they　pass　over　the　desert；　and　get　the　land　which　we　now　dwell　in；　and　build　our　city；　and　that　temple　which　hath　been　so　famous　among　all　mankind？　And　besides；　he　ought　to　have　spoken　more　about　our　legislator　than　by　giving　us　his　bare　name；　and　to　have　informed　us　of　what　nation　he　was；　and　what　parents　he　was　derived　from；　and　to　have　assigned　the　reasons　why　he　undertook　to　make　such　laws　concerning　the　gods；　and　concerning　matters　of　injustice　with　regard　to　men　during　that　journey。　For　in　case　the　people　were　by　birth　Egyptians；　they　would　not　on　the　sudden　have　so　easily　changed　the　customs　of　their　country；　and　in　case　they　had　been　foreigners；　they　had　for　certain　some　laws　or　other　which　had　been　kept　by　them　from　long　custom。　It　is　true；　that　with　regard　to　those　who　had　ejected　them；　they　might　have　sworn　never　to　bear　good…will　to　them；　and　might　have　had　a　plausible　reason　for　so　doing。　But　if　these　men　resolved　to　wage　an　implacable　war　against　all　men；　in　case　they　had　acted　as　wickedly　as　he　relates　of　them；　and　this　while　they　wanted　the　assistance　of　all　men；　this　demonstrates　a　kind　of　mad　conduct　indeed；　but　not　of　the　men　themselves；　but　very　greatly　so　of　him　that　tells　such　lies　about　them。　He　hath　also　impudence　enough　to　say　that　a　name；　implying　〃Robbers　of　the　temples；〃　（26）　was　given　to　their　city；　and　that　this　name　was　afterward　changed。　The　reason　of　which　is　plain；　that　the　former　name　brought　reproach　and　hatred　upon　them　in　the　times　of　their　posterity；　while；　it　seems；　those　that　built　the　city　thought　they　did　honor　to　the　city　by　giving　it　such　a　name。　So　we　see　that　this　fine　fellow　had　such　an　unbounded　inclination　to　reproach　us；　that　he　did　not　understand　that　robbery　of　temples　is　not　expressed　By　the　same　word　and　name　among　the　Jews　as　it　is　among　the　Greeks。　But　why　should　a　man　say　any　more　to　a　person　who　tells　such　impudent　lies？　However；　since　this　book　is　arisen　to　a　competent　length；　I　will　make　another　beginning；　and　endeavor　to　add　what　still　remains　to　perfect　my　design　in　the　following　book。
  APION　BOOK　1　FOOTNOTES
  （1）　This　first　book　has　a　wrong　title。　It　is　not　written　against　Apion；　as　is　the　first　part　of　the　second　book；　but　against　those　Greeks　in　general　who　would　not　believe　Josephus's　former　accounts　of　the　very　ancient　state　of　the　Jewish　nation；　in　his　20　books　of　Antiquities；　and　particularly　against　Agatharelddes；　Manetho；　Cheremon；　and　Lysimachus。　it　is　one　of　the　most　learned；　excellent；　and　useful　books　of　all　antiquity；　and　upon　Jerome's　perusal　of　this　and　the　following　book；　he　declares　that　it　seems　to　him　a　miraculous　thing　〃how　one　that　was　a　Hebrew；　who　had　been　from　his　infancy　instructed　in　sacred　learning；　should　be　able　to　pronounce　such　a　number　of　testimonies　out　of　profane　authors；　as　if　he　had　read　over　all　the　Grecian　libraries；〃　Epist。　8。　ad　Magnum；　and　the　learned　Jew；　Manasseh…Ben…Israel；　esteemed　these　two　books　so　excellent；　as　to　translate　them　into　the　Hebrew；　this　we　learn　from　his　own　catalogue　of　his　works；　which　I　have　seen。　