JUD – JZE

Volume I, pages 906–917 of the 1732 edition, from JUD to JZE: everything printed on these pages, in order.

Continued from Judith

therefore appointed her maid to stand without and watch, and at the same time having put up her prayer to God, she took down Holofernes’s sabre, which hung upon a pillar at his bed’s head, and having drawn it out of the scabbard, she seized him by the hair of the head, and said, strengthen me this day, O Lord. Then she struck him twice upon the neck, cut off his head, wrapt him up in the curtains of the bed, gave Holofernes’s head to her maid, and directed her to put it in her bag. After which they both went out according to their custom, as if they were going to pray without the camp.

Judith xiv.As soon as they came to the city gate, Judith cried aloud, Open the gates, for God is with us, and hath signalized his power in Israel. They accordingly opened them, and the whole city got about her. She placed herself upon an eminence, shewed them the head of Holofernes, and told them in few words what she had done. Achior was sent for, to whom also they shewed the head of Holofernes. At length Judith spoke to the elders, and all the people, in these terms: Hang this head upon the walls, and as soon as the sun rises, let every one arm himself, and sally out with great noise, but do not descend so low as the bottom of the mountain, make a shew only as if you intended to attack the enemy. Then it will be necessary for the guards to wake the general, and when they find him headless, and bathed all over in his blood, they will be in a consternation, and betake themselves to flight. This is the time for you to march boldly against them; for the Lord will deliver them into your hands.

Judith xvi.This advice was followed, and the thing happened as Judith had foretold. As soon as the Assyrians knew that Holofernes was killed, they thought of nothing else but flying; and the Hebrews with loud cries pursued them. At the same time Ozias sent to all the cities of Israel, to inform them of what had passed, that they might fall upon the Assyrians from all quarters. The defeat was extraordinary, and the whole country was enriched with the spoils which were taken upon this occasion. The High-Priest Jehoiakim came from Jerusalem to Bethulia, to compliment Judith upon the victory, which she had procured for Israel. Every thing which they thought belonged to Holofernes they gathered together, his clothes, gold, silver and precious stones, and gave them to Judith. Hereupon this pious widow sung an hymn to the honour of God, as a thanksgiving to him, who was the author of these blessings; and taking all the arms of Holofernes, which the people had presented to her, and the curtain of his bed, she consecrated all of them to the Lord, as a monument of so great a benefit. The name of Judith became afterwards very celebrated in Israel. Upon feast days she appeared in publick with great glory, and after having dwelt an hundred and five years in her husband’s house at Bethulia, and made her maid free, she died, and was buried with her husband at Bethulia; and all the people lamented her seven days. The day on which this victory was obtained, was placed by the Hebrews among their festivals. Several learned men are of opinion, that there is no other festival to be met with in commemoration of Judith’s victory, beside that which is celebrated for the dedication or renovation of the Temple by Judas Maccabæus on the 25th of Casleu. Leo of Modena, and the Jewish calendar published by Sigonius, Grot. Cornel. á Lapide, Bellarmin. Salian. Torniel. Part iii. c. 9. Sigon. l. iii. c. 17. de Repub. Hebr.place it on this day.

The greatest difficulty proposed relating to the Book of Judith, consists in fixing the time wherein the history which it includes, was transacted. The Greek and Syriac seem to prove, that it was after the Jews returned from the captivity of Babylon. The Latin text of the Vulgate may be explained, as refering to the time preceding this captivity: both one and the other labour under great difficulties, in what manner soever we understand it, and in what time soever we place the period of this history. We shall here give a short account of the two systems or opinions, one whereof maintains, that the history of Judith passed before; the other, not till after the captivity. These two opinions are farther subdivided and diversified in a manner which we shall not particularly examine; for this would take up too long and too nice an enquiry.

To remove all difficulties, and answer perfectly all objections which may be formed against this story, seems impossible, what side of the question soever we take, and what system soever we follow. Neither sacred nor profane history, in the time of Manasseh or in that of Zedekiah, either before or after the captivity, say any thing of a King of Niniveh named Nebuchadonozor, who in the twelfth and seventeenth year of his reign conquered a King of the Medes called Arphaxad. It would be very hard to find at this particular time an High Priest of the Jews, whose name was Joachim or Eliakim. Lastly, we should always meet with almost invincible difficulties, whenever we would reconcile the Greek text and the Syriac with the Latin of S. Jerom, and would scan every thing relating to the Geography and other circumstances of this recital. Nor would there be, perhaps, less, were we

to adhere only to the Vulgate, and reject the Greek, Syriac, and old Italick Versions.

This is not the only history wherein we meet with difficulties, whether in proper names, dates, or other particulars. It is very usual in the Histories of the East, to find one and the same Prince described under different names in profane and sacred Authors, in Greek and Hebrew Writers, and even in the historians of the country. The learned do not think this at all strange. Thus whether Nabuchodonozor in Judith be called Saosduchinus, or Cambyses, or Xerxes, no one ought to be surprized, no more than to see the name of Phraartes, or any other name of a Median King, to be met with in Herodotus, or any other Greek historian, given to Arphaxad. We reckon therefore these difficulties as resolved already, supposing the name to be the only thing in question.

There is another thing of more consequence to be cleared up, before we proceed farther in this matter, and this is, to know what text to stick to; the Greek or Latin; for as to the Syriac, no one doubts but it was taken from the Greek, and I confess sincerely, that if I were to read the Greek only, I should believe that the story of Judith was translated and written after the captivity; but if we follow the Latin, it may be placed before the Babylonish captivity. The question is therefore, which of the two texts should have the preference. The Greek text is very antient, some suppose it to be Theodotion’s who lived under Commodus, who did not begin to reign till the year of Jesus Christ 180: but it is of greater antiquity; for it is cited by Clemens Romanus in his epistle to the Corinthians, written above an hundred and twenty years before. The Syriac is likewise very antient, and translated from some Greek text more correct than that we have at present, but the same as to substance.

