תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

• converse with heretics, nor receive medicines from them, though the disease be mortal and

desperate. Of this there is an example in the Son of Dama, nephew to R. Ishmael by his • sister : When he had been bit by a serpent, James of Shechania [a disciple of Jesus] came to • heal him ; but R. Ishmael did not allow it to be done. The son of Dama said to R. Ishmael : • O Rabbi Ishmael, my uncle, let me be healed by him: I will allege a text out of the law which • allows of it. But before he had finished all he would say, he expired. Then Ishmael pronounced * this speech over him: Thou art happy, O son of Dama : for thy body has remained pure, and thy soul also has gone pure out of it: and thou hast not transgressed the words of thy brethren.'

This is supposed to be an acknowledgment of the power of working miracles in the name of Jesus, at the same time that it shews the virulent temper of the Jewish doctors against him and his disciples.

There is another like instance alleged from the Jerusalem Talmud : “Achild of a son of • Rabbi Joses, son of Levi, swallowed somewhat poisonous. There came a man who pronounced • some words to him in the name of Jesus, son of Pandira, and he was healed.

When he was • going away, R. Joses said to him: What word did you use ?phe answered, such a word. R. Joses • said to him: Better had it been for him to die, than to hear such a word. And so it happened, • that is, he instantly died.'

Another“ proof this of the power of miracles inherent in the disciples of Jesus, and at the same time a mark of the malignity of the Jewish rabbins. That

passage I have transcribed as it is in the Pugio Fidei : I shall now put it down below as it stands in Edzardi Avoda zara.

7. It will certainly be worth the while to take a testimony from these writers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the temple there. I shall therefore transcribe and translate almost word for word a long passage out of the Babylonian Talmud, in the title Gittin, chapter Hannisah.

• This is the tradition. Rabbi Elieser said: Go, and see how the blessed and holy God quentem super ipsum conciunculam habuit. Beatus es, o fili Dixit ei, Mitte illis sacrificium. Videbis, si illi offerent. Ivit Damæ! quod corpus tuum manserit mundum, etiamque filius Kamtza, et misit per manus ejus vitulam trimam. Ipse anima tuo corpore exierit munda, neque fueris transgressus autem rediens impressit in eâ maculam in ora labii ejus. Alii verba sociorum tuorum, &c. Edzard. Advoda Sara. Vol. i. dicunt, quod in pupillâ oculi ejus maculam impressit : secunp. 312. Conf. Martini Pug. Fidei. P. 2. cap. 8. p. 289. dum aliquorum opinionem est macula, et secundum opinionem

* Memorabile hujus rei exemplum occurrit Cod. Abhoda aliorum non est macula. Rabbini censebant itaque illam zara f. 27. 2. de R. Ismaële vetante aliquem sanari in nomine sacrificandam propter pacem regni. Dixit eis R. Zacharias Jesu-Exemplo est B. Dama-Insignis sane historia, et præ- filius Onkelos: dicetur, Maculata offeruntur super altare. clarum veritatis Evangelicæ testimonium, ab ipsis Judæis dic- Voluerunt occidere eum, ne iret, et diceret. Dixit eis R. Za. tum. J. Rhenferd. Diss. de Redemtione Marcosiorum et charias, dicent: Mittens maculam in Sanctuarium occidetur. Heracleonit. sect. L. p. 215.

Dixit R. Jochanan : Superstitio R. Zachariæ destruxit doItem in lib. Sabbat Jerosolymitano, distinctione Shemona mum nostram, et combussit templum nostrum, et urbem Scheratzin-Filius filii R. Jose filii Levi glutiverat toxicum nostram evertit, et fecit ut nos e terrâ nostra captivi ducerescilicet, vel aliud morbiferum. Venit itaque vir quidam, et Misit itaque Bar-Kamtza super his ad Neronem Cæ. conjuravit ei in nomine Jesu Pandirini, et sanatus est, sive sarem. Quando venit, jecit sagittam ad orientem. Cecidit ad quievit. Cumque exivisset, ait, ei, quomodo conjurâsti eum? Jerusalem ad occidentem-Dixit puero. Lege mihi versum Ait ei, tali verbo. Ait ei : Remissius fuisset ei, si mortuus tuum. Dixit ei Ezech. xxv. 14.-Dixit Nero: Deus sanctus, fuisset, ut non audivisset verbum tale. Et factum est sic ei: benedictus, vult per me destruere domum suam. Misitque id est, statim mortuus est. Pug. Fid. ib. p. 290.

