Page 4.—Emancipation of servants.] The Mosaic law did not prohibit domestic slavery, which, being universal in the ancient world, it would have been impossible to banish from among any single people;—it only endeavoured to mitigate those evils which slavery must bring with it, especially among a people little softened by civilisation. In particular, its regulations were directed to prevent the mischiefs which resulted in other countries from the hostility against their master, which is engendered in the minds of slaves, who see no prospect of any termination to their miseries but that of their lives. Foreign slaves might be purchased and retained during their whole lifetime in slavery; (Lev. xxv. 45, 46.) but if a native Israelite had been reduced to servitude by poverty, Josephus (Ant. iii. 12. xvi. 1.) adds, by crime, he was to be set free at the end of seven years, or in the year of Jubilee, if this occurred before his seven years of service had expired. (Exod. xxi. 2-6. Lev. xxv. 39. Deut. xv. 12-18.) It would, however, frequently happen that a servant would have formed an attachment to his master’s house, which would make him unwilling to leave it, especially as the children, who might have been born to him by a female slave in the family, continued the property of his master. (Exod. xxi. 4.) In this case he was allowed to bind himself to his service for ever: the compact, to prevent false claims on the master’s part, taking place in the presence of witnesses, with the ceremonies described in the text. Josephus (Ant. iv. 8. 28.) appears to suppose, that even then he was released in the fiftieth year. The time immediately preceding the Passover is said to have been usually chosen for the manumission of those who were to receive their freedom. (Reland, Ant. Sacr. Heb. 452. Michaelis, Mos. Law, § 122-127.)

Page 6.—Thavech.] היך (τὸ μεσὸν, Luke v. 19.) is a Hebrew word denoting the midst, and applied to the court which formed the centre of the buildings of the house. See Shaw’s Travels, p. 208.

Page 6.—Presents for the host.] “It is counted uncivil to visit in this country without a gift in the hand. All great men expect it, as a kind of tribute due to their character and authority, and look upon themselves as affronted, and indeed defrauded, when this compliment is omitted. Even in familiar visits amongst inferior people you shall seldom have them come, without bringing a flower, or an orange, or some other such token of their respect to the person visited: the Turks in this respect keeping up the ancient oriental custom hinted at, (1 Sam. ix. 7.) ‘If we go, what shall we bring the man of God? there is not a present to bring to the man of God—what have we?’ which words are questionless to be understood as relating to a token of respect, and not a price of divination,”—Maundrell’s Travels, p. 26.

Page 7.—Respecting the construction of the better kind of houses in the east, the variegated marble pavements, the fountain with its cypress or palm-trees, the awning stretched over it, &c. see Harmer’s Observations on Scripture, i. 195. Ed. 1776. Russell’s Aleppo, i. 29. Shaw’s Travels, 207.

Page 8.—Nard.] The costly liquid perfume, called nardus by the ancients, was obtained from the flowers of the Indian plant Valeriana Jatamensi. (Roxburgh, As. Res. iv. No. 33.) From the resemblance of the grains, with which the lower part of the stem is covered, to an ear of corn, it obtained the name of νάρδου στάχυς, spikenard. (Mark xiv. 3. John xii. 3.) When pure, a small quantity of it, such as could be enclosed in a vase of onyx, was esteemed of great value.—Hor. Od. iv. 12.

Page 8.—Fish of the Nile.] Athen. vii. 312. φέρει δὲ ὁ Νεῖλος γένη πολλὰ ἰχθύων καὶ πάντα ἤδιστα.—Diod. i. 36. The fish of Egypt are regretted, along with its vegetables, by the murmuring Israelites. (Numb. xi. 5.) In the hot weather the languid appetite relishes scarcely any food but this.—Harmer, ii. 327.

Page 8.—Posture at table.] “Cœnantes ita decumbebant, ut capite leviter erecto, dorsoque pulvinis suffulto, lævo cubito inniterentur. Singulos lectos terni solebant occupare; primus pedes dorso secundi, secundus tertii dorso proximos habebat. Primus dicebatur summus, qui ad hujus pedes tertius imus erat, qui medius inter illos accumbebat dignissimus habebatur.”—Quistorpius de Terra Sancta; Fascic. Opusc. ix. 542.

Page 8.—Blessing the bread.] The prayers of the Jews before their meals beginning with the words ברוך אהה יהוה the word to bless, (εὐλογεῖν) came to be used, as we find it F.pn +1 in the New Testament, for giving of thanks before a meal, and was applied to the food itself, though properly referring to God. (Kuinöel on Luke ix. 16.) What is here said respecting the ceremonies with which the meal was accompanied must be understood to rest on Rabbinical authority, or the practice of the later Jews. See Calmet Dict. Prayer; Diss. sur le Manger des Hébreux, i. p. 350. Buxtorf. Synagoga Judaica, 7.

Page 10.—“Happy the people,” &c.] These words will not be found in our version of Psalm lxxxix. 15., but “Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound.” The author has followed the version of Dathe and others. “O beatum populum, qui novit clangorem tubæ.” “Israelitis dies solemnes et festivi clangore tubæ annunciabantur, Lev. xxiii. 24. qui deinde ad eos peragendos in loco sacro conveniebant. Laudat igitur poeta felicitatem populi ex eo, quod hæc sacra ex præscripto Deo peragere possit.” Dathe. The modern Jews repeat this verse, when the trumpet is blown in the synagogue at the Feast of Trumpets.—Jenning’s Jewish Ant. ii. 253.