The Latin Italick version, or the old Vulgate, is made likewise from the Greek; but it is very defective. S. Jerom’s Vulgate, which the Church has acknowledged for authentick, was translated from a Chaldee text, which S. Jerom took to be the genuine original of Judith. He undertook this translation at the request of Paula and Eustochium, but he leaves us matter for dispute, and much perplexity, when he says in his preface, that he rendred the sense without Hieron. Præfat. in Judith.adhering to the letter, and that he suppressed the faulty variations which were to be found in different copies. Magis sensum è sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferens, multorum codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi, sola ea, quæ intelligentiâ integrâ in verbis Chaldæis

VOL. I. in venire potui, Latinis expressi. S. Jerom without doubt had no great quantity of Chaldee copies; it was not there that he suppressed the faulty variations, but in Latin copies, and he left nothing in his translation but what he found intelligible in the Chaldee. He had therefore the old Latin version before him; from this he pared off what was superfluous, and left all that he found agreeing with the Chaldee; in all probability he added likewise what was wanting; so that his version is rather a reform of the old, than a translation altogether new; and in reality we still observe some words in it, which are taken from the old Italick, and are not borrowed from the Greek: for example; Unxit se myro optimo, Judith x. 3. She anointed herself with excellent perfume: and in ch. ix. 13. Percuties eum labiis charitatis meæ. Thou shalt wound him with the lips of my love; instead of labiis fallaciæ meæ, with the discourses wherewith I shall endeavour to deceive him. Judith. Grec. ix. 13The ambgiuity proceeds from the Greek, which reads apates, deceit, instead of agapes, love, as he read it, whose translation S. Jerom had before him.

And as in these translations, which are made with some latitude and without keeping strictly to the original, the only care of the Translators seem’d to be to express the sense, and make their Author intelligible, they sometimes use more liberty than ordinary, and sometimes lay themselves under greater restraints; it were to be wished, either that S. Jerom in the book of Judith had followed the same method which he observed in his other translations, that is to say, that he had kept literally to his text, or that he had apprized us, how far he had carried the liberty taken by him in his version, wherein he is contented, Magis sensum è sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferre; for who ever told us that he suppressed nothing in the Chaldee, or left nothing in the vulgate, which ought to be expunged out of it? As the Chaldee text which S. Jerom had, has not been delivered down to us, we can make no certain judgment of it; and after all, what certain assurance have we, that this text was the original of the Book of Judith? If this were the first original, it would be a strong prejudice in favour of the opinion, which places this history after the captivity of Babylon; for before this time the Jews did not write in Chaldee.

They who maintain, that the History of Judith contains what passed before the captivity of Babylon, and in Manasseh’s time, believe it sufficient to demonstrate, that there is nothing in the history repugnant to this assertion. Now supposing the

II A Nabu-

Nabuchodonozor in Judith to be the same as Saosduchinus in Ptolemy, who reigned over the Assyrians and Chaldeans, and succeeded Ezerhaddon King of Assyria; that Arphaxad is the same as Phraartes mentioned in Herodotus; that these two Princes made war with one another in the twelfth year of Saosduchinus; that Arphaxad being overcome, Saosduchinus resolved to subdue all the people, spoken of in Judith, under his dominion; that to this purpose he sent Holofernes at the head of his armies, to reduce those by force who refused to acknowledge him for Sovereign. That at this time Manasseh, who had been a little before delivered from captivity, into which he had been carried to Babylon, dwelt at Jerusalem, concerning himself little with the government, and not daring to declare openly against the Chaldæans, whose power and indignation he had so lately felt, and leaving the care of affairs for the most part to Joachim or Eliakim the High Priest. That the inhabitants of Bethulia resolved with God’s assistance to preserve their liberty and Religion, and shut their gates against Holofernes; that Judith seeing the extremities the city was reduced to, undertook to destroy Holofernes, in which design she succeeded, as may be seen in the book that bears her name.

Now supposing all this, I say, there is nothing in it against the laws of History, or contrary to Chronology. The war between Nabuchodonozor and Arphaxad, we place in the year 3347, the expedition and death of Holofernes both in the same year 3348. Manasseh was taken and carried to Babylon in 3329. He returned some years after, and died in 3361.

There are some expressions a little perplexing, taken from the Greek text of Judith, which however are very capable of being set right; for Judith v. 18. in Græco.example, Achior says, that the Temple of the Lord was cast to the ground; that after the return of the Jews from their dispersion, they took possession again of Jerusalem, where their Sanctuary is; and again, that they were newly Judith v. 19. Judith iv. 3.returned from the captivity, and all the people of Judea were lately gathered together. To all this I say, there may be a reply made, by distinguishing particular captivities and dispersions in Israel, from other general dispersions. Under Manasseh the Temple was profaned, and part of the people carried away into captivity: this Prince and his people both returned from this short dispersion; the Temple was purified; which happened but a little before. This is what the author of the Greek version of this work would describe. Here therefore you have what is alledged for the support of that system which we have followed in our Comment.

The opinion which places the history of Judith after the captivity of Babylon, is founded principally upon the authority of the Greek version. This translation is certainly very ancient, the Italick version, which was the only one in use among the Latins before S. Jerom, and the Syriac, were both made from it. It may pass for an original, there being nothing more ancient and authentick; for it is dubious whether St. Jerom’s Chaldee were the original text of this work. Perhaps the Hebrew, mentioned by Origen, was more authentick, but it is not come so low as our time.

If any one would maintain the Chaldee text to be the original, it will follow, as has already been remarked, that this work was written after the captivity, and that the history as probably might be translated at that time. Besides there was no King at that time in the country; there is no mention made of any in the whole course of this History; there is no application made to any but the High Priest, in an affair wherein the King directly was concerned; for the question was about making war, or at least resisting a powerful Monarch, and one able to destroy the Kingdom of Judah. To say that Manasseh, out of fear or policy, dissembled what passed, and left the management of affairs to the High Priest, is to advance a thing almost incredible; besides, it were to attempt imposing upon the King of Chaldæa with child’s play, as if this Prince could be ignorant, that there was a King in Judah, that this King was subject to him, and that nothing could be transacted there without his knowledge and participation; and who would be persuaded, that if this affair of Bethulia had taken a different turn from what it did, the King of Babylon would not have made Manasseh accountable for it, upon pretence that he did not appear in it? People do not judge of matters of this kind after such a manner, and are not so easily mistaken.