contra illos Vespasianum, qui venit, et obsedit Jerusalem tres • Si quis diligenter advertat has duas traditiones, in nomine annos, et dimidium. Interim venit nuntius ad eum, dicens ili: domini nostri Jesu Christi fuisse facta miracula Judaïcarum Surge, quia mortuus est Nero Cæsar, et consenserunt tibi scripturarum testimonio comprobabit. Raym. Martin. ib. optimates Romanorum, ut te constituant principem Ivit, et.

• Similis textus est in Talmude Hierosolymitano Avoda S. misit Titum impium filium suum. . Hic est Titus impius, qui Fol. 40. 4. et Schabb. fol. 14. 4. med.-Nepos R. Josuæ filii blasphemavit, et maledixit contra Justum, i. e. Deum. Quid Levi laborabat ab absorpto : (id est, diglutiverat aliquid, quod fecit? Cepit meretricem in manu suâ, et ingressus in Sancta ipsi in gutture hærebat, et suffocationem minabatur.] Venit- Sanctorum stravit librum legis, et transgressus est super illum que quidam, qui illi clam insusurravit, (id est, jussit ipsum transgressionem. Et accepit gladium, et dirupit vela, et facconvalescere,] in nomine Jesu filii Pandiræ. Unde confestim tum est miraculum. Et fuit sanguis erumpens et exiens. Et respiravit. Quando autem egressus est inde, dixit ad eum R. putavit occidisse ipsam substantiam Dei sancti benedicti, i. e. Josua filius Levi. Quid insusurrâsti ei ? Respondit ille, vocem ipsum Deum.- Quid fecit ? Accepit vela, et fecit illa sicut hanc [i. e. nomen Jesu] Tum. R. Josua : Præstitisset ipsum saccum, et adduxit omnia vasa quæ erant in Sanctuario, et fuisse mortuum, et non audivisse nomen illud. Atque hoc posuit illa in illo. Et collocavit illa in navi, ut iret, et gloriareipsum etiam ei [haud longe post] contigit. Edzard. Avoda tur in urbe süâ--Stetit contra Draco, vel tempestas, in mari, zara. Vol. 2. p. 311, 312.

ut demergeret illum in mari. Dixit: Puto ego, quod Deus e Traditio est. Dixit R. Elieser: Exi, et vide quanta est horum nullam habet potentiam nisi in Mari : Venit Pharao et virtus pudoris, quia ecce Deus Sanctus et Benedictus juvit submersit eum in mari. Stat etiam contra me, ut me subBarkamtza, et destruxit domum suam, et exussit templum mergat. Si fortis est, ascendat in siccam, et faciat bellum 611um, et desolavit Jerusalem-Ivit Romam, et dixit Neroni mecum. Exivit filia vocis, et dixit ei, Impie fili impi, tili Cæsari : Judæi rebellárunt contra te. Dixit ei : Quis dicit ? filii impii Esau : Creatura vilis est mihi in mundo meo, et cu

mur.

[ocr errors]

6

* helped Bar-kamtza, and he destroyed his house, and burnt up his temple, and made Jerusalem • desolate,' (Here is inserted an account of a trifling discourse and difference between some rabbins.] • Whereupon he [Bar-kamtza] went to Rome, and said to the emperor Nero, The • Jews have rebelled against thee. Who says this, said the emperor ? Kamtza answered: Send * to them a sacrifice; see if they will offer it. Bar-kamtza returned. Nero sent by him an heifer. three years old. As he was going he made a blemish in the mouth of it; others say in the * pupil of its eye : according to the opinion of others it was no blemish. The rabbins therefore