Page 11.—History of the Jews in Egypt.] According to the account of Aristeas, to whom we owe the fable of the origin of the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Jews had settled in Egypt as early as the time of Psammetichus, 670 B. C. This, however, is not confirmed by ֖more credible authors. Herodotus mentions only Ionian and Carian mercenaries, (ii. 152.) as having served Psammetichus; Diodorus (i. 66.) does indeed add Arabians, under whom Jews may have been included; but there is nothing in the sacred volume to countenance the supposition. After the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, Gedaliah, whom the Babylonians had left in command over the remnant of the people, was murdered by Ishmael, a prince of the house of Judah, who had taken refuge with the king of Ammon. The people, fearing the vengeance of Nebuchadnezzar, determined to take refuge in Egypt. Jeremiah, who endeavoured to dissuade them from it, was compelled to accompany them in their flight, and probably died in Egypt. (Jer. xli. xlii. xliii.) The fugitives took up their abode in the country adjacent to Pelusium, (Jer. xliv.) at Memphis and Thebes. It was predicted by Jeremiah that they should be cut off, but we know not in what manner the prophecy was fulfilled: probably from this time to that of Alexander the Great, a considerable number of Jews remained in the principal cities of Egypt. Alexander, when he founded the city which bore his name, brought a great number of Jews to settle there, (Jos. Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 7. cont. Apion. ii. 4.) allowed them to be called Macedonians, and gave them a quarter of the city, adjoining the palace, for their peculiar residence, that they might observe their national customs without molestation. Ptolemy Lagi, the founder of the kingdom of Egypt, endeavoured to possess himself of Palestine, but was driven out by Antigonus, and in his retreat carried with him a great number of Jewish families; (B. C. 312) some of whom he placed in his garrisons, others he sent to Cyrene, (Jos. Apion. ii. 4.) but the greater part he settled at Alexandria, continuing to them the privileges which had been granted to them by Alexander. After the battle of Ipsus, (301) Judæa remained in the hands of Ptolemy, and many more of the Jews were attracted to the new capital of Egypt. (Jos. Ant. xii. 1.) Their number must have been very great, if we could rely on the account given by Josephus, that 120,000 of them were ransomed from slavery by Ptolemy Philadelphus, (B. C. 277, Ant. xii. 2. 1.) when he caused the Jewish law to be translated into Greek. The succeeding princes of this family treated the Jews with great kindness, desirous probably of attaching their countrymen in Palestine, and thus securing their possession of that region, so eagerly contested between them and the kings of Syria.^[133] In the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, Onias, whose father, the third high-priest of that name, had been murdered, fled into Egypt, and rose into high favour with the king and Cleopatra, his queen. The high-priesthood of the temple of Jerusalem, which belonged of right to his family, having passed from it to the family of the Maccabees, by the nomination of Jonathan to this office, (B. C. 153) Onias used his influence with the court to procure the establishment of a temple and ritual in Egypt, which should entirely detach the Jews who lived there from their connection with the temple at Jerusalem. The king readily complied with the request, hoping thus to assimilate the Jews more completely with his subjects, and to retain at home the gifts and tributes which they sent to the temple at Jerusalem. It was a bold innovation on the Jewish law, which had prescribed that sacrifices should be offered at one place only, for which purpose Jerusalem had long been appropriated. But on the other hand it might be urged that this law was given only in the contemplation of the Israelites living altogether in their own land, and that the case of a large number of Jews dwelling in a foreign country, not having been in the view of the lawgiver, was to be provided for when it arose. To reconcile the Egyptian Jews to a second temple, Onias is said to have alleged a passage in Isaiah, (xix. 18, 19.) of which we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. The place which he chose for the purpose was a ruined temple of Bubastis, at Leontopolis, in the Heliopolitan nome, one hundred and eighty stadia from Memphis; and the king having granted it to him, he repaired it, built a city resembling Jerusalem in miniature, (Jos. Bel. Jud. i. 1.) and erected an altar in imitation of that in the temple, constituted himself high-priest, and appointed priests and Levites from among the Jewish settlers. The king granted a tract of land around the temple for the maintenance of the worship, and it remained in existence till destroyed by Vespasian. (Jos. Ant. xiii. 3. xx. 9. Bell. Jud. vii. 11.) The chief seat of the Jews in Egypt, after Alexandria, appears to have been the district in which this temple stood, and which was called, from the founder, Ὀνίου Χώρα. (Jos. Ant. xiv. 8.) Onias was also a great warrior, and jointly with another Jew, Dositheus, was intrusted by Ptolemy with the management of all his civil and military affairs. When, after the death of Philometor, a dispute arose between Cleopatra and Ptolemy Physcon about the succession, Onias raised an army of Jews, and came to her assistance. During the reign of this voluptuous and cruel prince, (145-117 B. C.) the Jews in Egypt probably suffered in common with the other inhabitants of Alexandria, who were more than once in open rebellion against him; but nothing particular is related respecting them, if we except the circumstance mentioned in the preceding note, which the Latin translation of Josephus contra Apionem refers to the reign of Ptolemy Physcon. His queen Cleopatra associated with herself in the kingdom her eldest son, Ptolemy Lathyrus, and they were jointly sovereigns of Egypt at the time when the pilgrimage of Helon is supposed to take place. Cleopatra, jealous of Lathyrus, whom she had been compelled to take as her partner in the regal power, instead of his younger brother Alexander, (Jos. Ant. xiii. 10. 4.) gave her whole confidence to Hilkias and Ananias, sons of that Onias, by whom the temple of Leontopolis was built, gave them the command of the army, and was guided in every thing by their advice. The attachment of the Jews appears to have been the great support of Cleopatra’s power, almost all the other persons whom she employed going over to the side of Ptolemy. Thus favoured by the ruling powers, the Jews seem to have increased in population and wealth, so as to form no inconsiderable proportion of the inhabitants of Alexandria. Τῆς τῶν Αλεξανδρέων πόλεως ἁφώριστο μέγα μέρος τῷ ἔθνει τουτῷ. Strabo ap. Jos. Ant. xiv. 7. 2. Philo, Leg. ad Caium, says they were μυριάδες πόλλαι. Besides the enjoyment of their own religion, they had their own Ethnarch, who administered justice among them, according to their own law; so that, according to Strabo, they formed a sort of independent community in the bosom of the state. (Jos. Ant. xix. 5. 2.) It seemed desirable to present the reader with this connected view of the origin and state of the Jews in Egypt, as it is disclosed only gradually, and by allusion, in the work itself.

