Joseph-Ben-Gorion (XII)

XII. JOSEPH-BEN-GORION, or Joseph the son of Gorion: This Author, whose age, birth and profession are not exactly known by us, gives himself out to be a Priest and Prince of his people, who was particularly qualified for war, and received the spirit of wisdom and understanding, of council and fortitude, of knowledge and the fear of God; one who gave his life for the people of God, for his sanctuary, and for his nation. This is the testimony he gives in favour of himself. He adds, that one of his soldiers cried out to him one day, Thou art the man of God; blessed be the Lord God of Israel who hath created the soul that animates thee, and hath filled thee with wisdom. When he was taken, they asked one another in the enemy’s army, Is this the man so formidable to the Romans? How came he to be taken who alone spread terror thro’ our army, and hath filled the Universe with the fame of his valour? When Jerusalem was taken, Titus did justice to the excellent qualities of the son of Gorion, and raised him above all the Priests and Levites of his nation.

Thefe commendations so extravagant, and heaped together with so much affectation, prejudice us very much to his disadvantage, who bestowed them so liberally on himself. But the Jews who are used to set an extreme value upon every thing that proceeds from them, have discerned nothing excessive in these praises. Rabbi Than, who published the history of the In the Edition of Constantinople 1490. 1510. and at Venice in 1544.spurious Josephus, affirms, that all the words of this writer are truth and justice; that there is not one falshood in his writings; that he comes nearer the old Prophets than any writer that hath appeared; that the hand of the Lord rested upon him, while he composed his work; and that his words may be said almost to be the words of a God incarnate. Sebastian Munster, a Lutheran Author, who has given us the same History, has curtailed almost half of it, perhaps out of tenderness to the honour of this Historian; but the editions of him which have been since published, enable us to judge for ourselves of the merit of this work. You have here some speci-mens of it.

Joseph says, that he was born 134 years after the Cæsareat, which the Greeks call Imperiosia, was instituted among the Romans; and that he was one and fifty years old when Julius Cæsar came into the world. He says, he had seen Julius Cæsar, who is the first king, called by the Latins Imperius, or the first Cæsar, he who resettled the Cæsareat a third time among the Romans. He says likewise, that he was contemporary with Jesus the son of Sirach, a Prince among the Jews. How is all this Chronology to be reconciled? one contemporary with Jesus the son of Sirach, 51 years old at the birth of Julius Cæsar, and born 134 years after the establishment of the Roman Empire?

His father Gorion survived the taking of Jerusalem; for he departed out of the city when Titus had made himself master of it. Gorion therefore must have been then at least 240 years old. Joseph composed a great number of books in the time of Julius Cæsar. He published, as he says himself, a large Book, intitled Josephus. It was a Roman Chronicle or History, wherein was particularly to be seen what had passed, while the Consuls governed the Commonwealth. It was not sufficient for him to have related past events, his concern extended to what was yet to come, and he foretold what was to befal this great city till the total destruction of it. Nevertheless he did not set up for a Prophet; but he reported what he had learned from the Sages who had lived with the Prophets, and from the Heathens, who are true and sincere in their conjectures. He had obliged us, if he had told us, who these Sages are whom he had seen, and who lived with the Prophets. There is besides a great interval from the time of the old Hebrew Prophets to that of Julius Cæsar. As for the rest, it was easy for him, who did not live till the eleventh century, to write the Revolutions of the city of Rome, and give an account of what had been transacted so many years before.

intitled, Wisdom; wherein he spoke only of the Sages and Doctors who had gone before him. This book, as well as the preceding one, is in all probability a chimerical work which never was in being.

Afterwards he made an apology for his nation and family against the Heathens. He values himself upon having written something like Josephus the Greek historian’s book against Apion, whereof the son of Gorion was certainly never capable.

Lastly, he published the famous History which we are speaking of, whereof no one had any knowledge till the twelfth Century¹; no ancient Author having taken any notice of it. This work may be considered as a Chronicle of what was done under the second Temple. The Author persuades himself, that he should be esteemed by posterity as the Prince of Historians. He exalts himself above Livy, whose faults he pretends to correct. He relates that he had several other Authors before him, from whom he had extracted part of what he delivers. He says that he had read Livy, Trogus Pompeius, Strabo, Porophyus, probably Porphyry; the books of Cainan son of Enos, those of the Medes, Macedonians, and Assyrians; Alexander’s Letters to Aristotle; the book of the Greeks, that of the Roman alliances, and of Kirker’s, or Cicero’s works, who had been an eye-witness of the hardships put upon the Priests by Pompey at the taking of Jerusalem; the Calendar which Julius Cæsar composed for the Greeks and Nazarens; the Chronicle of the Roman Cæsars; the Collection of Roman Laws, that Vespasian kissed upon the day of his Coronation. What falshoods and impostures are here?

I will now give you a specimen of his knowledge in the Roman History. He says he lived when Julius Cæsar made himself master of the Roman Empire, and that this was the third time of the Romans having this form of Government established among them. Tarquin was the first Cæsar, Alexander the Great carried his conquests into Italy; made himself master of Rome, and reigned there. Imperius, son of Ptolemy Philadelphus King of Egypt, got possession of it long afterwards, and then settled the Cæsareat or Empire. This Monarchy subsisted there, till Antony being in love with Cleopatra violated the rights of the people, who thereupon rebelled.

The Romans, after they had expelled Antony, bound themselves by oath, as they had done in the time of Tarquin the first of the Cæsars, never more to endure a Cæsar. Julius notwithstanding having obtained from the Senate the command of their armies in the west, as Pompey had that of their forces in the east, this young Hero at the age of nineteen beat the French and Britons, and in four years subdued all the Kings in the west. He returned to Rome elated with his successes, and declared insolently to the Senate, that he would become Cæsar. The Senate opposed him in a long and tedious harangue, which is reported by Joseph the son of Gorion, and is of his making. Cæsar made use of threats and violence, menaced all the Senators with a general massacre of them, beat Pompey, and was the first Emperor of the third Dynasty. This is our Author’s historical system of the Roman Empire.

His History of Alexander the Great is a collection of fables and gross errors; there never was a Romance more mistaken, or fuller of silly trifles. The Author boasts of having extracted his history from this Prince’s genealogy, written by the Egyptian Magi the year immediately following his death. M. Gagnier has lately published a Latin book with this title, The Actions of Alexander, together with a Latin translation of Joseph Ben-Gorion. The Latin Author agrees in almost all the facts with Joseph the son of Gorion, and says as he does, that he hath taken his History from the Memoirs of the Egyptian Magi. But it is hard to decide which of the two is most ancient; the Latin writer is some small matter less stuffed with fables. He is not ancient; but the Hebrew seems to be more modern. He often speaks of Britany, mentions Normandy, the Loire, Amboise, Chinon, France, Lombardy, England, Hungary, and Turky.

He speaks of the Burgundians, Bulgarians, of the inhabitants of Cracow, of the Croats or Crevats, of gold florins, &c. which are incontestable proofs of novelty. It is remarkable that he had read Josephus the Historian only in Rufinus’s translation. No one doubts but that he was by original, a Frenchman, and wrote in France, but whether in Tourain, Britany, or Normandy, is a question. See the editions of this Author particularly that of Gotha and Lipsick, by M. Frederick Briethaupt²; and M. Basnage’s Hist. des Juifs. t. 7. l. 10. c. 7.

Read this article in its place on the printed pages