original contemporary and authentic author of the First Book of
Maccabees （10：1） calls him by his father's name； Epiphanes； and
says he was the son of Antiochus； I suppose the other writers；
who are all much later； are not to be followed against such
evidence； though perhaps Epiphanes might have him by a woman of
no family。 The king of Egypt also； Philometor； soon gave him his
daughter in marriage； which he would hardly have done； had he
believed him to be a counterfeit； and of so very mean a birth as
the later historians pretend。
（2） Since Jonathan plainly did not put on the pontifical robes
till seven or eight years after the death of his brother Judas；
or not till the feast of tabernacles； in the 160th of the
Seleucidm； 1 Macc。 10；21； Petitus's emendation seems here to
deserve consideration； who； instead of 〃after four years since
the death of his brother Judas；〃 would have us read； 〃and
therefore after eight years since the death of his brother
Judas。〃 This would tolerably well agree with the date of the
Maccabees； and with Josephus's own exact chronology at the end of
the twentieth book of these Antiquities； which the present text
cannot be made to do。
（3） Take Grotius's note here： 〃The Jews；〃 says he； 〃were wont to
present crowns to the kings ＇of Syria＇； afterwards that gold
which was paid instead of those crowns； or which was expended in
making them； was called the crown gold and crown tax。〃 On 1 Macc。
10：29。
（4） Since the rest of the historians now extant give this
Demetrius thirteen years； and Josephus only eleven years； Dean
Prideaux does not amiss in ascribing to him the mean number
twelve。
（5） It seems to me contrary to the opinion of Josephus； and of
the moderns； both Jews and Christians； that this prophecy of
Isaiah； 19：19； etc。； 〃In that day there shall be an altar to the
Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt；〃 etc。； directly foretold
the building of this temple of Onias in Egypt； and was a
sufficient warrant to the Jews for building it； and for
worshipping the true God。 the God of Israel； therein。 See
Authent。 Rec。 11。 p。 755。 That God seems to have soon better
accepted of the sacrifices and prayers here offered him than
those at Jerusalem； see the note on ch。 10。 sect。 7。 And truly
the marks of Jewish corruption or interpolation in this text； in
order to discourage their people from approving of the Worship of
God here； are very strong； and highly deserve our consideration
and correction。 The foregoing verse in Isaiah runs thus in our
common copies； 〃In that day shall five cities in the land of
Egypt speak the language of Canaan；〃 ＇the Hebrew language； shall
be full of Jews； whose sacred books were in Hebrew；＇ 〃and swear
to the Lord of hosts； one〃 ＇or the first＇ 〃shall be called； The
City of Destruction；〃 Isaiah 19：18。 A strange…name； 〃City of
Destruction；〃 upon so joyful occasion； and a name never heard of
in the land of Egypt； or perhaps in any other nation。 The old
reading was evidently the City of the Sun； or Heliopolis； and
Unkelos； in effect； and Symmachus； with the Arabic version；
entirely confess that to be the true reading。 The Septuagint
also； though they have the text disguised in the common copies；
and call it Asedek； the City of Righteousness； yet in two or
three other copies the Hebrew word itself for the Sun； Achares；
or Thares； is preserved。 And since Onias insists with the king
and queen； that Isaiah's prophecy contained many other
predictions relating to this place besides the words by him
recited； it is highly probable that these were especially meant
by him； and that one main reason why he applied this prediction
to himself； and to his prefecture of Heliopolis； which Dean
Prideaux well proves was in that part of Egypt； and why he chose
to build in that prefecture of Heliopolis； though otherwise an
improper place； was this； that the same authority that he had for
building this temple in Egypt； the very same he had for building
it in his own prefecture of Heliopolis also； which he desired to
do； and which he did accordingly。 Dean Prideaux has much ado to
avoid seeing this corruption of the Hebrew； but it being in
support of his own opinion about this temple； he durst not see
it； and indeed he reasons here in the most injudicious manner
possible。 See him at the year 149。
（6） A very unfair disputation this！ while the Jewish disputant；
knowing that he could not properly prove out of the Pentateuch；
that 〃the place which the Lord their God shall choose to place
his name there；〃 so often referred to in the Book of Deuteronomy；
was Jerusalem any more than Gerizzim； that being not determined
till the days of David； Antiq。 B。 VII。 ch。 13。 sect。 4； proves
only； what the Samaritans did not deny； that the temple at
Jerusalem was much more ancient； and much more celebrated and
honored； than that at Gerizzim； which was nothing to the present
purpose。 The whole evidence； by the very oaths of both parties；
being； we see； obliged to be confined to the law of Moses； or to
the Pentateuch alone。 However； worldly policy and interest and