Page 14.—Irhaheres, Leontopolis.] Isaiah xix. 18. This is the passage which Onias is said to have alleged, in order to induce the Jews to acquiesce in the erection of the temple at Leontopolis. The words which stand in our common Hebrew Bibles are these, עִיר ההרס יאמר לאחת rendered in our translation “One shall be called, the City of Destruction.” Those who impute a misapplication of the passage to Onias, suppose that he read it ציר החרס, which, according to the meaning which the word bears, (Job ix. 7.) would signify City of the Sun, i. e. Heliopolis; and some modern interpreters consider this as the more probable reading. See Vitringa in loc. It is supported by Symmachus, who renders it πόλις ἡλίου· and Jerome “Civitas Solis vocabitur una.” The rendering of the Seventy is different from either, πόλις Ασεδὲκ κληθήσεται ἡ μία πόλις, as if they had read הצדק, whence Prideaux (Conn. Book iv. p. 377. Ann. 149.) infers that the translation of this prophet was made by the Jews who worshipped at Leontopolis, and that they corrupted the text to pay a compliment to the temple there. Our author has followed an interpretation different from any of the above, which is thus given by Dathe, who has adopted it in his translation: “Quæ sit עיר ההרם incertum non est, postquam Ikenius in Diss. Philol. Diss. xvi. p. 258, plane demonstravit eam esse Leontopolim; origo nominis superest in lingua Arabica, in qua דרם leonem significat. Templum vero illud Oniæ IV. de quo sine dubio propheta loquitur, in nomo Heliopolitano ad urbem Leontopolim extructum esse Josephus diserte testatur Antiq. xiii. 3.”

It may be observed that the prophecy of Isaiah might naturally be considered as a justification of the erection of a temple in Egypt, without either corruption or mistranslation, as it certainly speaks of an altar to Jehovah there.

Page 20.—The Alijah.] See Shaw’s Travels, p. 214.; Taylor’s Heb. Concord. sub voce (עליה). It appears to have been the chamber over the gate, to which David (2 Sam. xviii. 33.) retired to weep for Absalom, and the ὑπερῶον (Acts ix. 37.) in which the corpse of Tabitha was laid.

Page 21.—The Panium.] Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Πάνειον, ὕψος τὶ χειροποίητον, στροβιλοειδὲς, ἐμφερὲς οχθῳ πετρώδει, δια κοχλίου τὴν ἀνάβασιν ἔχον ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς κορυφῆς ἔστιν ἀπιδεῖν ὅλην τὴν πόλιν ὑποκειμὲνην ἀυτῷ πανταχόθεν· Strabo, xvii. p. 795. The Bruchium (a corruption of πυρουχεῖον, granary) was situated at the north-eastern angle of the city. See the plan of Alexandria, ancient and modern, in St. Croix Examen des Historiens d’Alexandre, ed. 2. p. 288. Alexandria had two principal harbours, the Great Harbour to the east, on which the Bruchium stood, and the Port of Eunostus to the west. The separation between them was made by the shallows between the Pharos and the land, afterwards covered by the mole of the Heptastadium. The modern city of Alexandria stands on the ground which has accumulated about the Heptastadium.

The Museum, where men of letters lived in common and at the royal charge, (Strabo, xviii. 794. Gillies’ Hist. of the World, i. 496.) was founded by Ptolemy Lagi, and the library enlarged by Philadelphus and succeeding kings, till it amounted to 400,000 volumes. The Serapeum contained 300,000 more. The library in the Bruchium was burnt in the wars of Cæsar; that in the Serapeum suffered much in the religious dissensions, and what remained was destroyed by the Saracens.

That the population of Alexandria has not been overrated by the author, at 600,000 souls, may be inferred from what Diodorus says, that when he was in Egypt, (60 B. C.) it appeared from the registers that there were 300,000 free men in Alexandria. Now in ancient cities the slaves were commonly at least double the number of the free inhabitants. Hume Ess. i. p. 442. It was the second city of the Roman world after Rome itself. Diod. xvii. 52.

Page 23.—Aramæan Jews.] Aram, in its largest sense, comprehended Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, all whose languages are closely allied. (Deut. xxvi. 5. Ezra iv. 7.) Though politically distinguished from Syria, Palestine has no geographical demarcation, and hence was often reckoned to belong to it. (Reland, Pal. p. 42.) Of the hatred which the Jews of Palestine bore to those of Egypt, who had attached themselves to the temple, see Maimonides de Reg. Hebr. c. 5. and the commentary in the Fascic. Hist. and Phil. Sacr. ix. p. 63. seq. The Greek learning was as odious to the zealous Aramæans, as to Cato himself. Ernesti op. Phil. xxiii. “Ut gliscenti malo, quod genuisse Ægyptiacas synagogas querebantur, obicem ponerent, sanxere Maledictus esto quisquis filium suum sapientiam Græcanicam edoceat.” (Brucker, ii. 705.) The inveteracy of the two sects against each other appeared immediately in the Christian church. Acts vi. 1. Wetstein in loc.

Page 23.—Of the origin of the love of allegory among the Jews of Alexandria, from their acquaintance with a corrupted form of the Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy, see Brucker, Hist. Phil. ii. 690. “Cum reliquæ Græcorum sectæ a Judaica theologia nimis distare crederentur, et nec Peripatetica mundi æternitas, nec Stoica mundi anima cum placitis Mosaicis, etiam allegoriarum ope satis conciliari posse videretur, sola Pythagorico-Platonica doctrina saniora et digniora Mosaicis præceptis afferre existimata est, eo quod sublimius de Deo divinisque et spiritualibus substantiis philosophari putabatur. Ast magnum cum esset inter Pythagorico-Platonica dogmata et legem Mosaicam discrimen, adhibita est regionis docendi methodus, et allegoriæ beneficio in concordiam ire jussa sunt præcepta longe diversissima.” Eichhorn Allge. Bibl. v. 233.

Page 26.—Doctrine of reminiscences.] Plato’s doctrine, that the soul’s present knowledge is only a remembrance of a former state, is the basis of much of his reasoning in favour of the immortality of the soul in his Phædo, sect. xviii. ed. Forster. Τὸ ὄν, that which is, is the real nature of things, the knowledge of which it is the highest flight of philosophy to attain.

