The Wars of the Jews [253]
and that at first it held only one cloister or court of Solomon's building, and that the foundations were forced to be added long afterwards by degrees, to render it capable of the cloisters for the other courts, etc., is without all foundation in the Scriptures, and not at all confirmed by his exacter account in the Antiquities. All that is or can be true here is this, that when the court of the Gentiles was long afterward to be encompassed with cloisters, the southern foundation for these cloisters was found not to be large or firm enough, and was raised, and that additional foundation supported by great pillars and arches under ground, which Josephus speaks of elsewhere, Antiq. B. XV. ch. 11. sect. 3, and which Mr. Maundrel saw, and describes, p. 100, as extant under ground at this day.
(13) What Josephus seems here to mean is this: that these pillars, supporting the cloisters in the second court, had their foundations or lowest parts as deep as the floor of the first or lowest court; but that so far of those lowest parts as were equal to the elevation of the upper floor above the lowest were, and must be, hidden on the inside by the ground or rock itself, on which that upper court was built; so that forty cubits visible below were reduced to twenty-five visible above, and implies the difference of their heights to be fifteen cubits. The main difficulty lies here, how fourteen or fifteen steps should give an ascent of fifteen cubits, half a cubit seeming sufficient for a single step. Possibly there were fourteen or fifteen steps at the partition wall, and fourteen or fifteen more thence into the court itself, which would bring the whole near to the just proportion. See sect. 3, infra. But I determine nothing.
(14) These three guards that lay in the tower of Antonia must be those that guarded the city, the temple, and the tower of Antonia.
(15) What should be the meaning of this signal or watchword, when the watchmen saw a stone coming from the engine, "The Stone Cometh," or what mistake there is in the reading, I cannot tell. The MSS., both Greek and Latin, all agree in this reading; and I cannot approve of any groundless conjectural alteration of the text from ro to lop, that not the son or a stone, but that the arrow or dart cometh; as hath been made by Dr. Hudson, and not corrected by Havercamp. Had Josephus written even his first edition of these books of the war in pure Hebrew, or had the Jews then used the pure Hebrew at Jerusalem, the Hebrew word for a son is so like that for a stone, ben and eben, that such a correction might have been more easily admitted. But Josephus wrote his former edition for the use of the Jews beyond Euphrates, and so in the Chaldee language, as he did this second edition in the Greek language; and bar was the Chaldee word for son, instead of the Hebrew ben, and was used not only in Chaldea, etc. but in Judea also, as the New Testament informs us. Dio lets us know that the very Romans at Rome pronounced the name of Simon the son of Giora, Bar Poras for Bar Gioras, as we learn from Xiphiline, p. 217. Reland takes notice, "that many will here look for a mystery, as though the meaning were, that the Son of God came now to take vengeance on the sins of the Jewish nation;" which is indeed the truth of the fact, but hardly what the Jews could now mean; unless possibly by way of derision of Christ's threatening so often made, that he would come at the head of the Roman army for their destruction. But even this interpretation has but a very small degree of probability. If I were to make an emendation by mere conjecture, I would read instead of, though the likeness be not so great as in lo; because that is the word used by Josephus just before, as has been already noted on this very occasion, while, an arrow or dart, is only a poetical word, and never used by Josephus elsewhere, and is indeed no way suitable to the occasion, this engine not throwing arrows or darts, but great stones, at this time.
(16) Josephus supposes, in this his admirable speech to the Jews, that not Abraham only,
(13) What Josephus seems here to mean is this: that these pillars, supporting the cloisters in the second court, had their foundations or lowest parts as deep as the floor of the first or lowest court; but that so far of those lowest parts as were equal to the elevation of the upper floor above the lowest were, and must be, hidden on the inside by the ground or rock itself, on which that upper court was built; so that forty cubits visible below were reduced to twenty-five visible above, and implies the difference of their heights to be fifteen cubits. The main difficulty lies here, how fourteen or fifteen steps should give an ascent of fifteen cubits, half a cubit seeming sufficient for a single step. Possibly there were fourteen or fifteen steps at the partition wall, and fourteen or fifteen more thence into the court itself, which would bring the whole near to the just proportion. See sect. 3, infra. But I determine nothing.
(14) These three guards that lay in the tower of Antonia must be those that guarded the city, the temple, and the tower of Antonia.
(15) What should be the meaning of this signal or watchword, when the watchmen saw a stone coming from the engine, "The Stone Cometh," or what mistake there is in the reading, I cannot tell. The MSS., both Greek and Latin, all agree in this reading; and I cannot approve of any groundless conjectural alteration of the text from ro to lop, that not the son or a stone, but that the arrow or dart cometh; as hath been made by Dr. Hudson, and not corrected by Havercamp. Had Josephus written even his first edition of these books of the war in pure Hebrew, or had the Jews then used the pure Hebrew at Jerusalem, the Hebrew word for a son is so like that for a stone, ben and eben, that such a correction might have been more easily admitted. But Josephus wrote his former edition for the use of the Jews beyond Euphrates, and so in the Chaldee language, as he did this second edition in the Greek language; and bar was the Chaldee word for son, instead of the Hebrew ben, and was used not only in Chaldea, etc. but in Judea also, as the New Testament informs us. Dio lets us know that the very Romans at Rome pronounced the name of Simon the son of Giora, Bar Poras for Bar Gioras, as we learn from Xiphiline, p. 217. Reland takes notice, "that many will here look for a mystery, as though the meaning were, that the Son of God came now to take vengeance on the sins of the Jewish nation;" which is indeed the truth of the fact, but hardly what the Jews could now mean; unless possibly by way of derision of Christ's threatening so often made, that he would come at the head of the Roman army for their destruction. But even this interpretation has but a very small degree of probability. If I were to make an emendation by mere conjecture, I would read instead of, though the likeness be not so great as in lo; because that is the word used by Josephus just before, as has been already noted on this very occasion, while, an arrow or dart, is only a poetical word, and never used by Josephus elsewhere, and is indeed no way suitable to the occasion, this engine not throwing arrows or darts, but great stones, at this time.
(16) Josephus supposes, in this his admirable speech to the Jews, that not Abraham only,