As　to　the　time　and　place　when　and　where　these　two　books　were　written；　the　learned　have　not　hitherto　been　able　to　determine　them　any　further　than　that　they　were　written　some　time　after　his　Antiquities；　or　some　time　after　A。D。　93；　which　indeed　is　too　obvious　at　their　entrance　to　be　overlooked　by　even　a　careless　peruser；　they　being　directly　intended　against　those　that　would　not　believe　what　he　had　advanced　in　those　books　con…the　great　of　the　Jewish　nation　As　to　the　place；　they　all　imagine　that　these　two　books　were　written　where　the　former　were；　I　mean　at　Rome；　and　I　confess　that　I　myself　believed　both　those　determinations；　till　I　came　to　finish　my　notes　upon　these　books；　when　I　met　with　plain　indications　that　they　were　written　not　at　Rome；　but　in　Judea；　and　this　after　the　third　of　Trajan；　or　A。D。　100。
  （2）　Take　Dr。　Hudson's　note　here；　which　as　it　justly　contradicts　the　common　opinion　that　Josephus　either　died　under　Domitian；　or　at　least　wrote　nothing　later　than　his　days；　so　does　it　perfectly　agree　to　my　own　determination；　from　Justus　of　Tiberias；　that　he　wrote　or　finished　his　own　Life　after　the　third　of　Trajan；　or　A。D。　100。　To　which　Noldius　also　agrees；　de　Herod；　No。　383　＇Epaphroditus＇。　〃Since　Florius　Josephus；〃　says　Dr。　Hudson；　〃wrote　＇or　finished＇　his　books　of　Antiquities　on　the　thirteenth　of　Domitian；　＇A。D。　93；＇　and　after　that　wrote　the　Memoirs　of　his　own　Life；　as　an　appendix　to　the　books　of　Antiquities；　and　at　last　his　two　books　against　Apion；　and　yet　dedicated　all　those　writings　to　Epaphroditus；　he　can　hardly　be　that　Epaphroditus　who　was　formerly　secretary　to　Nero；　and　was　slain　on　the　fourteenth　＇or　fifteenth＇　of　Domitian；　after　he　had　been　for　a　good　while　in　banishment；　but　another　Epaphroditas；　a　freed…man；　and　procurator　of　Trajan；　as　says　Grotius　on　Luke　1：3。
  （3）　The　preservation　of　Homer's　Poems　by　memory；　and　not　by　his　own　writing　them　down；　and　that　thence　they　were　styled　Rhapsodies；　as　sung　by　him；　like　ballads；　by　parts；　and　not　composed　and　connected　together　in　complete　works；　are　opinions　well　known　from　the　ancient　commentators；　though　such　supposal　seems　to　myself；　as　well　as　to　Fabricius　Biblioth。　Grace。　I。　p。　269；　and　to　others；　highly　improbable。　Nor　does　Josephus　say　there　were　no　ancienter　writings　among　the　Greeks　than　Homer's　Poems；　but　that　they　did　not　fully　own　any　ancienter　writings　pretending　to　such　antiquity；　which　is　trite。
  （4）　It　well　deserves　to　be　considered；　that　Josephus　here　says　how　all　the　following　Greek　historians　looked　on　Herodotus　as　a　fabulous　author；　and　presently；　sect。　14；　how　Manetho；　the　most　authentic　writer　of　the　Egyptian　history；　greatly　complains　of　his　mistakes　in　the　Egyptian　affairs；　as　also　that　Strabo；　B。　XI。　p。　507；　the　most　accurate　geographer　and　historian；　esteemed　him　such；　that　Xenophon；　the　much　more　accurate　historian　in　the　affairs　of　Cyrus；　implies　that　Herodotus's　account　of　that　great　man　is　almost　entirely　romantic。　See　the　notes　on　Antiq。　B。　XI。　ch。　2。　sect。　1；　and　Hutchinson's　Prolegomena　to　his　edition　of　Xenophon's；　that　we　have　already　seen　in　the　note　on　Antiq。　B。　VIII。　ch。　10。　