Page 26.—A wise Jew who was also a Platonist.] In this description, the author evidently refers to Philo, (Brucker, ii. 193.) who lived a little after the time of our Saviour, but may be fairly presumed not to have been the founder of this system of Platonico-Mosaic allegory, since he speaks of it himself as old; Op. p. 1190, Ed. Par. although he was so eminent in it, that Photius, ciii. says of him, ἑξ οὖ οἶμαι καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀλληγορικὸς τῆς γραφῆς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ λόγος ἔσχεν ἀρχὴν. The author supposes Philo to have conceived of the Λόγος as a being distinct from the mind of God—yet strongly as many passages in his works favour this opinion, all seems at other times to resolve itself into a personification of a divine attribute and energy. See Mosheim ad Cudw. Syst. Int. i. 835. “Vocabulorum et nominum quibus hunc λόγον Judæus noster multis in locis ornat ea vis et ratio est, ut si ex usû et recepta loquendi consuetudine æstimantur, notionem personæ, summo licet Numine inferioris, in animis pariant—Ego vero vehementer metuo, ne si umbræ dissipantur quibus dictionem suam obscuravit Philo, idem nobis de hoc verbo dicendum sit, quod de binis potentiis ejus de quibus antea egimus.—Qui de hominum cogitationibus tam argute ac figurate philosophatur, is si Dei sapientiam et rationem aut divina decreta et cogitata primogenitum Dei filium vocat, nihil ab institutis suis alienum admittat.” On the other side of the question may be consulted, Kidder’s Demonstration of the Messiah, P. iii. ch. 5, 6.; Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. i. 1. 16.

Page 28.—God only can be our instructor in things relating to himself.] See Plato, Rep. vii. init. Leland’s Necessity of Revelation, i. 270.

Page 34.—An Egyptian Jew.] The book of Tobit was probably composed before the time of our Saviour, but when, or where, is very uncertain. (Eichhorn, Einl. ins A. T. 4. 410.) Alexandria, however, was the great workshop of the Jewish apocryphal writings, and probably produced this.

Page 36.—A righteous man.] See Godwin’s Moses and Aaron, lib. i. c. 9. respecting the distinction between the חסידים, who to the obedience of the law added many other observances, designed to show their zeal for it; and the צדיקים, who contented themselves with keeping the written law. From the books of the Maccabees (1 Mac. ii. 42. vii. 13.) where the Ἀσσιδαῖοι are mentioned, it is clear that this name was given to those who were zealous for the law; the existence of the others as a distinct class is more doubtful. Prideaux supposes that as the Chasidim gave rise to the Pharisees, so did the Tsadikim to the Karaites, who reject all tradition. Conn. vol. iii. An. 107.

Page 37.—The Tallith.] See Calmet’s Dictionary, Art. Taled. The fringes were designed to be worn on the ordinary garments, but the Jews in later times affixed them to this mantle, which they wore only in prayer.

Page 38.—Ceremonies of Prayer.] See Calmet’s Dict. Art. Phylactery. Surenh. Mishna i. 9. The use of them was at least as old as the time of our Saviour; but in describing the particular mode of making and wearing them, our author has followed Leo of Modena’s account of the modern Jews. Kri Schma, or Kiriath Shema, is derived from the word שמע (“Hear, O Israel,”) with which the passage in Deuteronomy begins. See Vitringa, Synagoga i. 279; Cérémonies des Juifs traduites de l'ltalien de Leo de Modene, par Simonville, p. 30.; Prid. Connect. P. i. B. i. 6. vol. ii. 545. Some have supposed that when Christ asked the lawyer (Luke x. 26.) “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” he pointed to the phylactery on which Deut. vi. 4. seq. was written. See Kuinöel ad locum.

Page 40.—Taking food early in the morning.] “Woe unto thee, O land, when thy princes eat in the morning.” (Eccles. x. 16.) The Talmud prescribes eleven o’clock in the forenoon, as the time when it is proper to take the first meal. See Calmet’s Dict. Art. Eating. On the sabbath, and all festival days, it was usual to fast till noon. See Hammond on Acts ii. 15.

Page 41.—And thinks of the way to Jerusalem.] There is no mention of Jerusalem in the text of this passage. (Ps. lxxxiv. 5.) Our author follows Dathe, who renders

Page 42.—Egypt abounds with horses.] The horse appears to have been used by the Egyptians long before it was common among the Jews, or even the Arabians, though Arabia has been supposed to be the native country of this animal. Horses formed no part of the riches of the patriarchs: it is only in connection with Egypt that we find them mentioned in early Scripture history. See Mich. Mos. Law § 166, and Appendix. It was forbidden the Israelites to breed many horses, (Deut. xvii. 16.) a mountainous country being indeed ill adapted for this purpose. Solomon, when he married the daughter of Pharaoh, in violation of this law, procured horses from Egypt, (1 Kings x. 28, 29. 2 Chron. i. 16, 17.) and even carried on a traffic in them. And when Zedekiah (Ezek. xvii. 15.) is about to rebel, he sends to Egypt for cavalry. It is true that the Egyptian horses do not appear to have been highly valued for their qualities by the Greeks and Romans; and that Egypt is never mentioned by those who have treated of the places in which this animal is found in the greatest perfection. See Bochart Hierozoicön, ii. 9. Yet, even in later times, when the great increase of canals had both lessened the necessity for the employment of horses, and had made the use of them difficult, (Herod. ii.) we find from Appian that the Ptolemies kept on foot 40,000 cavalry, Rom. Hist. Præf. 10.

Page 43.—Sabbath-day’s journey.] In the remainder of his work the author generally uses the sabbath-day’s journey as equivalent to somewhere about three quarters of an English mile.

Page 43.—Branches of the Nile.] Alexandria lying beyond the Canopic, the westernmost mouth of the Nile, all the seven branches of the river would, of course, be crossed by our travellers, in order to reach Pelusium, which was situated beyond the easternmost. The greater Delta is the whole country lying between these two branches; the lesser, that which is included between the Bubastic (or Pelusiac) and the Busiritic (or Phatnitic) channel, itself a branch of the Bubastic. Champollion, ii. 13. The distance from Alexandria to Pelusium, according to the Itinerary of Antoninus, was two hundred and thirteen miles. Naucratis stood on the eastern bank of the Canopic branch: it was for a long time the only place to which the jealousy of the Pharaohs allowed foreign merchants to resort; and under Amasis the Greeks were permitted to establish themselves there. (Herod. ii. 178.) Sais, one of the most celebrated cities of the Delta, stood about two leagues eastward from the Canopic branch: the goddess Naet, (or Neitha) who was worshipped there, was identified by the Greeks with their own Athene. See Jablonski Panth. Æg. lib. i. c. 3. Busiris was near the centre of the Delta, and on the western bank of the Phatnitic branch, distant twenty leagues from the apex of the Delta, and an equal number from the sea. Tanis, the Zoan of Scripture, was situated on the eastern bank of a subordinate branch of the Pelusiac, which from it took the name of Tanitic. Josephus describes it as having dwindled into an insignificant place, but the remains of several obelisks attest its ancient magnificence. Champollion, ii. 101.

