, and this can also be verified by Isidorus, an Egyptian from Pelusium, in his letter, lib. i. Ep. 489. This serves as a striking fulfillment of God's ancient prediction through Ezekiel 29:14, 15, "that the Egyptians would be a lowly kingdom, the lowest of the kingdoms," and that, "it would no longer rise above the nations."]
16 (return)
[ The truth of which still
further appears by the present observation of Josephus, that these
Egyptians had never, in all the past ages since Sesostris, had one day of
liberty, no, not so much as to have been free from despotic power under
any of the monarchies to that day. And all this has been found equally
true in the latter ages, under the Romans, Saracens, Mamelukes, and Turks,
from the days of Josephus till the present ago also.]
16 (return)
[ The truth of this is further confirmed by the observation of Josephus, that these Egyptians had never, throughout all the ages since Sesostris, experienced even a single day of freedom, not even a moment free from the oppressive rule of any of the monarchies up to that time. This has also proven to be true in later periods under the Romans, Saracens, Mamelukes, and Turks, from the days of Josephus to the present day.]
17 (return)
[ This language, that
Moses, "persuaded himself" that what he did was according to God's will,
can mean no more, by Josephus's own constant notions elsewhere, than that
he was "firmly persuaded," that he had "fully satisfied himself" that so
it was, viz. by the many revelations he had received from God, and the
numerous miracles God had enabled him to work, as he both in these very
two books against Apion, and in his Antiquities, most clearly and
frequently assures us. This is further evident from several passages
lower, where he affirms that Moses was no impostor nor deceiver, and where
he assures that Moses's constitution of government was no other than a
theocracy; and where he says they are to hope for deliverance out of their
distresses by prayer to God, and that withal it was owing in part to this
prophetic spirit of Moses that the Jews expected a resurrection from the
dead. See almost as strange a use of the like words, "to persuade God,"
Antiq. B. VI. ch. 5. sect. 6.]
17 (return)
[ This language, that Moses "convinced himself" that what he did was in line with God's will, can only mean, according to Josephus's own consistent ideas elsewhere, that he was "firmly convinced" and had "fully assured himself" that it was so, specifically through the many revelations he received from God and the numerous miracles God enabled him to perform, as he makes clear and often states in these two books against Apion and in his Antiquities. This is further supported by several passages later on, where he claims Moses was neither an impostor nor a deceiver, and where he states that Moses’s government was purely a theocracy; and he mentions that they should hope for deliverance from their troubles through prayer to God, and remarks that it was partly due to Moses's prophetic spirit that the Jews anticipated a resurrection from the dead. See almost as puzzling a use of similar words, "to persuade God," Antiq. B. VI. ch. 5. sect. 6.]
18 (return)
[ That is, Moses really
was, what the heathen legislators pretended to be, under a Divine
direction; nor does it yet appear that these pretensions to a supernatural
conduct, either in these legislators or oracles, were mere delusions of
men without any demoniacal impressions, nor that Josephus took them so to
be; as the ancientest and contemporary authors did still believe them to
be supernatural.]
18 (return)
[In other words, Moses was genuinely what the pagan lawmakers claimed to be, acting under Divine guidance; it still doesn't seem that these claims of supernatural influence, whether from these lawmakers or their oracles, were just fabrications by ordinary people without any demonic influences, nor did Josephus see them that way; as the oldest and contemporary writers continued to believe them to be supernatural.]
19 (return)
[ This whole very large
passage is corrected by Dr. Hudson from Eusebius's citation of it, Prep.
Evangel. viii. 8, which is here not a little different from the present
MSS. of Josephus.]
19 (return)
[ This entire lengthy passage is revised by Dr. Hudson based on Eusebius's quotation of it, Prep. Evangel. viii. 8, which differs quite a bit from the current manuscripts of Josephus.]