the multitude prevailing； the court gave sentence； as usual； on
the stronger side。 and poor Sabbeus and Theodosius； the Samaritan
disputants； were martyred； and this； so far as appears； without
any direct hearing at all； which is like the usual practice of
such political courts about matters of religion。 Our copies say
that the body of the Jews were in a great concern about those men
（in the plural） who were to dispute for their temple at
Jerusalem； whereas it seems here they had but one disputant；
Andronicus by name。 Perhaps more were prepared to speak on the
Jews' side； but the firstraying answered to his name； and
overcome the Samaritans； there was necessity for any other
defender of the Jerusalem temple。
（7） Of the several Apollonius about these ages； see Dean Prideaux
at the year 148。 This Apollonius Daus was； by his account； the
son of that Apollonius who had been made governor of Celesyria
and Phoenicia by Seleueus Philopater； and was himself a confidant
of his son Demetrius the father； and restored to his father's
government by him； but afterwards revolted from him to Alexander；
but not to Demetrius the son； as he supposes。
（8） Dr。 Hudson here observes； that the Phoenicians and Romans
used to reward such as had deserved well of them； by presenting
to them a golden button。 See ch。 5。 sect。 4。
（9） This name； Demetrius Nicator； or Demetrius the conqueror； is
so written on his coins still extant； as Hudson and Spanheim
inform us； the latter of whom gives us here the entire
inscription； 〃King Demetrius the God； Philadelphus； Nicator。〃
（10） This clause is otherwise rendered in the First Book of
Maccabees； 12：9； 〃For that we have the holy books of Scripture in
our bands to comfort us。〃 The Hebrew original being lost； we
cannot certainly judge which was the truest version only the
coherence favors Josephus。 But if this were the Jews' meaning；
that they were satisfied out of their Bible that the Jews and
Lacedemonians were of kin； that part of their Bible is now lost；
for we find no such assertion in our present copies。
（11） Those that suppose Josephus to contradict himself in his
three several accounts of the notions of the Pharisees； this
here； and that earlier one； which is the largest； Of the War B。
II。 ch。 8。 sect。 14； and that later； Antiq。 B。 XVIII。 ch。 1。
sect。 3； as if he sometimes said they introduced an absolute
fatality； and denied all freedom of human actions； is almost
wholly groundless if he ever； as the very learned Casaubon here
truly observes； asserting； that the Pharisees were between the
Essens and Sadducees； and did so far ascribe all to fate or
Divine Providence as was consistent with the freedom of human
actions。 However； their perplexed way of talking about fate； or
Providence； as overruling all things； made it commonly thought
they were willing to excuse their sins by ascribing them to fate；
as in the Apostolical Constitutions； B。 VI。 ch。 6。 Perhaps under
the same general name some difference of opinions in this point
might be propagated； as is very common in all parties； especially
in points of metaphysical subtilty。 However； our Josephus； who in
his heart was a great admirer of the piety of the Essens； was yet
in practice a Pharisee； as he himself informs us； in his own
Life； sect。 2。 And his account of this doctrine of the Pharisees
is for certain agreeable to his own opinion； who ever both fully
allowed the freedom of human actions； and yet strongly believed
the powerful interposition of Divine Providence。 See concerning
this matter a remarkable clause； Antiq。 B。 XVI。 ch。 11。 sect。 7。
（12） This king； who was of the famous race of Arsaces； is
bethused to call them； but by the elder author of the First
Maccahere； and 1 Macc。 14：2； called by the family name Arsaces；
was； the king of the Persians and Medes； according to the land
but Appion says his proper name was Phraates。 He is language of
the Eastern nations。 See Authent。 Rec。 Part II。 also called by
Josephus the king of the Parthians； as the Greeks p。 1108。
（13） There is some error in the copies here； when no more than
four years are ascribed to the high priesthood of Jonathan。 We
know by Josephus's last Jewish chronology； Antiq。 B。 XX。 ch。 10。；
that there was an interval of seven years between the death of
Alcimus； or Jacimus； the last high priest； and the real high
priesthood of Jonathan； to whom yet those seven years seem here
to be ascribed； as a part of them were to Judas before； Antiq。 B。
XII。 ch。 10。 sect。 6。 Now since； besides these seven years
interregnum in the pontificate； we are told； Antiq。 B。 XX。 ch。
10。； that Jonathan's real high priesthood lasted seven years
more； these two seven years will make up fourteen years； which I
suppose was Josephus's own number in this place； instead of the
four in our present copies。
（14） These one hundred and seventy years of the Assyrians mean no
more； as Josephus explains himself here； than from the sara of
Seleucus； which as it is known to have began on the 312th year
before the Christian sara； from its spring in the First Book of
Maccabees； and from its autumn in the Second Boo