thought it ought to be offered for preserving the peace of the nation. But Rabbi Zacharias, son • of Onkelos, said : Shall blemished sacrifices be offered upon the altar? He that brings • blemished sacrifices into the sanctuary ought to be put to death. R. Jochanan said: The • superstition of R. Zacharias has destroyed our house, and burnt up our temple, and over* thrown our city, and caused us to be led captive out of our land. Bar-kamtza therefore sent • an account of these things to Nero Nero said: The great and blessed God has determined • by me to destroy his house. And he sent against them Vespasian, who came and besieged • Jerusalem three years and a half. In the mean time there came a messenger to him, who • said: Arise, for the emperor Nero is dead, and the nobles of the Romans have agreed to • make thee emperor. He went and sent the impious Titus his son—This is the impious Titus, who blasphemed the Most High, even God himself

. What did he do? He took a harlot into • the holy of holies, and there lay with her: and he took a sword and cut the veils ; at the same * time there was a miracle, for blood burst out: he thought he had killed God himself-Well, what • did he? He took the veils and made a sack of them, and put into it all the vessels of the sanctuary: and then put them in a ship, that he might go and triumph in his city... There stood against him a dragon, that he might drown him in the sea. He said, I think the God of these men has no power but in the sea. Pharaoh arose, and he drowned him in the sea.

He has a * mind to destroy me in the like manner: if he has power, let him come upon the dry land and

make war with me. There went forth a voice and said to him: O impious son of the wicked * man, O son of the impious son of Esau, there is a contemptible creature in my world, called a ‘gnat: go upon the dry land, and you shall make war against it. God presently rebuked the

sea, and it was calm. He went out upon the dry land, and the gnat came, and entered into • his nose, and gnawed his brain seven years, and killed him.'

J. De Voisin, in his notes upon this passage, particularly the last words of it, quotes some Jewish authors, who say, “ the story of the fly is not to be understood literally, but mystically, • and allegorically, intending to insinuate in men's minds a persuasion of the power of God, and • that he is able to abase those who rise up against him, and to punish the proudest of men by • very contemptible creatures.' Nor is it any wonder that some should be ashamed of this silly story of the fly getting up a man's nose, and dwelling there seven years. But men of true wisdom can find out more cleanly allegories than this, when they are disposed to make use of that kind of instruction.

Nor has Voisin alleged any Jewish authors, who condemn the horrible story of Titus defiling the sanctuary of the temple with lewdness: though Martini has alleged another Jewish writing in great repute, where the same story is told with all the same horrible, or yet more horrible, circumstances of filthiness, if such there can be: nor is the concluding part of that narrative of the Talmud there omitted. But I presume the Divine Being never arms his feeble creatures to destroy or annoy men for no fault at all; for none, but such as are only imputed to them by those who give a loose to their tongues, to lie and calumniate as they please : for Titus, when he lex est nomen ejus. Ascende in siccam, et bellum contra • Hucusque Talmud. Legitur quoque in Midrash Kobelet illam geres. Starim innuit Deus mari, et quievit. Ascendit super illud Eccles. cap. v. 8.-Dixit Deus sanctus benedictus; in siccam, et venit culex, et ingressus est in nasum ejus, et Prophetis : Quid vos putatis, quod si vos non eatis in missio-perforavit illi cerebrum septem annis, et occidit illum. Ex nem meam, non sit mihi alius nuntius! In omni ego do mis-libro Gittin. capite Hannisakin, ap. R. Martin. Pug. Fid. P. 3. siopem vel legationem meam, etiam per serpentem, vel scorcap. xxi. p. 703, 704.

pium, vel culicem, vel ranam. Titus impius ingressus est in. Alii asserunt illud de culice, sive muscâ ejusmodi, non Sancta Sanctorum, quando destrusit domum Sanctuarii, et juxta literalem sensum intelligendum esse, sed sensum habere gladius ejus districtus in manu snâ, et dirupit duo vela, et mysticun) – Itaque poteris de historiâ Titi libere pronuntiare, accepit duas meretrices in manu illarum, et coivit cum illis, quod narratio ejus nihil aliud sit, quam inventio, sive fabula, cum una super altare, cum alterâ super librum legis, et exivit atque modus doctrinæ usitatus apud eruditos ad stabiliendum et gladius ejus plenus sanguine. Et incepit blasphemare, et in corde plebis, quod magnus est Dominus noster, et poten- exsecrari