Page 45.—Little wine was produced in Egypt.] Herodotus, iii. 16. says that wine was brought from Greece and Phœnicia into Egypt. Phœnicia was celebrated for its wines:

Herodotus (ii. 77.) says that Egypt produced no wine, and his testimony is confirmed by Plutarch, who says (De Iside et Osir. 6.) that before the time of Psammetichus no wine was drunk in Egypt nor offered to the gods. The mention of vines in Egypt in the book of Genesis (xl. 10.) shows that the assertion of Herodotus is to be taken with some limitation, but there can be no doubt that it was generally true. The level plains of Egypt are not suited to the cultivation of the vine—apertos Bacchus amat colles—and are besides overflowed precisely at that time when the vintage should ripen and be gathered. What wine therefore is grown in Egypt is beyond the inundations, in Fayoum, or on the border of the lake Mareotis; and perhaps Herodotus only meant to apply his remark to what he calls ἡ σπειρομένη Ἄιγυπτος, i. e. the country which was annually overflowed.

Page 46.—Marshes around Pelusium.] This was the last town of Egypt on the side of Asia, and from its strength (for which reason it is called by Ezekiel, xxx. 15. Sin, the strength of Egypt) was the key of the whole country. The Greek name, Πηλούσιον, (Strabo, xvii. 802.) the Hebrew סין (Boch. Geogr. Sac. iv. 27.) the Arabic Thineh, and the Coptic Feromi, (Champollion, ii. 86.) all denote the marshy soil in which it stood.

Page 47.—Order of the caravan.] The principal circumstances mentioned in the text are derived from Pitt’s account of the Mecca Caravan. See Harmer, i. 465.

Page 49.—Gerrha.] According to the Tabula Peutingerana, distant eight miles from Pelusium. Cellarius Geogr. ii. Africa, p. 26. Josephus who (Bell. Jud. iv. 11.) describes the route of Titus from Pelusium to Gaza, makes his first day’s march to have been as far as the temple of the Casian Jupiter. But the speed of a Roman army and a caravan are very different. Philo, Vit. Mos. p. 627, represents Canaan as two days’ journey from Egypt.

Page 50.—A round piece of leather.] This is still the common substitute for a table in travelling in these countries. Volney, Voyage en Syrie, ii. 244.

Page 51.—The laws respecting clean and unclean animals are found in Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv. Michaelis, in his Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, § 200 et seq. has shown that the foundation of the distinction was the practice already established by the usage of centuries among the Israelites, and in most points also among the kindred nations in their neighbourhood, of using certain animals for food to the exclusion of others. It has been doubted whether the hare ruminates or not; it was the opinion of ancient naturalists that it did not; Arist. Hist. Anim. iii. 16. ed. Schneid. Blumenbach, Comp. of Nat. Hist. Lepus, inclines to the opinion that both the hare and the rabbit ruminate. The poet Cowper, who had the best opportunities of observing, also pronounces the hare to ruminate; and Dr. Shaw confirms it from dissection of the animal. See Wellbeloved’s Notes on Lev. xi. 6.

Page 53.—Moriah.] Josephus (Ant. vii. 10.) observes, that the threshing-floor of Araunah, where David determined to build his temple, was the place where Abraham was about to offer Isaac, 2 Chron. iii. 1.

Page 60.—Use made by the philosophers of the Mosaic history.] See Huet. Dem. Evang. Prop. iv. Many of the statements on which he relies are very questionable; but they show what was the opinion of the Jews, from whom the Christian fathers also derived it.

Page 67.—The Magi of Persia.] Kleuker, in his edition of the Zend-Avesta, Append. vol. ii. P. i. p. 39, observes, that the name of Abraham is well known to the Ghebers, from their intercourse with the Mahometans, but is unknown to the Parsees, the fire-worshippers of Guzerat. This correction must be applied to the accounts given by Prideaux, Conn. P. i. Book iv. An. 486, and others, (see Calmet’s Dict. Abraham) of the veneration in which Abraham is held by the followers of Zoroaster. There can be no doubt however, that the tradition of his power, wisdom, and virtue, has been handed down from the earliest times, among those nations which Scripture represents to have sprung from him. See D'Herbelot Bibl. Orient. i. 65.

Even the profane historians speak of him. Justin, xxxvi. 2.

Page 70.—Casium.] Ἔστι τὸ Κάσιον θινωδης τις λοφος ἀκρωτηριάξων, ἄνυδρος, ὅπου τοῦ Πομπηι΅ου τοῦ Μάγνου σῶμα κεῖται, καὶ Δίος ἔστιν ἱερον Κασίου. Strabo, xvi. p. 760. There was another Mons Casius, which must not be confounded with this, near Seleucia in Syria, and to the latter belong the medals inscribed Ζεύς Κάσιος. The ancients fabled that Typhon had been buried under the Casian mount, or in the lake Sirbonis, which is near it. (Herod. ii. 6.) According to Herodotus, this mountain was the eastern boundary of Egypt.

