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；〃