. Quid fecit ? Collegit omnia vasa Sanctuarii

, et tissimus, ad retribuendum illis qui contra ipsum insurgunt; sed posuit illa in sacco, et descendit ad navem. Et reliqua, sicuti in primis ad puniendum superbos, etiam per minimam creatu- modo ex Talmude citata sunt. Íbid. p. 704, 705. ram. Ap. Pugion. Fid. p. 714.

went into tlie temple at Jerusalem all in flames, neither committed lewdness there, nor did he blaspheme the Deity.

Behold then the temper, the incorrigible temper, of the Jewish people, and their rabbins, the Talmudical writers. Their temple had been burnt up, their city destroyed, their land laid waste, and they carried into captivity: but, instead of repenting, they revile him who, under God, had been the instrument of their chastisement; a prince, who, as good authority says, was as remarkable for the humanity, the compassion, and equity, in his manner of subduing them, as for his military skill and courage. Who then are the men who exalt themselves against God?

But I may no longer indulge myself in such reflections as these. Let us attend for our own benefit. Here is a testimony to the destruction of Jerusalem from Talmudical writers: they agree very much with Josephus in their account of the origin of the war. He says that • Eleazar, " then captain at the temple, persuaded those who officiated in sacred things, not to accept the gift or sacrifice of a stranger: which was the occasion of the war.' The Talmudists say the same thing in different words, after their manner. According to this account also, the war broke out near the end of the reign of Nero, who sent Vespasian general into Judea. Whilst Vespasian was there, carrying on the war, Nero died, and he was chosen to succeed him. When he was chosen emperor at Rome, he sent Titus to carry on the war in Judea : the issue of which was, that the temple was burnt up, their city destroyed, and their whole government overthrown, and they carried into captivity. Moreover, as they here own, Titus was in possession of the veils and sacred vessels of the temple which he took with him to adorn his triumph at Rome. All this (though they relate not particularly the distresses of the siege of Jerusalem) is said, not very differently from Josephus, and more agretably to him in some respects, than by Josippon, who afterwards wrote at length the history of the war, as we shall see by and by.

C H A P. VI.

JOSEPH BEN GORION, OR JOSIPPON

I. His age, work, and character. II. Extracts from his work ; shewing his history of the Jewish

war with the Romans, and the destruction of Jerusalem. III. Concluding remarks. 1. We are now coming to an author of a very extraordinary, or even a singular, character, writer of The Jewish History in six books, who'styles himself Josippon, or Joseph Ben Gorion.

He had a very high opinion of himself, and has now been for some while in great reputation with the learned men of the Jewish nation.

At the beginning of the thirty-sixth chapter, which is the first chapter of the fifth book, he writes: ·So says Joseph Ben Gorion the priest, who has written the things which have happened • to Israel, and his calamities, to be a memorial and instruction to his posterity--From this day, • and henceforward, this book is to be a testimony to other writers who shall come after me and attempt to write of the same things, and shall allege proofs of what they write. For they will say:

“ So and so has recorded Joseph the priest, who is the prince of all writers, who have published books among the people of Israel, excepting only the writers of the four and twenty sacred books.",

And indeed so it has happened. For Rabbi Tham, who publislied this work in the Hebrew original at Constantinople in the year 1510, and made another edition of it at Venice in 1544, says of it in his preface : • Although this book resembles other books in some respects, it is a De B. J. I. 2. cap. 17. sect. 2. p. 192.

timonium cæteris scriptoribus, qui post me venturi sunt, et b Josippon, sive Josephi Ben-Gorionis Historiæ Judaïcæ aggredientur scribere, et testimonia allegare. Dicent enim: libri sex. Ex Hebræo vertit, Præfatione et Notis illustravit Sic et sic memoriæ prodidit Joseph Sacerdos, qui est prinJoannes Gagnier. A. M. Oxon. 1706, 4to.

ceps scriptorum omnium, qui libros ediderunt, quotquot * Sic ait Joseph Ben Gorion Sacerdos, qui rerum historiam reperti sunt in Israel, exceptis quidem scriptoribus quatuor et texnit, quæ contigerunt Israëli, et calamitatem ejus, ut sit me- viginti librorum Sanctorum. lib 5 c. 36, p. 170. moria earum in documentum, et eruditionem posteris ejus.