Page 72.—A stranger of the gate.] The Jewish writers (not however those of the New Testament) speak of two kinds of proselytes, the גדי צדק Proselytes of Righteousness, and גרי שער Proselytes of the Gate. The former were those who submitted to circumcision, and in every respect conformed to the Mosaic law. (Exod. xii. 48.) The proselyte of the gate, so called from the expression “the stranger who is within thy gates,” frequent in the Mosaic law, was one who lived among the Jews; generally it should seem in a servile or menial capacity, only so far conforming to the law, as not to offend against any of its sacred and fundamental principles—not sacrificing to any false God, perhaps not working on the sabbath-day. Jennings’s Jew. Ant. i. 144. Others suppose that the proselytes of the gate were bound to observe the seven precepts imposed on the descendents of Noah. See Calmet’s Dict. Art. Noachidæ, and the commentators on Acts xv. 20. In the earlier times of Jewish history, none would embrace their religion but those who were domiciliated among them; but when they became dispersed over the world, and their doctrines more generally known, many appear to have attached themselves to the worship of the one God, without further conformity to the Mosaic institutions. Many learned men, however, suppose that only one kind of proselytes was known among the Jews, namely, those who had received circumcision. See Lardner, Works, vi. 523.

Page 72.—Goshen.] Respecting its situation see Jablonski, Diss. de Terra Gosen; Opusc. ii. 77. seq. According to him it was the Heracleotic name, an island in the Nile, above Memphis, and answering to the modern Fayoum. His reasons, however, seem insufficient to counterbalance the strong presumption (arising from the absence of all mention in the Exodus of crossing any branch of the river) that the abode of the Israelites must have been in Lower Egypt and beyond the Nile. Such is the general opinion of commentators.

Page 73.—The martyr Stephen (Acts vii. 6.) appears to speak of the captivity of Israel in Egypt as lasting four hundred years. So Jos. Ant. i. 10. 3. ii. 9. 1. In Exod. xii. 40. their sojourning is said to have been four hundred and thirty years; Gen. xv. 13. it is foretold by God to Abraham, that his seed should be afflicted in a foreign land four hundred years, to which it is soon after subjoined, (ver. 16) “and in the fourth generation they shall come hither again.” It is, however, generally supposed, that the sojourning of Abraham and his descendents in Canaan, where they were strangers, is included in the four hundred, or four hundred and thirty years. Accordingly Usher reckons the first period at two hundred and fifteen years, and the Egyptian bondage at about the same number. The difficulty remains that only four generations, inclusive, elapsed from the going down into Egypt to the Exodus; for Moses and Aaron were sons of Amram, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi; this the author solves, by reference to the prolonged term of human life in those ages.

Page 74.—Egyptian horror of pastoral tribes.] Gen. xlvi. 34. Ἀιγυπτίοις ἀπειρημένον ἤν περὶ νομὰς αναστρέφεσθαι. Jos. Ant. ii. 7. 5. It is generally supposed that this horror arose from the shepherds killing the sacred animals of the Egyptians; others regard it as a piece of policy on the part of the Egyptian priests to keep up a horror of the nomadic tribes, in order to confine the people to agriculture; others, as the effect of what the country had suffered from the irruptions of these tribes, especially that of the Hycsos or Shepherd kings. Jos. c. Apion. i. 15.

Page 88.—Mosaic imitation of the Egyptian polity.] Whether any part of the Jewish laws and institutions were borrowed by Moses from the Egyptians, is a question of which the affirmative side has been maintained, with great learning, by Spencer, in his treatise De Legibus Hebræorum; and the negative by Witsius in his Ægyptiaca. Witsius, not denying many of the coincidences, alleges, that many things in which the Egyptians and the Jews agreed, may have been borrowed by the former from the latter. Considering that Egypt was a civilized, populous, and wealthy country, when Israel had not even become a people, this seems not probable. Some of those customs and rites which were observed by both nations, do not appear to have exclusively belonged to either, e. g. the remarkable custom of circumcision, the hereditary succession of the priesthood, the dress of the priests, the multiplicity of purifications, &c. Customs either exactly corresponding or nearly analogous to these, may be found in other nations; they had their origin from wants and feelings common to all, or had been handed down from primeval times. In regard to the coincidence between the civil laws of the Egyptians and the Jews, Michaelis well observes, “Without in the least degree derogating from his divine mission, I may be allowed to conjecture, that he may have adopted from other nations what he found among them deserving of imitation. If it be no presumption against his prophetic character, that he changed the traditionary usages of the nomadic Israelites into laws; neither is it any that he incorporated with his code the wisest civil regulations of the most civilized people.” Mos. Law, § 4. The grand peculiarity of the system of Moses, the unity, spirituality, and providence of God, he could have learnt neither from the wisdom of the Egyptians, nor that of any other nation; and on this argument may we safely rest the proof that he was really a prophet of the Most High. Compare Prichard’s Analysis of Egyptian Mythology, ch. iv.

Page 90.—Only in the state of divine inspiration.] Plato quoted by Leland, Necess. of Rev. i. 258.

Page 94.—Drifted sand.] “The lake Sirbonis is bordered on each side with hills of sand, which, borne into the water by the wind so thicken the same, as not by the eye to be distinguished from part of the continent, by means whereof whole armies have been devoured.” Sandys’ Travels, p. 107.

Page 94.—Larish.] So Baumgarten writes the word commonly and more correctly spelt El-Arish, Churchill, i. 411.

Page 94.—Ostracine.] It was distant, according to the Itinerary, sixty-six miles from Pelusium. Cell. Geogr. Afr. ii. 28. The lake Sirbonis was parallel to the sea, a space of not more than fifty stadia lying between them, where the interval was the broadest. It was connected with the sea by a narrow channel, called Ἔκρηγμα, (Strabo, lib. xvi. 760.) now choked up. Sandys, p. 107. Ostracine was so remarkably destitute of water, that to ask water from an inhabitant of Ostracine was a proverb for a vain request. Rel. Pal. p. 60. The ancient route passed between the lake Sirbonis and the sea; the modern keeps on the southern side of the lake; hence the exact position of Ostracine has not been ascertained.

Page 95.—The river of Egypt.] This appears to have been between Rhinocolura and Pelusium; whence the Septuagint (Isa. xxvii. 12.) renders ἕως Ρινοκορόυρων. Our author follows D’Anville, who says that the entrance of a ravine into the Sirbonian pool, receiving the waters of many torrents from the Arabian desert, is the Torrens Egypti of the Scriptures. Shaw, Travels, p. 181, contends that it was the Nile. The name of El-Arish (celebrated in the history of the late war) appears to be Arabic and modern. El-Arish and Casium (Katieh) are the only places between Raphia and the eastern branch of the Nile which produce any vegetation useful for man. The rest is moving sand or a desert strongly impregnated with salt. Pref. to Burckhardt’s Travels in Syria, p. viii. note. The deserts of Asia, however, are much less dreary and destitute of vegetable life than those of Africa. See Irby and Mangles’ account of their journey from Egypt to Palestine, Travels, p. 169.