Besides, where would they find an High Priest in Manasseh’s time, whose name was Eliakim? The catalogues preserved in the Chronicles, in Josephus, and what may be gathered out of different places of the Scripture, does not furnish us with any of that name about this time. We find 2 Kings xviii. 18, 26, 37. 2 Kings xxii. 4. & 2 Chr. xxx. Baruch i. 7.Hilkiah under Hezekiah, and another Hilkiah under Josiah, and an High Priest named Joakim at the time when Jerusalem was taken by the Chaldæans; but we find no one of the name of Joakim or Eliakim under Manasseh. It is true Hilkiah comes

pretty near Eliakim, and the Hebrews took great liberties in changing names, particularly when there was little or no difference as to the meaning of them; and there is scarce any between Hilkiah and Eliakim. I am very willing not to insist much on this argument, and to confess, that the same Hilkiah or Eliakim might live under Manasseh and Josiah.

But what seems demonstrative for the opinion which places this after the return from the Babylonian captivity, is the import of the Greek, ch. iv. ver. 2. that the Israelites were newly return’d from the captivity, and all the people of Judea were lately gathered together, and the vessels and the altar, and the house, were sanctified after the profanation. Achior, General of the Ammonites, says the same thing to Holofernes: They were destroyed in many battles very sore, and were led captives into a land that was not theirs; but now are they returned to their God, and are come up from the places where they were scattered, Judith v. 23. Grec. 18. καὶ ὁ ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ αὐτῶν ἐγεννήθη εἰς ἔδαφος, &c. --- καὶ κατῳκίσθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρεινῇ ὅτι ἦν ἔρημος.and have possessed Jerusalem where their Sanctuary is. And observe, that this last passage is taken from the Vulgate; but the Greek adds, And the Temple of their God was overthrown (literally) reduced to the pavement, or trampled under foot, and their cities were taken by the enemies,—— and they dwell again in the mountains which were not inhabited. It is in vain to endeavour to correct the sense of these passages, the bare reading of them, and the first impression they make upon the mind, naturally leads any one to say, that this history was translated after the return from the Euseb. in Chronico. Aug. l. xviii. de Civit. c. 16. Sulpit. Sever. l. ii. Syncell. a Sixt. Senens. Dionys. Carthus. Lyran. Natal. Alex. Estius, &c.captivity: and thus almost all the ancients, and many of the moderns a, have believed. If they were to be found only in the Greek, their authority perhaps might be rejected. But we have seen the import of the Vulgate, wherein it is said, that the Jews, after they had been dispersed, were at last reunited, and have again taken possession of Jerusalem, where their Temple is. Can these last words be naturally understood of a short captivity, which happened under Manasseh?

Besides some assert, that Phraartes, whom they suppose to be the Arphaxad in Judith, long survived Saosduchinus, whom See Basnage, Antiq. des Juifs. t. 1. p. 19, 255, 256. c. 19. art. 18, 19.they would have to be Nabuchodonozor in the same History, who, in Judith’s account, shot his adversary Arphaxad, and killed him. Saosduchinus died, according to Petavius, in the year 4067 of the Julian Period, and Phraartes not till the year 4071. If this be true, we must of necessity give up the system we proposed at first, and receive this History after the return from Babylon.

Lastly, It is said to support this opinion, that the text of the Vulgate, as well as the Greek text, implys, that Judith lived an hundred and five years, and that during her life time, and many years after her death, no enemy disturbed Israel. Let them suppose, if they please, that Judith was fifty years of age when she appeared before Holofernes, with a design of making him enamoured with her beauty, nay, that she was five and fifty; how can any one maintain, that for these five and fifty last years of her life, and farther for many years after, the Jews were not molested by any enemy, since we know, that from the year of the world 3347, in which this war with Holofernes is dated, to sixty years beyond this time, there was nothing but a chain of evils to be seen in Judea, and a succession of almost continual misfortunes.

It must be acknowledged therefore, say they, that this history was not transacted till after the captivity of Babylon; and supposing this, opinions are still farther divided: David Ganz, a Jewish historian tells us, that a certain Poet, who wrote the history of the dedication of the Temple, refers this event to the time of the Asmoneans; that another says, it happened in the time of Cambyses son of Cyrus, but, adds Ganz, the wise men of the Age say, this history is to take place at the same time as the miracle of the dedication, meaning the miracle of the multiplication of oil, which lasted for eight days in the lamps. See above, the Feast of Lights. Eusebius supposes it to have happened in the reign of Cambyses, Syncellus in that of Xerxes, Sulpitius Severus in that of Ochus; others, under Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the time of the Maccabees.

And this last opinion doubtless is the most easy to maintain, if they will acknowledge, that a feast was instituted in memory of this event, as we read in the Vulgate, but not in the Greek, nor in the Syriac, nor in the old Italick, which imply nothing like it. The generality of Commentators believe, that this festival of Judith is the same with that of the renovation of the sacred fire, and the new dedication of the Temple by Judas Maccabæus. Leo of Modena is of this opinion, as well as Salianus, Bellarmin, Tornielle, Cornelius a Leon de Modene, Ceremonies des Juifs. parties. 3. c.9.Lapide, Grotius, &c.

They cite a passage from Philo, which imports, that the High Priest Jesus instituted the feast of Judith under Darius Longimanus. The intire passage is as follows. Ahasuerus dwelt at Babylon, and the High Priest Jesus went to wait on him, because the governors of Syria had wrote against the Jews; but he was one whole year without obtaining an audience, because the King was too much taken up with the affairs of war. Having been successful, he sent

sent Holofernes the year following into Judea, and upon intelligence that the Jews had cut his head off, he forbad them to rebuild the Temple. Darius Longimanus succeeded him, and Jesus returned to Jerusalem. This was he who appointed the festival to be kept every year in honour of Judith. They likewise cite an Hebrew calendar, Sigon. de Rep. Hebr. l. iii. c. 17.published by Sigonius, wherein this festival is found upon the 25th day of the ninth month, or of Casleu; which answers to the feast of the dedication of the Temple, and renewing of the sacred fire by Judas Maccabæus. But in reply to the passage of this pretended Philo, it is said that it was taken from Annius of Viterbo, who is known to have been one of the most eminent impostors, in forging spurious books, that ever was: so that it is needless to confute it.

As to Sigonius’s calendar, Selden undertakes to prove that it is wrong. Besides the feast of the dedication of the Temple was celebrated on the 25 of Casleu, or the lunar month, which answers pretty near to November, and has no relation to Judith’s festival and the deliverance of Bethulia, which must have been about the month September. Lastly, if Leo of Modena and some prayer books printed for the use of the Jews, do mention Judith’s victory upon the day of the dedication of the Temple, it does not follow, that the festival on the score of the deliverance of Bethulia by Judith, was kept upon this day. The memory of this event is then recalled by them, as having some relation to what happened under Judas Maccabæus; and besides, some Jewish authors hold, that the Judith mentioned in these hymns or prayers, was sister to Judas Maccabæus, who being beloved by Nicanor general of the Syrian troops, made him drunk, and cut his head off. We believe this adventure to be very false, but some Jews give it out as certain.

