the antiquities of the jews-1-第347章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


overthrew　Nineveh；　and　some　generations　ere　the　Medes　and
Persians　under　Cyaxares　and　Cyrus　overthrew　the　Assyrian　or
Babylonian　empire；　and　took　Babylon。

（7）　It　is　hard　to　reconcile　the　account　in　the　Second　Book　of
Kings　（ch。　23：11）　with　this　account　in　Josephus；　and　to　translate
this　passage　truly　in　Josephus；　whose　copies　are　supposed　to　be
here　imperfect。　However；　the　general　sense　of　both　seems　to　be
this：　That　there　were　certain　chariots；　with　their　horses；
dedicated　to　the　idol　of　the　sun；　or　to　Moloch；　which　idol　might
be　carried　about　in　procession；　and　worshipped　by　the　people；
which　chariots　were　now　〃taken　away；〃　as　Josephus　says；　or；　as
the　Book　of　Kings　says；　〃burnt　with　fire；　by　Josiah。〃

（8）　This　is　a　remarkable　passage　of　chronology　in　Josephus；　that
about　the　latter　end　of　the　reign　of　Josiah；　the　Medes　and
Babylonians　overthrew　the　empire　of　the　Assyrians；　or；　in　the
words　of　Tobit's　continuator；　that　〃before　Tobias　died；　he　heard
of　the　destruction　of　Nineveh；　which　was　taken　by　Nebuchodonosor
the　Babylonian；　and　Assuerus　the　Mede；〃　Tob。　14：15。　See　Dean
Prideaux's　Connexion；　at　the　year　612。

（9）　This　battle　is　justly　esteemed　the　very　same　that　Herodotus
（B。　II。　sect。　156）　mentions；　when　he　says；　that　〃Necao　joined
battle　with　the　Syrians　＇or　Jews＇　at　Magdolum；　＇Megiddo；＇　and
beat　them；〃　as　Dr。　Hudson　here　observes。

（10）　Whether　Josephus；　from　2　Chronicles　35：25；　here　means　the
book　of　the　Lamentations　of　Jeremiah；　still　extant；　which　chiefly
belongs　to　the　destruction　of　Jerusalem　under　Nebuchadnezzar；　or
to　any　other　like　melancholy　poem　now　lost；　but　extant　in　the
days　of　Josephus；　belonging　peculiarly　to　Josiah；　cannot　now　be
determined。

（11）　This　ancient　city　Hamath；　which　is　joined　with　Arpad；　or
Aradus；　and　with　Damascus；　2　Kings　18：34；　Isaiah　36：19；　Jeremiah
49：23；　cities　of　Syria　and　Phoenicia；　near　the　borders　of　Judea；
was　also　itself　evidently　near　the　same　borders；　though　long　ago
utterly　destroyed。

（12）　Josephus　says　here　that　Jeremiah　prophesied　not　only　of　the
return　of　the　Jews　from　the　Babylonian　captivity；　and　this　under
the　Persians　and　Medes；　as　in　our　other　copies；　but　of　cause　they
did　not　both　say　the　same　thing　as　to　this　circumstance；　he
disbelieved　what　they　both　appeared　to　agree　in；　and　condemned
them　as　not　speaking　truth　therein；　although　all　the　things
foretold　him　did　come　to　pass　according　to　their　prophecies；　as
we　shall　show　upon　a　fitter　opportunity　their　rebuilding　the
temple；　and　even　the　city　Jerusalem；　which　do　not　appear　in　our
copies　under　his　name。　See　the　note　on　Antiq。　B。　XI。　ch。　1。　sect。
3。

（13）　This　observation　of　Josephus　about　the　seeming　disagreement
of　Jeremiah；　ch。　32：4；　and　34：3；　and　Ezekiel　12：13；　but　real
agreement　at　last；　concerning　the　fate　of　Zedekiah；　is　very　true
and　very　remarkable。　See　ch。　7。　sect。　2。　Nor　is　it　at　all
unlikely　that　the　courtiers　and　false　prophets　might　make　use　of
this　seeming　contradiction　to　dissuade　Zedekiah　from　believing
either　of　those　prophets；　as　Josephus　here　intimates　he　was
dissuaded　thereby。

（14）　I　have　here　inserted　in　brackets　this　high　priest　Azarias；
though　he　be　omitted　in　all　Josephus's　copies；　out　of　the　Jewish
chronicle；　Seder　Olam；　of　how　little　authority　soever　I　generally
esteem　such　late　Rabbinical　historians；　because　we　know　from
Josephus　himself；　that　the　number　of　the　high　priests　belonging
to　this　interval　was　eighteen；　Antiq。　B。　XX。　ch。　10。；　whereas　his
copies　have　here　but　seventeen。　Of　this　character　of　Baruch；　the
son　of　Neriah；　and　the　genuineness　of　his　book；　that　stands　now
in　our　Apocrypha；　and　that　it　is　really　a　canonical　book；　and　an
appendix　to　Jeremiah；　see　Authent。　Rec。　Part　I。　p。　111。

（15）　Herodotus　says；　this　king　of　Egypt　＇Pharaoh　Hophra；　or
Apries＇　was　slain　by　the　Egyptians；　as　Jeremiah　foretold　his
slaughter　by　his　enemies；　Jeremiah　44：29；　30；　and　that　as　a　sign
of　the　destruction　of　Egypt　＇by　Nebuchadnezzar＇。　Josephus　says；
this　king　was　slain　by　Nebuchadnezzar　himself。