20 (return)
[ This expression itself,
that "Moses ordained the Jewish government to be a theocracy," may be
illustrated by that parallel expression in the Antiquities, B. III. ch. 8.
sect. 9, that "Moses left it to God to be present at his sacrifices when
he pleased; and when he pleased, to be absent." Both ways of speaking
sound harsh in the ears of Jews and Christians, as do several others which
Josephus uses to the heathens; but still they were not very improper in
him, when he all along thought fit to accommodate himself, both in his
Antiquities, and in these his books against Apion, all written for the use
of the Greeks and Romans, to their notions and language, and this as far
as ever truth would give him leave. Though it be very observable withal,
that he never uses such expressions in his books of the War, written
originally for the Jews beyond Euphrates, and in their language, in all
these cases. However, Josephus directly supposes the Jewish settlement,
under Moses, to be a Divine settlement, and indeed no other than a real
theocracy.]
20 (return)
[ This phrase, "Moses established the Jewish government as a theocracy," can be illustrated by a similar phrase in the Antiquities, B. III. ch. 8. sect. 9, which states that "Moses allowed God to be present at his sacrifices whenever He wanted, and to be absent when He chose." Both expressions may sound harsh to Jews and Christians, as do several others that Josephus uses towards non-believers; however, they weren't inappropriate for him since he aimed to relate to the Greeks and Romans in his Antiquities and in these writings against Apion, aligning with their ideas and language as much as truth would permit. It is noteworthy that he never uses such expressions in his books about the War, originally written for the Jews across the Euphrates, and in their language. Nevertheless, Josephus clearly implies that the Jewish community established under Moses was divinely ordained, and in reality, nothing less than a true theocracy.]
21 (return)
[ These excellent accounts
of the Divine attributes, and that God is not to be at all known in his
essence, as also some other clear expressions about the resurrection of
the dead, and the state of departed souls, etc., in this late work of
Josephus, look more like the exalted notions of the Essens, or rather
Ebionite Christians, than those of a mere Jew or Pharisee. The following
large accounts also of the laws of Moses, seem to me to show a regard to
the higher interpretations and improvements of Moses's laws, derived from
Jesus Christ, than to the bare letter of them in the Old Testament, whence
alone Josephus took them when he wrote his Antiquities; nor, as I think,
can some of these laws, though generally excellent in their kind, be
properly now found either in the copies of the Jewish Pentateuch, or in
Philo, or in Josephus himself, before he became a Nazarene or Ebionite
Christian; nor even all of them among the laws of catholic Christianity
themselves. I desire, therefore, the learned reader to consider, whether
some of these improvements or interpretations might not be peculiar to the
Essens among the Jews, or rather to the Nazarenes or Ebionites among the
Christians, though we have indeed but imperfect accounts of those
Nazarenes or Ebionite Christians transmitted down to us at this day.]
21 (return)
[ These insightful descriptions of God's attributes and the idea that God cannot be fully understood in His essence, along with other clear statements about the resurrection of the dead and the fate of departed souls, in this later work of Josephus, seem to reflect the elevated views of the Essenes, or more appropriately, Ebionite Christians, rather than those of a typical Jew or Pharisee. The subsequent detailed discussions of Moses's laws also appear to show a preference for the deeper interpretations and enhancements of these laws derived from Jesus Christ, rather than just the literal text in the Old Testament, which is the source from which Josephus wrote his Antiquities. Moreover, I believe that some of these laws, while generally commendable in their own right, cannot currently be found in the copies of the Jewish Pentateuch, or in Philo, or in Josephus himself before he became a Nazarene or Ebionite Christian; nor can all of them be found among the laws of universal Christianity. Therefore, I urge the knowledgeable reader to consider whether some of these enhancements or interpretations might be unique to the Essenes among the Jews, or more accurately, to the Nazarenes or Ebionites among the Christians, even though we have only incomplete accounts of those Nazarenes or Ebionite Christians passed down to us today.]