If therefore they would maintain the reality of the feast instituted in memory of the victory obtained by Judith over Holofernes, supposing this history to have happened before the Babylonish captivity, it must be allowed, that the Jews have long forborn to celebrate it, or have transfer’d it from the day on which it was of old celebrated, to that on which they keep the dedication of the Temple under Judas Maccabæus.

It is surprizing, indeed, and with reason, that a handful of people, shut up within the little town of Bethulia, tho we should suppose them to have been supported by all the Jews who were at that time in Judea, should dare to resist Holofernes, and all the power of the Assyrians; but we are to consider, that Nabuchodonozor had resolved, not only to subdue all the nations from the Euphrates to Æthiopia, but intended likewise to oblige them to adore him, and acknowledge him alone to be God; Præceperat illi Nabuchodonozor Rex, ut omnes Deos terræ exterminaret, videlicet, ut ipse solus diceretur Deus ab his nationibus, quæ potuissent Holofernis potentiâ subjugari. And in another place, Judith v. 19. Vulg.the Princes in Holofernes’s army, after they had heard Achior’s discourse, exhorted one another to march against Bethulia, that all the Nations, said they, might know, that Nabuchodonozor is the God of the earth, and there is none other besides him. It was a state maxim with the Kings of Persia, to procure divine honours to be paid them: Persas non piè tantum sed etiam prudenter Reges suos inter Deos coluere: Majestatem enim imperii salutis esse tutelam, says Cleon in Quintus Curtius.

We should not think it strange, that the Jews opposed this foolish and impious pretension of Nabuchodonozor and his general; they could not without impiety, and renouncing their religion, submit to the dominion of such a King, and they had reason to promise themselves assistance from God in this war; and if God had permitted them to overcome, this would have been not only very glorious, but likewise very advantageous to them.

As to other questions which are started with relation to the story of Judith. See the prolegomena of Serarius upon Judith, the truth of the history of Judith by D. Bernard de Montfaucon, our preface to Judith, &c. We thought it convenient to fix it before the Babylonish captivity¹; and according to our hypothesis you have here the chronology of this history.

The Chronology of the history of Judith, upon suppofition that it happened in the time of Manasseh.

The year of the world.3285. THE birth of Judith. 3306. Manasseh King of Judah begins to reign. 3347. The war between Nebuchadnezzar and Arphaxad, otherwise Saosduchinus, King of Assyria, and Phraartes King of the Medes. 3348. Holofernes’s expedition, the siege of Bethulia, and death of Holofernes.

3361. The death of Manasseh King of Judah. 3363. The death of Ammon King of Judah.

3362. The death of Judith, in the hundred and fiftieth year of her age.

Whether the book of Judith be authentick and canonical, is a point very much disputed. There are an hundred difficulties started concerning the persons, and other circumstances to be met with in this history. We have endeavoured in our preface to this book, to confute the most plausible objections to it, and to prove it to be both genuine and canonical. The Jews read it, and in S. Jerom’s time still preserved it among them: S. Clement, who was Pope, hath cited it in his Epistle to the Corinthians, as well as Clem. Rom. Ep. i. ad Corinth. p. 177. Constit. Apost. l. viii. c. 2. can. 85. alias 76. p. 448.the author of the apostolical constitutions written in the same S. Clement’s name, Clemens Alexandrinus, l. 4. Strom. Origen. homil. 19. upon Jeremiah, and tome 3. upon S. John; Tertullian lib. de monogamia, c. 17. S. Ambrose, lib. 3. de Officiis, & lib. de viduis, S. Jerom quotes it in his Epistle to Furia; and in his preface to the book of Judith², he says that the council of Nice received this among the canonical books; not that any canon was made by it on purpose to approve it; for we know of none wherein there is any mention of it; and S. Jerom himself does not produce any: but he knew perhaps that the fathers of this council had approved it, since after this council the fathers acknowledged it, and have citations from it. S. Athanasius, or the author of the synopsis which is ascribed to him, gives a summary account of it, as he does of the other sacred books. S. Austin and the whole African Church received it in their canon. Aug. l. ii. de Doctr. Christ. c. 8. Conc. Carthag. 3. can. 47. Fulgent. Ep. ii. ad Gallum.Pope Innocent I. in his Epistle to Exuperus, and Pope Gelasius in the council of Rome, acknowledged it to be canonical. It is quoted in Fulgentius, and by two ancient authors, whose sermons are printed in the Appendix to the fifth volume of S. Austin. I say nothing of the more modern Ecclesiastical writers, who are very numerous and very favourable to Judith : Lastly, the council of Trent hath confirmed the book of Judith to be a part of holy scripture, as the Church before had esteemed it to be. These authorities are more than sufficient to fix our doubts concerning the dispute, whether this book be canonical, tho we were not able to satisfy every objection in particular, which might be formed against it.

The author of the book of Judith is Hieronym in Agg i. 6.unknown. S. Jerom seems to think, that Judith wrote it herself; but produces no good proof for his opinion. Others will have it, that the High Priest Joakim or Eliakim, mentioned in this book, was the author of it, which is all affirmed upon mere conjectures.

They who believe that the history of Judith was what happened in the time of Cambyses, and after the captivity of Babylon, suppose that Joshua the son of Josedek, who was then High Priest, wrote it. The author, whosoever he was, does not appear to have been contemporary, with the transactions he relates. He says that Achior’s family was still in his time subsisting in Israel, and that the festival instituted in memory of Judith’s victory was still celebrated. Expressions which intimate, that this was what had happened long before.

The Jews in Origen’s time had the history of Judith in Hebrew, that is to say, they might have it probably in Chaldee, which is often confounded with Hebrew.