Quamvis autem hic liber cum cæteris libris in genere Hic autem liber ab hac die, et deinceps futurus est in tes- conveniat, tainen ratione argumenti plurimum ab eis differt.

[ocr errors]

And it may

very different from them in others. The great difference between books consists in their trutı • or their falsehood. The words of this book are all justice and truth, nor is there any thing

perverse in it. The evidence of it is this, that it approacheth nearer to prophecy than any • other book written since the sacred scriptures: for it was written before the Mishna and the • Talmud. Upon that man was the hand of the Lord when he wrote this book. • be said that his words are well-nigh equal to the words of a man of God.'

This work is not so ancient as the author and his admirers pretend, as will be shewn pre-, sently. But from the time that he has begun to be taken notice of, as Mr. Gagnier observes in the preface to his edition of this work, “all Jewish writers, whether commentators, or historians, • or philologers, continually allege it, and quote authorities and testimonies from it, as an • authentic and fundamental book.-As for the Greek Josephus, they have little regard for him, • or rather none at all; but declaim against him as a lying historian, full of falsehoods and flatteries. • But their Josippon they extol and magnify as true and almost divine.'

But Christian critics, of the best credit, have argued that the work is the production of a late age. They shew this from the work itself; in which, as • Joseph Scaliger has observed, people and countries are called by modern names, not in use till more than six hundred years after our Saviour's nativity. And he supposeth him to be a Jew that lived in France. He therefore considers him as an impostor.

Fabricius has argued in the like manner. He supposeth him to have been a Jew who lived in Bretagne in France, in the ninth or tenth century. The many modern names of people and countries made use of by him plainly declares his late age. His Hebrew history is translated, or, more properly extracted, from the Greek of Josephus, or rather from a Latin translation of him : taking from him what he likes, omitting some things, and adding others.

To the like purpose Gagnier, in his preface, already cited more than once. that • Rabbi « Saadias Gaon, who wrote his commentary upon the book of Daniel in the year

of · Christ 936, is the first author who has mentioned Josippon Ben Gorion. He does not expressly .name his work, though probably he refers to it.' Gagnier adds : • The first writer, who has • expressly mentioned this work with the name of Josippon Ben Gorion, and quoted authorities • from it, is Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, who flourished about the year of Christ 1140.'

I refer likewise to' Ittigius, and Basnage, who in his History of the Jews, has a long article concerning this writer and his work. He says Josippon lived in the tenth or eleventh century: which he argues after this manner : Solomon Jarchi," who wrote in the year 1140, is the first • who has quoted this Hebrew Joseph. Abraham Ezra, and Abraham Ben Dion, who by their

Who also says

Differentia autem illa præcipue consistit in veritate aut in fal- facere, et Francos interfuisse exsequiis Herodis, quos Taratas sitate. Porro hujus libri verba omnia sunt justitia et veritas ; Josephus vocàrit, ex eo solo potuit odorari hunc scriptorem neque perversitas ulla invenitur in eo. Cujus quidem rei recentissimum esse, ac proinde planum, qui nomen Josephi signum est, quod propius accedat ad prophetiam, quam cæteri Historici sibi vindicârit. Jo. Scalig. in Elencho Trihær. Vid. omnes libri, qui post Scripturas sacras editi sunt. Siquidem Gagnier. Præf. p. xlviii. ante Misnam et Talmud scriptus fuit. . Adde quod super vi- c Cæterum eruditis bodie plerisque dubium non est, Joserum illum fuit manus Jehovæ, dum hunc librum componeret : phum huncce Hebraïcum ex Græco, vel potius ex Latina et parum abest, quin ejus verba sint verba viri Dei. Præf. R. Josephi versione, esse expressum, vel excerptum potius; nec Tham. De Scopo Libri.