22 (return)
[ We may here observe how
known a thing it was among the Jews and heathens, in this and many other
instances, that sacrifices were still accompanied with prayers; whence
most probably came those phrases of "the sacrifice of prayer, the
sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of thanksgiving." However, those
ancient forms used at sacrifices are now generally lost, to the no small
damage of true religion. It is here also exceeding remarkable, that
although the temple at Jerusalem was built as the only place where the
whole nation of the Jews were to offer their sacrifices, yet is there no
mention of the "sacrifices" themselves, but of "prayers" only, in
Solomon's long and famous form of devotion at its dedication, 1 Kings 8.;
2 Chronicles 6. See also many passages cited in the Apostolical
Constitutions, VII. 37, and Of the War, above, B. VII. ch. 5. sect. 6.]
22 (return)
[ We can note how widely recognized it was among both Jews and non-Jews that sacrifices were often accompanied by prayers. This likely gave rise to expressions such as "the sacrifice of prayer, the sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of thanksgiving." However, the ancient rituals associated with sacrifices have largely been lost, which is a significant loss for genuine faith. It's also worth noting that even though the temple in Jerusalem was established as the sole place for the entire Jewish nation to present their sacrifices, Solomon's extensive and renowned prayer at its dedication mentions only "prayers," not "sacrifices," as seen in 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 6. For further references, see many excerpts included in the Apostolical Constitutions, VII. 37, and Of the War, above, B. VII. ch. 5. sect. 6.]
23 (return)
[ This text is no where in
our present copies of the Old Testament.]
23 (return)
[ This text is not found in our current copies of the Old Testament.]
24 (return)
[ It may not be amiss to
set down here a very remarkable testimony of the great philosopher Cicero,
as to the preference of "laws to philosophy:—I will," says he,
"boldly declare my opinion, though the whole world be offended at it. I
prefer this little book of the Twelve Tables alone to all the volumes of
the philosophers. I find it to be not only of more weight,' but also much
more useful."—Oratore.]
24 (return)
[It might be worth recording a notable statement from the great philosopher Cicero about the value of "laws over philosophy": "I will," he says, "boldly express my opinion, even if it angers the whole world. I prefer this small book of the Twelve Tables to all the works of the philosophers. I find it not only more significant but also much more practical."—Oratore.]
25 (return)
[ we have observed our
times of rest, and sorts of food allowed us [Footnote during our
distresses].]
25 (return)
[ we have noted our breaks and the types of food we were given [Footnote during our struggles].]
26 (return)
[ See what those novel
oaths were in Dr. Hudson's note, viz. to swear by an oak, by a goat, and
by a dog, as also by a gander, as say Philostratus and others. This
swearing strange oaths was also forbidden by the Tyrians, B. I. sect. 22,
as Spanheim here notes.]
26 (return)
[ Check out what those unusual oaths were in Dr. Hudson's note, specifically to swear by an oak, by a goat, by a dog, and also by a gander, as mentioned by Philostratus and others. The Tyrians also prohibited this strange oath-swearing, B. I. sect. 22, as noted by Spanheim here.]
27 (return)
[ Why Josephus here should
blame some heathen legislators, when they allowed so easy a composition
for simple fornication, as an obligation to marry the virgin that was
corrupted, is hard to say, seeing he had himself truly informed us that it
was a law of the Jews, Antiq. B. IV. ch. 8. sect. 23, as it is the law of
Christianity also: see Horeb Covenant, p. 61. I am almost ready to suspect
that, for, we should here read, and that corrupting wedlock, or other
men's wives, is the crime for which these heathens wickedly allowed this
composition in money.]
27 (return)
[ It's difficult to understand why Josephus criticizes some non-Jewish lawmakers for allowing such an easy resolution for simple fornication, which required the man to marry the virgin he defiled, especially since he himself informed us that this was a law of the Jews, as noted in Antiq. B. IV. ch. 8. sect. 23, and it’s the same in Christianity: see Horeb Covenant, p. 61. I'm beginning to suspect that we should read this differently, suggesting that corrupting marriage or other men’s wives is the actual crime for which these non-Jews wrongly permitted this monetary settlement.]
28 (return)
[ Or "for corrupting other
men's wives the same allowance."]
28 (return)
[ Or "for corrupting other people's wives the same allowance."]
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!