S. Jerom says, that in his time they still read it in Chaldee, and ranked it among the Hagiographa. Sebastian Munster thinks, that the Jews of Constantinople have it at present in this language. But hitherto we have seen no part of Judith printed in it. The Syriac version Hieronym. Præfat. in Judith. Seb. Munster. Præfat. in Tobiam Hebr.which we have of it, is taken from the Greek, but from some Greek copy more correct than that which is at present in our hands. S. Jerom made his Latin version from the Chaldee, and this translation is so different from the Greek, that no one could say they both came from the same source and original. S. Jerom complains very much, of the variety observable among the Latin copies of his time, and we may be easily convinced that his complaints were just, by comparing the several fragments of these translations which have been handed down to us, and the citations from them in the fathers. See our preface to Judith, and the notes which are placed below the Comment.

Origen. in Rom. xiv. 15.JULIA, a Roman woman, whom some believe to have been the wife of Philologus mentioned by S. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, immediately before he speaks of Julia. Others take the name to be Julias, and question whether it be not rather a man’s. Rom. xvi. 15.

JULIAN, Mark Antony Julian, governor of Judea, in the year of J. C. 70. See hereafter Marcus Antonius Julianus.

JULIAS, otherwise Livias; for Josephus generally calls Livia Augustus’s wife by the name of Julia. There were two cities of this name in Judea; one built by Herod Antipas at the mouth of the river Jordan in the lake of Tiberias; otherwise called Bethsaida; and in the Gospel it goes by no other name but that of Bethsaida. We are of opinion, that it lay beyond Jordan, in the Gaulanitis. See Bethsaida.

Vide Plin. l. v. c. 14, 15, & Joseph. l. ii. de Bello. c. 8. & lib. iii. c. 2.JULIUS CÆSAR. The name of Cæsar is become peculiar to the Roman Emperors after Julius Cæsar, who changed the state of the Roman commonwealth from an aristocracy to a monarchy. The Scripture speaks frequently of the Cæsars, that is to say, of the Emperors, but it rarely mentions their proper name: for example, Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Cæsar? Matth. xxii. 17. Acts xxv. 11, 12.Tiberius then reigned; and S. Paul in the Acts, I appeal unto Cæsar. Hast thou appealed unto Cæsar? unto Cæsar thou shalt go. He spoke of the Emperor Nero. And elsewhere, they of Cæsar’s household salute thee. He means again the same Em-

Luke iii. 1. Acts xi. 28.peror. S. Luke names Cæsar Augustus, Tiberius Cæsar, and Claudius Cæsar. Julius Cæsar, or Caius Julius Cæsar, the first Roman Emperor, no farther concerns us in this work, than as he had some part in the Jewish affairs, and sacred history; wherefore we do not here propose to give his whole history, but only to remark what he did with relation to the Jews. He was the son of Lucius Cæsar and Aurelia the daughter of Cotta. He was born in the year of Rome 654³, 98 years before Jesus Christ. At the age of 16 he lost his father, and the year after was appointed High Priest of Jupiter. The dictator Sylla had resolved to destroy him; and Cæsar, to avoid being killed, was forced to hide himself, and gain those with money who were ordered to seize on him. Sylla at last forgave him, being over powered by the intreaties of his friends. But he foretold, that this young man would one day ruin the state.

After having passed successively through the offices of Tribune, Quæstor, Ædile, High Priest, and Prætor or Governor of Spain, he at last obtained the consulship in the year of Rome 695⁴, and chose the government of Gaul, which he reduced into the form of a province, after he had brought it all under his obedience during the nine or ten years of his government. In the mean time his daughter Julia dying, the good understanding, which there had been hitherto, between him and his son in law Pompey, husband to Julia, was intirely destroyed, because Cæsar being unable to endure a master, and Pompey a companion, they began to look on one another as rivals. Pompey, who was at Rome, opposed all the demands made by Cæsar in his absence; and Cæsar being irritated, entred Italy with his victorious army⁵, and so terrified his enemies that they fled, after having regulated the affairs of Italy.

He set at liberty Aristobulus King of Judea, and sent him into his own country with two legions, Joseph. Antiq. l. xiv. c. 13. Dio Cassius, l. xli.to support his interests there, as well as in the neighbourhood, in Syria, Phœnicia, and Arabia. But they of Pompey’s party found means to poyson him by the way. Alexander the son of Aristobulus had already levied troops in Syria, to join them with his father whom he expected. But Pompey having received intelligence of his designs, sent orders to Scipio in Syria, to have him killed, which was done accordingly. Cæsar in the mean time was gone into Spain, where he defeated Pompey’s army commanded

by three of his generals. He afterwards return’d to Rome; then passed into Maccedonia, where he beat Pompey at Pharsalia.

He pursued him as far as Alexandria, where being informed that he had been killed, he turned his arms against Ptolemy king of Egypt. Cæsar was shut up in Alexandria, with some troops, where he found himself very much embarassed, and pressed by the Egyptian army. He sent Mithridates, one of his people, into Syria and Cilicia, to procure succours for him. Antipater, father to Herod the great, who govern’d the High Priest Hircanus Prince of the Jews, engaged this, and some Arabian Princes of the neighbourhood, to send Joseph. Antiq. l. xiv. c. 14, 15.assistance to Cæsar. He himself march’d into Egypt with three thousand men, with which he joined the troops of Mithridates. They both together attacked Pelusium which they carried. This success was attributed to the valour of Antipater, who was the first that mounted the breach. From thence they advanced towards Alexandria, and Antipater by his own credit, and letters which he carried from Hircanus, oblig’d the Jews in the canton of Onion, to open the passages and declare for Cæsar. Those of Memphis did the same after their Example. Ptolemy sent a flying camp against Mithridates and Antipater, to dispute with them the passage of the Nile, but the king’s troops were beaten. Ptolemy followed in person with his whole army: Cæsar did the same. They soon came to a battle, wherein Cæsar obtained a compleat victory, which made him master of all Egypt.

He always preserved a very grateful remembrance of the important service which Antipater had done him upon this occasion. Before he departed from Alexandria, he confirm’d all the privileges which the Jews enjoyed in Egypt, and caused a pillar Joseph. Antiq. l. xiv. c. 17. & contra Appion. l. ii.to be erected, upon which he ordered all these privileges to be ingraved, together with the decree which confirm’d them: As he passed through Palestine, Antigonus the son of Aristobulus above mentioned, came and threw himself at his feet, represented to him in a very affecting manner the death of his father and brother, the first poisoned, the second beheaded at Antioch for supporting his interests, and desired to be restored by him to his father’s principality. He likewise complain’d of the wrong done him by Antipater and Hircanus, who had all the authority in Judea. But Antipater, who was still in Cæsar’s retinue, so well justified his conduct, and that of Hircanus, that Cæsar rejected the accusations of Antigonus, and ordain’d, that Hircanus should keep the dignity of High Priest of the Jews, and the principality of Judea, for himself and successors for ever, and gave Antipater the office of procurator of Judea under Hircanus. This decree he ordered to be ingrav’d in Greek and Latin on brass plates, which were to be deposited in the capitol at Rome, and in the Temples of Tyre, Sidon, and Ascalon in Phœnicia.