Josephum ipsum auctorem, sed longe recentiorem aliquem, a Deinde omnes, qui secuti sunt, Judæi Scriptores, sive qui in Britannia Galliæ Armoricâ non ante ronum vel deciCommentatores, sive Historici, sive Philologi, ubique eum mum seculum vixit, et pro lubitu digessit, addidit, interpolaallegant, et tamquam ex libro fundamentali atque authentico vit, omisit quæcumque ipsi videbantur addenda esse vel omittestimonia et auctoritates depromunt- -Nam quod ad Jose- tendata recentiora longe Josepho tempora arguit, quod phum Græcum adtinet, illum non in magno solent habere memorat Francos, et Burgundiæ populum, et Daniscos, ac pretio, imo ei nullam habent fidem, et, tamquam in Histori- Danemanam, et Anglicam gentem, et quæ in Irlandiâ sive cum mendacem et adulatorem, adversus illum acriter inve- Hiberniâ. Fab. Bib. Gr. lib. 4, c. 6. T. 3, p. 249. et apud huntur. Suum vero Josippon quasi honinem veracem et Havercamp. Joseph. T. 2. p. 68. pene divinum summis laudibus ad sidera evehunt, extollunt, R. Saadias Gaon, qui scribebat circa annum 696, min. et prædicant, &c. Gagnier in Præf. p. xxix.

suppul. Christ. 936, in suo commentario in Danielem primus 6 De Josepho Gorionide satis est, si ostendero cujas fuit, omnium Josephi Ben Gorionis meminit-Gagn. Pr. p. xxvii. quando vixit, cujusmodi scriptor est. Gallum Judæum fuisse e R. Salomo Jarchi, qui forebat circa annum Christi 1140, ex agro Turononsi non difficile est colligere, ut qui plus de primus est, qui diserte citat hunc librum sub nomine Josippon, illis quam de aliis Galliæ tractibus agat. Recentem admodum vel Josephi Ben Gorionis, et auctoritates ex eo adducit, quafuisse arguunt verba locorum recentia, quibus utitur, Tours, rum loca habes infra in Testimoniis. Gagn. ib. p.

xxviii. Amboise, Chinon. Quæ loca post DC annos a natali Christi " Ittigii Prolegom. ap. Joseph. Havercamp. Tom. 2. p. 87. adhuc Turones, Ambasia, Kainon vocabantur. Quare cum & Basnag. Hist. des Juifs. liv. 7, ch. vi. p. 1539. 1570. Munsterus videret eum Francorum et Gothorum mentionem " Ib. sect. xxv. p. 1564. VOL. IIL.

4 c

6

• quotations gave the work credit, lived in the same age. It would be very strange that a work • should be unknown for three or four hundred years to the nation for whose sake it was com

posed. But if it was written near the end of the tenth, or the beginning of the eleventh, • century, it is not at all strange that it did not begin to be taken notice of till some while after.' I say nothing more in the way of introduction.

of introduction. I shall now make such extracts out of this work, as may be sufficient to shew the writer's character, and his testimony to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus. I have placed him in the tenth century, not very far from the beginning of it, in the year of Christ 930.

II. The work is divided into six books and ninety-seven chapters. The sixth and last of which books consists of five and fifty chapters.

The forty-third chapter, which is the first of the sixth book, begins in this manner. Thus • says Joseph Ben Gorion the priest, the same who is also called Josippon—This is the book · which I have entitled The Wars of Jehovah, because it contains the history of the calamities of the house of our sanctuary, and of our land, and our glory.'

My readers cannot but remember that our Greek • Josephus, when he gives an account of the determination of the Jewish people to go to war with the Romans, informs us that they appointed Joseph Gorion, and Ananus the high priest, to preside at Jerusalem. Others were sent as generals into several parts of the country; and himself, Joseph son of Matthias, was appointed governor of the two Galilees, together with the præfecture of Gamala annexed to them.