（16）　We　see　here　that　Judea　was　left　in　a　manner　desolate　after
the　captivity　of　the　two　tribes　and　was　not　I　with　foreign
colonies；　perhaps　as　an　indication　of　Providence　that　the　Jews
were　to　repeople　it　without　opposition　themselves。　I　also　esteem
the　latter　and　present　desolate　condition　of　the　same　country；
without　being　repeopled　by　foreign　colonies；　to　be　a　like
indication；　that　the　same　Jews　are　hereafter　to　repeople　it　again
themselves；　at　their　so　long　expected　future　restoration。

（17）　That　Daniel　was　made　one　of　these　eunuchs　of　which　Isaiah
prophesied；　Isaiah　39：7；　and　the　three　children　his　companions
also；　seems　to　me　plain；　both　here　in　Josephus；　and　in　our　copies
of　Daniel；　Daniel　1：3；　6…11；　18；　although　it　must　be　granted　that
some　married　persons；　that　had　children；　were　sometimes　called
eunuchs；　in　a　general　acceptation　for　courtiers；　on　account　that
so　many　of　the　ancient　courtiers　were　real　eunuchs。　See　Genesis
39：1。

（18）　Of　this　most　remarkable　passage　in　Josephus　concerning　the
〃stone　cut　out　of　the　mountain；　and　destroying　the　image；〃　which
he　would　not　explain；　but　intimated　to　be　a　prophecy　of　futurity；
and　probably　not　safe　for　him　to　explain；　as　belonging　to　the
destruction　of　the　Roman　empire　by　Jesus　Christ；　the　true　Messiah
of　the　Jews；　take　the　words　of　Hayercamp；　ch。　10。　sect。　4：　〃Nor
is　this　to　be　wondered　at；　that　he　would　not　now　meddle　with
things　future；　for　he　had　no　mind　to　provoke　the　Romans；　by
speaking　of　the　destruction　of　that　city　which　they　called　the
Eternal　City。〃

（19）　Since　Josephus　here　explains　the　seven　prophetic　times　which
were　to　pass　over　Nebuchadnezzar　（Daniel　4：16）　to　be　seven　years；
we　thence　learn　how　he　most　probably　must　have　understood　those
other　parallel　phrases；　of　〃a　time；　times；　and　a　half；〃　Antiq。　B。
VII。　ch。　25。；　of　so　many　prophetic　years　also；　though　he　withal
lets　us　know；　by　his　hint　at　the　interpretation　of　the　seventy
weeks；　as　belonging　to　the　fourth　monarchy；　and　the　destruction
of　Jerusalem　by　the　Romans　in　the　days　of　Josephus；　ch。　2。　sect。
7；　that　he　did　not　think　those　years　to　be　bare　years；　but　rather
days　for　years；　by　which　reckoning；　and　by　which　alone；　could
seventy　weeks；　or　four　hundred　and　ninety　days；　reach　to　the　age
of　Josephus。　But　as　to　the　truth　of　those　seven　years'　banishment
of　Nebuchadnezzar　from　men；　and　his　living　so　long　among　the
beasts；　the　very　small　remains　we　have　any　where　else　of　this
Nebuchadnezzar　prevent　our　expectation　of　any　other　full　account
of　it。　So　far　we　knew　by　Ptolemy's　canon；　a　contemporary　record；
as　well　as　by　Josephus　presently；　that　he　reigned　in　all
forty…three　years；　that　is；　eight　years　after　we　meet　with　any
account　of　his　actions；　one　of　the　last　of　which　was　the　thirteen
years'　siege　of　Tyre；　Antiq。　B。　XI。　ch。　11。；　where　yet　the　Old
Latin　has　but　three　years　and　ten　months：　yet　were　his　actions
before　so　remarkable；　both　in　sacred　and　profane　authors；　that　a
vacuity　of　eight　years　at　the　least；　at　the　latter　end　of　his
reign；　must　be　allowed　to　agree　very　well　with　Daniel's　accounts；
that　after　a　seven　years'　brutal　life；　he　might　return　to　his
reason；　and　to　the　exercise　of　his　royal　authority；　for　one　whole
year　at　least　before　his　death。

（20）　These　forty…three　years　for　the　duration　of　the　reign　of
Nebuchadnezzar　are；　as　I　have　just　now　observed；　the　very　same
number　in　Ptolemy's　canon。　Moses　Chorenensis　does　also　confirm
this　captivity　of　the　Jews　under　Nebuchadnezzar；　and　adds；　what
is　very　remarkable；　that　sale　of　those　Jews　that　were　carried　by
him　into　captivity　got　away　into　Armenia；　and　raised　the　great
family　of　the　Bagratide　there。

（21）　These　twenty…one　years　here　ascribed　to　one　named
Naboulassar；　in　the　first　book　against　Apion；　or　to
Nabopollassar；　the　father　of　the　great　Nebuchadnezzar；　are　also
the　very　same　with　those　given　him　in　Ptolemy's　canon。　And　note
here；　that　what　Dr。　Prideaux　says；　at　the　year；　that
Nebuchadnezzar　must　have　been　a　common　name　of　other　kings　of
Babylon；　besides　the　great　Nebuchadnezzar　himself　is　a　groundless
mistake　of　some　modern　chronologers　rely；　and　destitute　of　all
proper　orig