sect。　3；　how　very　little　Herodotus　knew　about　the　Jewish　affairs　and　country；　and　that　he　greatly　affected　what　we　call　the　marvelous；　as　Monsieur　Rollin　has　lately　and　justly　determined；　whence　we　are　not　always　to　depend　on　the　authority　of　Herodotus；　where　it　is　unsupported　by　other　evidence；　but　ought　to　compare　the　other　evidence　with　his；　and　if　it　preponderate；　to　prefer　it　before　his。　I　do　not　mean　by　this　that　Herodotus　willfully　related　what　he　believed　to　be　false；　（as　Cteeias　seems　to　have　done；）　but　that　he　often　wanted　evidence；　and　sometimes　preferred　what　was　marvelous　to　what　was　best　attested　as　really　true。
  （5）About　the　days　of　Cyrus　and　Daniel。
  （6）　It　is　here　well　worth　our　observation；　what　the　reasons　are　that　such　ancient　authors　as　Herodotus；　Josephus；　and　others　have　been　read　to　so　little　purpose　by　many　learned　critics；　viz。　that　their　main　aim　has　not　been　chronology　or　history；　but　philology；　to　know　words；　and　not　things；　they　not　much　entering　oftentimes　into　the　real　contents　of　their　authors；　and　judging　which　were　the　most　accurate　discoverers　of　truth；　and　most　to　be　depended　on　in　the　several　histories；　but　rather　inquiring　who　wrote　the　finest　style；　and　had　the　greatest　elegance　in　their　expressions；　which　are　things　of　small　consequence　in　comparison　of　the　other。　Thus　you　will　sometimes　find　great　debates　among　the　learned；　whether　Herodotus　or　Thucydides　were　the　finest　historian　in　the　Ionic　and　Attic　ways　of　writing；　which　signify　little　as　to　the　real　value　of　each　of　their　histories；　while　it　would　be　of　much　more　moment　to　let　the　reader　know；　that　as　the　consequence　of　Herodotus's　history；　which　begins　so　much　earlier；　and　reaches　so　much　wider；　than　that　of　Thucydides；　is　therefore　vastly　greater；　so　is　the　most　part　of　Thucydides；　which　belongs　to　his　own　times；　and　fell　under　his　own　observation；　much　the　most　certain。
  （7）　Of　this　accuracy　of　the　Jews　before　and　in　our　Savior's　time；　in　carefully　preserving　their　genealogies　all　along；　particularly　those　of　the　priests；　see　Josephus's　Life；　sect。　1。　This　accuracy。　seems　to　have　ended　at　the　destruction　of　Jerusalem　by　Titus；　or；　however；　at　that　by　Adrian。
  （8）　Which　were　these　twenty…two　sacred　books　of　the。　Old　Testament；　see　the　Supplement　to　the　Essay　of　the　Old　Testament；　p。　25…29；　viz。　those　we　call　canonical；　all　excepting　the　Canticles；　but　still　with　this　further　exception；　that　the　book　of　apocryphal　Esdras　be　taken　into　that　number　instead　of　our　canonical　Ezra；　which　seems　to　be　no　more　than　a　later　epitome　of　the　other；　which　two　books　of　Canticles　and　Ezra　it　no　way　appears　that　our　Josephus　ever　saw。
  （9）　Here　we　have　an　account　of　the　first　building　of　the　city　of　Jerusalem；　according　to　Manetho；　when　the　Phoenician　shepherds　were　expelled　out　of　Egypt　about　thirty…seven　years　before　Abraham　came　out　of　Harsh。
  （10）　Genesis　46；32；　34；　47：3；　4。
  （11）　In　our　copies　of　the　book　of　Genesis　and　of　Joseph；　this　Joseph　never　calls　himself　〃a　captive；〃　when　he　was　with　the　king　of　Egypt；　though　he　does　call　himself　〃a　servant；〃