Page 99.—The Nethinim.] These, so called from the Hebrew נתן (to give) were the menial servants of the sanctuary, who fetched the water and hewed the wood for the service of the temple. In the history of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, (ix. 23.) the Gibeonites are said to be made hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of God; but the name of Nethinim is never given to them; and Ezra (viii. 20.) says that David and the princes had appointed the Nethinim for the service of the Levites. It is probable that when the service of God was renewed, and its rites performed with more order and magnificence under David, the Gibeonites, who had become mingled with the body of the people, were found insufficient, and the Nethinim were appointed; perhaps from among the captives made in the wars of David.

Page 104.—Translation of the Books of Kings.] The first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made by the Greeks of Alexandria included only the Pentateuch; (Jos. Ant. Proœm. 3.) the other historical books were translated at various times; (see Hody, Vers. Græc. ii. 9.) the prophets probably soon after the time when the Jews of Palestine began to read them in their Synagogue, as a substitute for the reading of the law, forbidden by Antiochus Epiphanes. Eichhorn Einl. i. d. A. T. i. 342. ed. 3.

Page 117.—Rhinocorura.] This place, sometimes spelt Rhinocolura, as observed before, is El-Arish. It is said to have taken its Greek name from the mutilation of the nose which a king of Ethiopia, when master of Egypt, inflicted on those whom he sent to reside here, Strabo, xvi. p. 759. It was twenty-six miles from Ostracine.

Page 125.—“Three sins have I passed by.”] The words with which Amos prefaces his denunciations have been variously explained. Literally they are, “For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four will I not avert it.” Our author supposes an ellipsis, “For three transgressions I did avert the punishment, but for four I will not avert it.” Others with more probability suppose, that three and four are used here for an indefinite number, as six and seven, Job v. 19.

Page 145.—Traces of melancholy.] The author has applied to the first destruction of Jerusalem, what the modern Jews say of themselves with reference to the second. Buxtorf. Syn. Jud. 124. 479.

Page 147.—Raphia.] “The name is still retained in Rafa, six hours’ march to the south of Gaza, where there are many remains of ancient buildings, and among them two columns of granite, which are supposed by the natives to mark the boundary of Asia and Africa.” Pref. to Burckh. p. viii. note. It was distant, according to the Antonine Itinerary, twenty-two miles from Rhinocolura, Cellar. Book iii. cap. 13. p. 372. The battle of Raphia was fought between Ptolemy Philopater and Antiochus, B. C. 217, and the result was that Antiochus, being totally defeated, was obliged to yield Cœle-Syria and Palestine to Ptolemy.

Page 155.—An Israelitish maiden was Xerxes’ queen.] That Xerxes was the Ahasuerus of Scripture was the opinion of Scaliger. It is examined and opposed by Prideaux, Conn. P. i. Book iv. An. 465. Usher thought that he was Darius Hystaspis; Prideaux himself, Artaxerxes Longimanus. The subject is embarrassed with difficulties apparently inextricable, though there can be little doubt that the author of the Book of Esther intended some Artaxerxes by the name of Ahasuerus. Jos. Ant. xi. 6.

Page 159.—Manasseh became high-priest.] It must be observed that Nehemiah only says that one of the sons of Joiada the high-priest was son-in-law to Sanballat, but does not call him Manasseh. Josephus, under the reign of Darius Codomannus, (Ant. xi. 7, 8.) relates the marriage of Manasseh, grandson of Joiada, with the daughter of Sanballat, and his being appointed high-priest of the newly-built temple in Gerizim. As there is a difference of between seventy and eighty years between the date of Scripture and that of Josephus, some (see Hudson’s note on Josephus, Ant. xi. 7.) suppose two Sanballats, having daughters married to sons of the Jewish high-priests. This cheap but dangerous expedient of multiplying historical personages is justly rejected by Prideaux, Conn. An. 409.

Page 161.—Alexander acknowledged the merits of Israel.] The narrative of Alexander’s expedition to Jerusalem is contained in Jos. Ant. xi. 8. According to him, Alexander, while occupied in the siege of Tyre, ordered Jaddua the high-priest to send him supplies, and as he refused on the ground of having sworn allegiance to Darius, Alexander, incensed at the refusal, set out as soon as he had finished the sieges of Tyre and Gaza to punish the Jews. He had advanced as far as Sapha, on his way to Jerusalem, when he was met by the high-priest and the whole sacerdotal order. On seeing the name of Jehovah, which was inscribed on the high-priest’shigh-priest’s tiara, Alexander prostrated himself before him; and when Parmenio asked him how he, whom the rest of mankind adored, should prostrate himself before the Jewish pontiff, he replied that he recognised in his figure and vestments the person who had appeared to him in a dream before he left Macedonia, and had encouraged him to undertake the expedition, by assuring him that he should overturn the throne of Darius. Accompanying the high-priest to Jerusalem, he was shown by him the prophecy of Daniel, in which it was clearly marked that he should overthrow the Persian monarchy. Before he left the city, he promised to the Jews that they should be governed by their own laws and exempted from tribute every seventh year.

The truth of this narrative has been severely attacked by Moyle, Works, ii. 26. and others, see Hudson’s note, p. 503; and defended by Chandler on Daniel, and Prideaux, An. 332, St. Croix, Examen Critique, ed. 2. p. 547. Besides the suspicion which is thrown upon it, by its being unnoticed by the historians of Alexander, it contains circumstances both improbable and contradictory. The high-priest, who shows to Alexander the prophecy of Daniel, in which he is foretold as the conqueror of Persia, refuses submission to him, because he had sworn allegiance to Darius. But can it be believed that if he had known that Alexander was the person predicted long before by Jehovah, as his instrument for overthrowing the dominion of Persia, he would have been withheld by an oath of allegiance to the sovereign, whose reign the prophetic word declared to be ended? So little scruple was there on this subject, that, according to Josephus, many Jews enrolled themselves in his army to fight against Darius. Alexander too is made to know at once, that the characters inscribed on the tiara of a high-priest were the names of Jehovah; and Parmenio asks him why he, who was adored by all, (προσκυνόυντων αὐτον ἁπάντων) adored the Jewish high-priest; though Alexander never received these honours till his overthrow of Darius at Arbela had intoxicated his mind. The circumstance of the dream certainly may be true; but it has much the air of a romantic fiction. On the whole it appears most probable that the Jews made their submissions to Alexander as Justin says the princes of Syria generally did, (x. 10.) either during the siege of Tyre, or afterwards, when Curtius tells us that he reduced the neighbouring cities which refused his yoke, iv. 5.