Joseph. Antiq. l. xiv. c. 17.Some years after⁶, in his fifth and last consulship, Cæsar at the request of Hircanus, and in consideration of the services which he had done him in Egypt and Syria, permitted him to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, which Pompey had demolished. There was a decree made at Rome to this purpose, which was no sooner brought to Jerusalem, but Antipater began to set people to work, and the city was very soon fortified, as it was before the demolition of it. Cæsar was killed in a short time after, on the fifteenth of March in the year of the world 3960, before Jesus Christ 40, before the vulgar Æra 44.

JULIUS, a Centurion of the Cohort called Augusta, into whose hands Festus governor of Judea put S. Paul, in order to convey him to Rome, whither he had appealed. Julius had always a great regard for S. Paul. When they came to Alexandria, he put him on board another vessel, which was going to Rome. See Acts xxvii. 1, 2, 3, &c.

JULUS, Josephus calls the High Priest of the Jews by this name, who succeeded Judeas, and was himself succeeded by Jotham. Antiq. l. x. c. 2. p. 343. The name of Julus is not to be found in Scripture, nor do we know what was the true Hebrew name of this Pontiff.

JUNIA, or as some copies read it, Julia, is joined with Andronicus in the Epistle to the Roman. Chap. xvi. ver. 7. They were S. Paul’s relations. Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen and fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles. These last words, who are of note among the Apostles, persuade many of the moderns, that the right name is JuniasPluique in Rom. xvi. 7. Menoch. Tirin. Hamm. vide et Theodoret. in Rom., and that this person is a man as well as Andronicus. But S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and several others take Andronicus for a man, and Junia for a woman, and perhaps the wife of Andronicus. The Greeks and Latins keep their festival on the seventeenth day of May, and distinguish them as husband and wife.⁷

JUNIPER-TREE, a very common sort of tree. There is mention made of it in the Latin text of Scripture, in two places. Elisha1 Kings xix. 4, 5. Rethem. flying from Jezebel, went towards Beersheba; and being overwhelmed with fatigue, lay down under a Juniper-tree. The Hebrew Rethem which S. Jerom, after Aquila, translates a Juniper-tree, in the Syriac is rendred a turpentine tree, and in the Chaldee, Broom. The Septuagint keep to the Hebrew word rathem or rhetem, and Symmachus explains it only by a covert or shelter. In the vulgate text of Job there is mention likewise of a juniper tree; the root of the juniper tree was their meat. But as the root of the Juniper-tree is by no means fit to eat, no more than that of the turpentine tree or broom, this translation is very much to be questioned. Wherefore it is probable enough, that the Habrew, rhetem may signify in general any wild shrub or plant.

The Greek rhathamnos, which comes from the Hebrew rathom, signifies in general a young plant, a sucker, a shoot, &c.

IVORY, in Hebrew Schen, that is to say a Ezek. xxvii. 15.tooth; because Ivory is an Elephant’s tooth. Ezekiel calls it horns of teeth, because the Elephant’s tooth is in the shape of an horn, and has more of the nature of an horn than of a tooth, being manageable, and, like horn, easily to be worked. Varro maintains, that Varro de Lingua Latina, l.6.Ivory is improperly said to be a tooth, and that it was really an horn: Nam quos dentes multi vocant, sunt cornua. In the first book of Kings, ch. x. 22. it is said, that Elephants teeth were brought to Solomon from the land of Ophir. Dentes elephantorum; in the Hebrew, Schen-habbim; and Bochar is of opinion, Schen. habbim.that Schen-habbim is put for Schen-kahabim, affirming that kahabim signifies Elephants; Dens furcorum, seu elephantorum.whereof he produces no proof. It is our opinion, that these two words are to be read separately Schen habenim; teeth or ivory, and Ebony. Habenim signifies Ebony in Ezekiel xxvii. 15. There was an ascent of six steps to Solomon’s Ivory throne, and at each of these steps a lion. The Ivory palaces in Psalm xliv. are boxes made of Ivory in the form of houses. The houses of Ivory built in Samaria, Amos iii. 15. and 1 Kings xxii. 39. are palaces where there were any ornaments in Ivory.

Dioscorides writes, that if Ivory is boiled for six hours with the root of mandrake, it softens to such a degree, that any one may do what he pleases with it. The Ivory of the Isle of Ceylan, and of the Isle of Achem, has this particular in it, that it does not grow yellow, as that does of the terra firma and the West Indies; which makes it dearer than the other. The Scripture speaks of red Ivory: rubicundiores ebore antiquo, redder than old Ivory. Homer⁸ speaks of making ivory of this colour, which was used in adorning the bridles of horses. Ovid intimates, that Ivory was tinged thus to prevent its growing yellow; as it does generally Ovid. l. 2. Amor. Eleg. 5.when it is old.

Aut quod ne longis flavescere possit ab annis, Mæonis Assyrium fœmina tinxit ebur.

The Hebrew of the abovecited passage in Jeremiah is different from the Vulgate. It imports, that their body is brighter or redder than pearls. We know Pearls are white and not red. The Hebrew therefore which generally signifies to be red, must be understood in another sense, to be bright, as it is sometimes understood in Scripture, and even in profane authors; or else we must suppose the redness of the pearl to mean that beautiful carnation red, which is remarkable in the mother of pearl, wherein the red and white are so well mixed, that a white and vermilion tincture may be well compared to them. Candidiores Nazaræi ejus nive, nitidiores lacte, rubicundiores pinnis, seu perulis.