Our author's account of the same determination is to this purpose: · The Jews, out of their generals which were at Jerusalem, chose three princes valiant for war; me, Joseph the priest, · valiant for war with the help of Jehovah, and Ananus the priest, and Eleazar his son, priests • also, and by lot they divided to them the several parts of the country in which they should : carry on the war. The third part, which was the first lot, containing the land of Galilee and

Napthali, came out to Joseph Ben Gorion the priest ; and they called him Josippon by way of * praise and honour: forasmuch as he was then anointed with the military ointment for the war. • The second lot came out to Ananus the high priest, to govern at Jerusalem and the adjoining · country. The third lot came out to Eleazar, son of Ananus, and what follows. This should be compared with what is written by - Josephus.

Thus he adopts the appellation of Joseph son of Gorion ;' but personates Joseph son of Matthias ; and like him he is appointed governor of Galilee; and all along he will be Josephus in the main, and another person when he pleaseth. He will also transcribe the Greek Josephus, and copy a large part of his history of the Jewish war without taking any notice of him. If he differs from him, and adds to him, it is not taken out of any other writers better informed, but from his own invention only.

Being come into Galilee he there orders things very agreeably to what we have formerly seen in our Greek Josephus. At length he' Alies from Vespasian and Titus and the Roman army, and shuts himself up in Jotapata. Vespasians with his army comes before Jotapata. The city is taken after a siege of eight-and-forty days, Joseph' himself, and with him forty more, go out

.: Sic dicit Joseph Ben Gorion sacerdos. Ipse est Josippon, Gagnier, in his notes upon this place, p. 293, assigns some nomine quidem diminutivo Josipron-Hic est liber ille, reasons why this writer chose to be thought the son of Gorion, quem appellavi titulo, Bella Jehovæ, co quod continet his- rather than the son of Matthias. Cur autem hic noster toriam calamitatum desolationis Domûs Sanctuarii nostri, et Gorionis filius quam Matthiæ esse voluerit, ratio videtur fuisse, terræ nostræ, et gloriæ nostræ. Lib. 6, c. 43, p. 189.

quod cum nomen Gorionis cujusdam insignis viri mentio alib D. B. J. I. 2, cap. 20.

quando in Talmude occurrat, atque etiam Nicodemi filii “Quæ omnia cum avdissent Judæi, elegerunt e ducibus, qui Gorionis, in eam familiam ipsi se adoptare visum est, ut proerant in Judâ et Jerusalem, tres principes fortissimos bello, me diret in lucem gratior contribulibus suis, eisque facilius imposcilicet, Joseph Sacerdotem fortissimum bello cum auxilio Je- neret. Vid. reliqua ibid. Et conf. not.P ap. Jus, Havercamp. Hovæ, et’Anani Sacerdotem et Eleazar Sacerdotem filium ejus; et præfecerunt illos super terram, et partiti sunt terram Judæ At vero ut audivit Josephus, quod venit Vespasianus, et inter illos per sortem, dederuntque illis præsidio manum Judæ- cum eo filius ejus Titus, oinnisque exercitus ejus, ut preorum ad bellum gerendum. Et obtigit tertia pars terræ per pri- lium committeret, fugit Josephus, a facie eorum in Jotapamam sortem, scilicet, omnis terra Galileæ a terrâ Nephthali, et tam, urbem magnam, quæ est in Galilæa, et inclusif se. deinceps, Josepho filio Gorionis Sacerdoti, in honorem et glo- Josephus et omnis exercitus intra illam. c. 68, p. 299. riam. Et appellaverunt illum Josippon in titulum dignitatis 8 Cap. 69, p. 300, et cap. 70, p. 301, &c. et laudis ; quia tunc unctus fuit unctione militari. Deinde Cap. 71, p. 307. sors secunda exiit pro Anano Sacerdote magno, Jerusalem Tunc surrexit Josephus ipse, et quadraginta viri ex miliscilicet, et omnia circum vicina loca; -Sors denique tertia tibus, qui residui erant cuni illo, et egressi sunt ex urbe, egressa est Eleazaro filio Anani. &c. Josipp. c. 67, p. 293. fugeruntque in sylvan, ubi inventâ cavernà illuc iptraverunt, d De B. Jud. lib. 2, c. 20, sect. 1, 2, 3.

delitueruntque omnes in illa cavernâ, &c. Cap. 71, p. 307.

e

p. 207.

h

« הקודםהמשך »