Page 162.—Hecatæus of Abdera.] According to Josephus (Cont. Ap. i. 22.) he was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, and a friend of Ptolemy Lagi. He wrote a treatise expressly relating to the Jews, and mentioned especially the firmness with which they adhered to their laws in the midst of persecution. He shows so much more knowledge of Judaism, and speaks of it so much more respectfully, than the heathens commonly did, that the work has been suspected to have been the forgery of some Hellenistic Jew. See Origen, cont. Cels. lib. i. p. 13, ed. Spencer. This was the opinion of Scaliger. Spencer, in his note on the passage in Origen, defends its authenticity. The reader will observe the sarcasm, in Myron’s mention of Hecatæus as a native of Abdera, a town proverbial for the dulness of its inhabitants; Abderitanæ pectora plebis habes.

Page 162.—Antigonus of Socho.] See Prideaux, Conn. An. 263. He was the first of the Mishnical school of Jewish doctors, who taught that the law and the traditions were of equal obligation. The founder of the sect of Sadducees was his son. Socho, from which he took his name, was a small town half way between Jerusalem and Eleutheropolis. Reland, Palæst. 1018. 2 Chron. xi. 5.

Page 163.—Favour shown by Antiochus the Great to the Jews.] See Jos. Ant. xii. 3. 3.

Page 163.—Antiochus Epimanes.] Τὸν Ἐπιφανῆ Ἀντίοχον, ὅν διὰ τὰς πράξεις Πολύβιος Ἐπιμανῆ καλεῖ. Athen. ii. 23. The history of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus will be found in Joseph. Ant. Jud. xii. 5. seq. xiii. 1-9. The first book of the Maccabees, after a brief notice of the empire of Alexander the Great, takes up the Jewish history (i. 10.) at the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes, and continues it to the death of Simon, a period of about forty years.

Page 167.—Modin.] The site of the birthplace of the Maccabees is not exactly known: it must have been near the sea, since their monument was a mark to sailors, 1 Macc. xiii. 30. Eusebius places it near Diospolis or Lydda. Reland, p. 901. Maundrell says he passed near it in an excursion from Bethlehem to the convent of St. John; but this is probably a mistake.

Page 168.—Judas surnamed Maccabeus.] Different etymologies of the name Maccabee are assigned. That which derives it from מקבת a hammer, (q. d. Martel) seems more probable than the common one; (according to which it originated in their inscribing on their standards the initial letters of Exod. xv. 11.) because it appears to have been the surname of Judas before the war began. See 1 Macc. ii. 4.

Page 170.—Festival of the new altar.] Jos. Ant. xii. 11. 7. It is this which the Jews of Jerusalem exhort the Jews of Egypt to observe, in the epistles which begin the second book of the Maccabees. But this book is of little authority, and the epistles in particular manifest forgeries. See Prideaux, An. 166.

Page 170.—Alexander Balas.] He claimed the throne of Syria, as a son of Antiochus Epiphanes, and had been supported by Jonathan, the Jewish high-priest. When he had defeated Demetrius and seated himself on the throne, he married Cleopatra, sister of Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt. It was at the celebration of these nuptials (B.C. 150) that Jonathan was distinguished in the manner related in the text. 1 Macc. x. 60. Jos. Ant. xiii. 4. 2.

Page 171.—Era of freedom.] The Jews were long without any proper era for the computation of time, though we find traces of the departure from Egypt, Num. i. 1. 1 Kings vi. 1., the building of Solomon’s temple, 2 Chron. viii. 1., the commencement of the captivity, Ezek. xxxiii. 21., being used as points from which to reckon; but without that uniformity of use which could make any of them properly an era. When they came under the dominion of Syria, they made use of what is called the era of the Contracts, A. M. 3692, B. C. 312, beginning with the establishment of the dynasty of the Seleucidæ in Syria. When Demetrius granted the privileges of an independent sovereign to Simon, the Jewish people “began to write in their instruments and contracts, ‘In the first year of Simon the high-priest, the governor and leader of the Jews.’” Jos. Ant xiii. 6, 7. Mac. xiii. 41. This is remarkably confirmed by the inscription of the coins of Simon. See Eckhel Doct. N. Vet. iii. 468. This era begins in the year B. C. 143, and is called the Asmonean; the era of the Seleucidæ however still continued in use. Wähneri Ant. Hebr. ii. 47. The modern Jews reckon from the creation; the present year 1824 is 5584 of their reckoning. Reland Ant. 428.

Page 173.—Ptolemy Physcon.] He was the seventh king of Egypt, named by his subjects Κακεργέτης. By his cruelties he drove nearly all the men of letters and science from Alexandria, and by that means very much revived literature in Greece and the Grecian islands, (Athen. iv. 83.) in which they took refuge.

Page 175.—The Romans.] The connection between the Jews and the Romans appears to have begun by an embassy from Judas Maccabeus (B. C. 161) to Rome. Nothing could be more acceptable to the Romans than to raise up an independent power within the dominions of the kings of Syria; and they readily granted the Jews their friendship, and commanded Demetrius to abstain from hostilities against them. As they extended their power in the east, they continued carefully to cultivate this alliance, and renewed their treaties with Simon, (B. C. 139) with John Hyrcanus, (B. C. 128.) The weakness of the Syrian monarchy, and the protection of the Romans, are the real causes of the independence which Judæa enjoyed till the year B. C. 63; when Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, sons of Alexander Jannæus, disputing about the succession, appealed to Pompey, who placed Hyrcanus on the throne, but in a state of complete dependence on Rome.