The Scripture speaks likewise of houses of Ivory Amos inveighing against the effeminacy and magnificence of the rich men of Samaria, says, the Ivory houses shall be destroyed. Peribunt domus eburneæ. King Ahab had built one of these Ivory houses, & domus eburnea quam ædificavit. There was mention made of it at large in the Annals of the Kings of Israel. The Psalmist describing the magnificence of the presents which were made to Solomon’s wife when she was married, says, that Kings daughters presented her with Myrrh, Casia, and the most excellent spices in Ivory houses, Myrrha & gutta & casia à vestimentis tuis, a domibus eburneis, ex quibus delectaverunt te filiæ Regum in honore tuo. These Ivory chests served to lock up clothes, gold, jewels, and what was more particularly of value; this was in use even among the Heathens; who sometimes made boxes of cedar, as may be seen in Ezekiel xxvii. 24. according to the Hebrew; and in Euripides⁹, who calls them houses of Cedar.

As to the Ivory houses mentioned by Amos, and in the first book of Kings,

it is very probable that these were real houses, adorned with abundance of furniture in Ivory, such as beds, tables, boxes, and other imbellishments, wherein there was use made of Ivory; these works were probably more common and more in vogue at that time than at present.

Amos vi. 4.The same Amos speaks of Ivory beds: qui dormitis in lectis eburneis, & lascivitis in stratis vestris. S. John in the Revelations discoursing of the fall of Rome, which 12.he describes under the name of Babylon, says, that the vessels of gold, silver, and Ivory which were before to be seen there, shall be seen no more. We have said something in another place of Solomon’s Ivory Ezek.throne. xxvii. 6. Ezekiel tells us, that the Tyrians carried their magnificence to such an height, as to make the seats on which their rowers sat of Indian Ivory: Transtra tua fecerunt tibi ex ebore Indico. This seems to be a very ill judged Piece of Costliness; and the Hebrew is differently translated; by some, They have made thy hatches of Ivory well troden¹⁰ (literally of Ivory the daughter of steps) and brought from the isles of Chittim. But what can be the meaning of Ivory troden under feet? It is a custom with elephants to hide their teeth under ground, when either by chance or old age they fall from them. Dentes deciduos casu aliquo vel senectâ defodiunt. Others translate this passage thus, They have made thy branches of Ivory wrought in Assyria, and brought from the isles of Chittim, or Macedonia. But Macedonia we know is not a country where Elephants teeth are to be found. There are Bochart. de animal. Sacr. part.others who translate it, They have made thy seats of Ivory set in box, brought from the isles of Macedonia. The Hebrews called peninsula’s and maritime countries, Islands, as well as the places which properly go by this name; and Macedonia produced box which was much valued. That Ivory was c. 16.sometimes set in box may be seen from Virgil.Virgil. Æneid. x.

JUPITER. Jupiter was the son of Saturn and Rhea, or Opis, and born at the same birth with Juno, who became his wife. Opis hid him after his birth, in order to conceal him from the knowledge of Saturn, who by virtue of an agreement made between him and his brother Titan, devoured all his male children. He was brought up by the Curetes in a Den at Mount Ida, and fed with the milk of the Goat Amalthea. He afterwards drove his Father out of Heaven, and divided the Empire of the world with his brothers. For himself, he had Heaven and Earth; Neptune had the Sea and Waters; and Pluto Hell. Some assert, that this whole fable includes the History of Noah and his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. According to this system, Noah is Saturn, who saw all men perish in the waters of the deluge, and who in some sort swallowed them up by not receiving them into the Ark, which he had built for himself and family¹¹. Jupiter is Ham; Neptune, Japhet; Shem, Pluto. We have in another place explain’d ourselves more at length on this subject.

The Titans undertook to dethrone Jupiter, as he had dethroned his father. These Titans were Giants, sons of Titan and the Earth; they declared war against Jupiter, and heap’d mountains upon mountains, in order to scale Heaven; but their efforts were unsuccessful; Jupiter overthrew them with his thunder, and shut them up under the waters and mountains, from whence they were not able to get out. These Titans represent to us the old Giants, who built the tower of Babel, and whose pride and presumption God confounded, by changing their languages, and pouring out the spirit of discord and division among them.

The name of Jupiter, or Jovis-Pater, is derived, probably, from Jehovah, pronounced with the Latin termination Jovis instead of Jova. We meet with Jovis in the nominative as well as oblique cases; for example, in Medals, Jovis custos, Jovis propugnator, Jovis Stator. To this Pater was added; and instead of Jovis Pater was used Jupiter; and as Jehovah or Jova is the true name of God, his incommunicable name, that which signifies his essence, God essentially, and in the way of excellency, distinctly from the Gods, Angels, Princes, and Judges who are sometimes so called, because they act in God’s name, and exercise part of his authority upon earth; so among the Heathens the first and greatest of the Gods is called Jovis, to shew his independence and superiority; for which reason it is affirmed, that Jupiter is the Baal of the

Phœnicians, the Belus of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Zeus of the Greeks, the Moloch of the Ammonites, the Marnas of the inhabitants of Gaza: in short, the ancients adored all nature under the name of Jupiter.

The ancient Christian Fathers maintained against the heathen, that Jupiter was a mere man, born in the isle of Crete. They Tullius l. ii. de natura Deorum.who are called divines, says Cicero, reckon up three Jupiters, the first and second were born in Arcadia; the third is the son of Saturn, who was born in Crete, where his sepulchre is shewn. Tertium Cretensem Saturni filium, cujus in illa insula sepulcrum ostenditur. Some pretend that he reigned in this island, and it is said that there were even two Kings of this name in the before-mentioned island; it being impossible that one man only should have been able to do all that is attributed to Jupiter. For example, it is certain, that the Jupiter who was brought up by the Curetes, is not the same with him who ravished Europa the daughter of Agenor King of Phœnicia, more modern by many ages than the former. Varro, as Tertullian relates, reckoned up three hundred Jupiters. It is Tertull.probable that he counted the number of his Epithets, and the places where he was adored; for it is true that he goes by an infinite number of sirnames. The eagle was principally consecrated to him; it is described with Jupiter’s thunder in its talons.

The name of Jupiter was not known to the Hebrews till the reign of Alexander the great, and the Kings his successors. Antiochus Epiphanes commanded the idol of Jupiter the Olympian to be placed in the Temple of Jerusalem, and that of Jupiter the defender of strangers in the Temple of mount Gerizim. While S. Paul and S. 2 Macc. vi. 2.Barnabas were at Lystra, a city of Lycaonia, they were taken for Gods, because they cured one who had been lame from his birth immediately, and with a word only. S. Paul was taken for Mercury, probably by reason of his eloquence, and S. Barnabas for Jupiter, because of his good mien. See hereafter Acts xiv. 11, 12.our remarks upon Olympian. Jupiter Olympius.

