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 original authority。
（22） These fifteen days for finishing such vast buildings at
Babylon； in Josephus's copy of Berosus； would seem too absurd to
be supposed to be the true number； were it not for the same
testimony extant also in the first book against Apion； sect。 19；
with the same number。 It thence indeed appears that Josephus's
copy of Berosus had this small number； but that it is the true
number I still doubt。 Josephus assures us； that the walls of so
much a smaller city as Jerusalem were two years and four months
in building by Nehemiah； who yet hastened the work all he could；
Antiq。 B。 XI。 ch。 5。 sect。 8。 I should think one hundred and
fifteen days； or a year and fifteen days； much more
proportionable to so great a work。
（23） It is here remarkable that Josephus； without the knowledge
of Ptolemy's canon； should call the same king whom he himself
here （Bar。 i。 11； and Daniel 5：1； 2； 9； 12； 22； 29； 39） styles
Beltazar； or Belshazzar； from the Babylonian god Bel； Naboandelus
also； and in the first book against Apion； sect。 19； vol。 iii。；
from the same citation out of Berosus； Nabonnedon； from the
Babylonian god Nabo or Nebo。 This last is not remote from the
original pronunciation itself in Ptolemy's canon； Nabonadius； for
both the place of this king in that canon； as the last of the
Assyrian or Babylonian kings； and the number of years of his
reign； seventeen； the same in both demonstrate that it is one and
the same king that is meant by them all。 It is also worth noting；
that Josephus knew that Darius； the partner of Cyrus； was the son
of Astyages； and was called by another name among the Greeks；
though it does not appear he knew what that name was； as having
never seen the best history of this period； which is Xenophon's。
But then what Josephus's present copies say presently； sect。 4；
that it was only within no long time after the hand…writing on
the wall that Baltasar was slain； does not so well agree with our
copies of Daniel； which say it was the same night； Daniel 5：30。
（24） This grandmother； or mother of Baltasar； the queen dowager
of Babylon； （for she is distinguished from his queen； Daniel
5：10； 13；） seems to have been the famous Nitocris； who fortified
Babylon against the Medes and Persians； and； in all probability
governed under Baltasar； who seems to be a weak and effeminate
prince。
（25） It is no way improbable that Daniel's enemies might suggest
this reason to the king why the lions did not meddle with him and
that they might suspect the king's kindness to Daniel had
procured these lions to be so filled beforehand； and that thence
it was that he encouraged Daniel to submit to this experiment； in
hopes of coming off safe； and that this was the true reason of
making so terrible an experiment upon those his enemies； and all
their families； Daniel 6：21； though our other copies do not
directly take notice of it
（26） What Josephus here says； that the stones of the sepulchers
of the kings of Persia at this tower； or those perhaps of the
same sort that are now commonly called the ruins of Persepolis；
continued so entire and unaltered in his days； as if they were
lately put there； 〃I （says Reland） here can show to be true； as
to those stones of the Persian mansoleum； which Com。 Brunius
brake off and gave me。〃 He ascribed this to the hardness of the
stones； which scarcely yields to iron tools； and proves
frequently too hard for cutting by the chisel； but oftentimes
breaks it to pieces。
BOOK 11 FOOTNOTES
（1） This Cyrus is called God's shepherd by Xenophon； as well as
by Isaiah； Isaiah 44：28； as also it is said of him by the same
prophet； that 〃I will make a man more precious than fine gold；
even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir；〃 Isaiah 13：12； which
character makes Xenophon's most excellent history of him very
credible。
（2） This leave to build Jerusalem； sect。 3； and this epistle of
Cyrus to Sisinnes and Sathrabuzanes； to the same purpose； are
most unfortunately omitted in all our copies but this best and
completest copy of Josephus； and by such omission the famo