JUSTICE, is generally put for goodness, equity, that virtue which renders to every man his due; and oftentimes for virtue and piety in general; lastly, for the conjunction of all those virtues which make an honest man. See Ezek. xviii. 5, 9.

2. Sometimes Justice is placed in opposition to Mercy; as a virtue which severely revenges the dishonour offered to God by sin.

3. At other times it is taken for the clemency, mercy, and indulgence which God shews to sinners. It is frequently taken Is. xli. 10. xlii. 6. xlv. 8. lvi. 1. lxi. 10.in this sense in Isaiah. It is used sometimes when we are speaking of a good natured, mild, indulgent man. Thus S. Matthew a tells us, that Joseph being a just man, was Vide et Psal. l. 16. and cxlii. 1, &c. Ps. l. 16. and cxlii. 1. 1. Eccl. vii. 17. Rom. iii. 25, 26.not willing to defame Mary.

4. It is also taken for alms. Redeem thy sins by justice, says Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar. Dan. iv. 27. See likewise Prov. xxi. 26. and xi. 18. et passim.

5. It is put for the justice which God does us, and the vengeance which he exercises against our enemys. Judgment is far from us, neither doth justice overtake us, says Isaiah lix. 9. We expected that God would deliver us from oppression, and revenge us on our enemies; but we see no change in our condition.

Prov. xviii. 15. Isa. v. 23. Isai. liii. 11. Ezek. xvi. 51, 52.6. To do judgment and justice is a common expression, describing all the duties of man towards God and towards his neighbour; particularly the being just and equitable to all the world.

7. To justify any one, signifies often to declare him to be just, to absolve him. God condemns the Judge who justifies the wicked. To justify signifies likewise to instruct, to shew the ways of justice. Lastly, to justify, is to demonstrate another to be less culpable than ourselves. Jerusalem by its errors justified Sodom and Samaria; it hath evidenced, that people may exceed these cities in dissoluteness and irregularities.

I. JUSTUS, the name of a man. Joseph sirnamed Barsabas had likewise the sirname of Justus. See Joseph and Barsabas. He was proposed with S. Matthias to be chosen in the room of the traytor Judas.

II. JUSTUS, a Jew, otherwise called Jesus and sirnamed Justus; he was at Rome with S. Paul in the year 62. when he wrote the Epistle to the Colossians. The Apostle in this letter says that Jesus, called Justus, and Marcus, were his only fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God.

JUTTAH, a city of Judah. Joshua xv. 55. Bonfrerius is of opinion, that it is the same as Ashan; Joshua xix. 7. and 1 Chron. vi. 59. But there is more probability of its being the same as Ithnam, Joshua xv. 23. Eusebius places Ithnam at eight miles distance from Hebron, towards the east.

IVY-TREE, in Latin, Hedera; an evergreen shrub, which fastens upon walls and trees for its support. The¹²

Ivy tree was consecrated to Bacchus, and the figure of an ivy leaf was impress’d with a hot iron upon those who were devoted to this false God. We have observed in the article Jonah, that what the old Greek interpreters translated gourd, cucurbita, S. Jerom translated hedera. We cannot tell how the Hebrews called ivy ; for it is certain that the Hebrew, Kikajon, which we read in Jonah, chap. iv. 6, 7, 9. does not signify this shrub.

Raah. Daah.IXION. A sort of bird mentioned in Deut. xiv. 13. Moses places it among the unclean birds. It is a kind of vultur, is white, and has a very piercing eye. The Hebrew word which S. Jerom here translates Ixion, in Leviticus xi. 14. he has interpreted Hawk. This Hebrew word is raah, or daab ; the transcribers confounding the letter resch with daleth, write raah in Deuteronomy, and daah in Leviticus.

IZATES, King of the Adiabenians, of whom there is frequent mention in Josephus, some authors make him a Christian, whereas Josephus says, he was a convert to Judaism. Izates was the son of Monobazus King of the Adiabenians, and Orosius book vi. c. 6. says that Helena the mother of Izates had embraced Christianity.Helena his wife and sister. Monobazus had a particular affection for Izates; and fearing the effects of envy in this young Prince’s brothers, he sent him to Abennerick King of Charax Spasin upon the Tigris, at the head of the Persian Gulph. In this Country Izates met with a Jewish merchant, who taught him to serve the true God. Some time after Izates was sent for by his father, and set over a small Province of Armenia, called Kæron ; where, says Josephus, are to be seen the remains of Noah’s Ark. After the death of his father he returned into Adiabene, where his mother Helena procured him to be acknowledged King, and engaged Monabazus one of his brothers to restore to him the diadem. He always continued his affection for Judaism¹³, and was very glad to hear, that his mother had embraced Antiq. l. xx. c. 2. and l. vi. c. 36. de Bello Jud. p. 964.the same Religion, by the means of another Jew.

Izates would have made an open profession of Judaism and received circumcision; but his mother diverted him from it, apprehending the consequences of such a step as this: Ananias himself (this is the name of the Jew who had instructed him) did not insist on this ; telling him ; that as affairs then stood, God would be content with the disposition of his heart. But another Jew finding him one day reading the book of Moses, demonstrated to him, that he could not observe the law, nor be partaker of the covenant without having himself circumcised ; which determined him immediately to receive circumcision. He declared what he had done to Helena his mother and Ananias. This action was attended with no ill consequence, and Izates continued to reign with great happiness. His brothers and relations did at last likewise embrace Judaism, which caused a defection of the great men of the country, who stir’d up powerful enemies against him, and prevailed with them to declare war with him. But he had the advantage of them, and reigned four and twenty years. He died in the year of J. C. 61. at farthest, in the fifty fifth year of his Age, and left the crown to his son Monobazus. The bones of Izates were sent to Jerusalem, and buried with those of Helena his mother in a magnificent Mausoleum, built by her order near this city. At the last siege of Jerusalem when Titus lay before it, some of Izates’s sons and brothers were shut up in the place, whose lives were given them by Titus, in the year of J. C. 70.

About the year 50. of the vulg. Æra. See the article Helena. De Bello. l. vi. c. 37. p. 964.IZEHAR, or Izhar, the son of Kobath, and father of Korah, head of the family of the Izeharites, or Izharites, Numb. iii. 19, 27. Compare likewise Exod. vi. 18, 22.