<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0020" id="link2HCH0020">
<!-- h3 anchor --> </SPAN></p>
<h3> CHAPTER 20. Concerning The Meeting Of Jacob And Esau. </h3>
<p>1. Now as Jacob was proceeding on his journey to the land of Canaan,
angels appeared to him, and suggested to him good hope of his future
condition; and that place he named the Camp of God. And being desirous of
knowing what his brother's intentions were to him, he sent messengers, to
give him an exact account of every thing, as being afraid, on account of
the enmities between them. He charged those that were sent, to say to
Esau, "Jacob had thought it wrong to live together with him while he was
in anger against him, and so had gone out of the country; and that he now,
thinking the length of time of his absence must have made up their
differences, was returning; that he brought with him his wives, and his
children, with what possessions he had gotten; and delivered himself, with
what was most dear to him, into his hands; and should think it his
greatest happiness to partake together with his brother of what God had
bestowed upon him." So these messengers told him this message. Upon which
Esau was very glad, and met his brother with four hundred men. And Jacob,
when he heard that he was coming to meet him with such a number of men,
was greatly afraid: however, he committed his hope of deliverance to God;
and considered how, in his present circumstances, he might preserve
himself and those that were with him, and overcome his enemies if they
attacked him injuriously. He therefore distributed his company into parts;
some he sent before the rest, and the others he ordered to come close
behind, that so, if the first were overpowered when his brother attacked
them, they might have those that followed as a refuge to fly unto. And
when he had put his company in this order, he sent some of them to carry
presents to his brother. The presents were made up of cattle, and a great
number of four-footed beasts, of many kinds, such as would be very
acceptable to those that received them, on account of their rarity. Those
who were sent went at certain intervals of space asunder, that, by
following thick, one after another, they might appear to be more numerous,
that Esau might remit of his anger on account of these presents, if he
were still in a passion. Instructions were also given to those that were
sent to speak gently to him.</p>
<p>2. When Jacob had made these appointments all the day, and night came on,
he moved on with his company; and, as they were gone over a certain river
called Jabboc, Jacob was left behind; and meeting with an angel, he
wrestled with him, the angel beginning the struggle: but he prevailed over
the angel, who used a voice, and spake to him in words, exhorting him to
be pleased with what had happened to him, and not to suppose that his
victory was a small one, but that he had overcome a divine angel, and to
esteem the victory as a sign of great blessings that should come to him,
and that his offspring should never fall, and that no man should be too
hard for his power. He also commanded him to be called Israel, which in
the Hebrew tongue signifies one that struggled with the divine angel. <a
href="#linknote-37" name="linknoteref-37" id="linknoteref-37"><small>37</small></SPAN>
These promises were made at the prayer of Jacob; for when he perceived him
to be the angel of God, he desired he would signify to him what should
befall him hereafter. And when the angel had said what is before related,
he disappeared; but Jacob was pleased with these things, and named the
place Phanuel, which signifies, the face of God. Now when he felt pain, by
this struggling, upon his broad sinew, he abstained from eating that sinew
himself afterward; and for his sake it is still not eaten by us.</p>
<p>3. When Jacob understood that his brother was near, he ordered his wives
to go before, each by herself, with the handmaids, that they might see the
actions of the men as they were fighting, if Esau were so disposed. He
then went up to his brother Esau, and bowed down to him, who had no evil
design upon him, but saluted him; and asked him about the company of the
children and of the women; and desired, when he had understood all he
wanted to know about them, that he would go along with him to their
father; but Jacob pretending that the cattle were weary, Esau returned to
Seir, for there was his place of habitation, he having named the place
Roughness, from his own hairy roughness.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0021" id="link2HCH0021">
<!-- h3 anchor --> </SPAN></p>
<h3> CHAPTER 21. Concerning The Violation Of Dina's Chastity. </h3>
<p>1. Hereupon Jacob came to the place, till this day called Tents [Succoth];
from whence he went to Shechem, which is a city of the Canaanites. Now as
the Shechemites were keeping a festival Dina, who was the only daughter of
Jacob, went into the city to see the finery of the women of that country.
But when Shechem, the son of Hamor the king, saw her, he defiled her by
violence; and being greatly in love with her, desired of his father that
he would procure the damsel to him for a wife. To which desire he
condescended, and came to Jacob, desiring him to give leave that his son
Shechem might, according to law, marry Dina. But Jacob, not knowing how to
deny the desire of one of such great dignity, and yet not thinking it
lawful to marry his daughter to a stranger, entreated him to give him
leave to have a consultation about what he desired him to do. So the king
went away, in hopes that Jacob would grant him this marriage. But Jacob
informed his sons of the defilement of their sister, and of the address of
Hamor; and desired them to give their advice what they should do. Upon
fills, the greatest part said nothing, not knowing what advice to give.
But Simeon and Levi, the brethren of the damsel by the same mother, agreed
between themselves upon the action following: It being now the time of a
festival, when the Shechemites were employed in ease and feasting, they
fell upon the watch when they were asleep, and, coming into the city, slew
all the males <SPAN href="#linknote-38" name="linknoteref-38"
id="linknoteref-38"><small>38</small></SPAN> as also the king, and his son,
with them; but spared the women. And when they had done this without their
father's consent, they brought away their sister.</p>
<p>2. Now while Jacob was astonished at the greatness of this act, and was
severely blaming his sons for it, God stood by him, and bid him be of good
courage; but to purify his tents, and to offer those sacrifices which he
had vowed to offer when he went first into Mesopotamia, and saw his
vision. As he was therefore purifying his followers, he lighted upon the
gods of Laban; [for he did not before know they were stolen by Rachel;]
and he hid them in the earth, under an oak, in Shechem. And departing
thence, he offered sacrifice at Bethel, the place where he saw his dream,
when he went first into Mesopotamia.</p>
<p>3. And when he was gone thence, and was come over against Ephrata, he
there buried Rachel, who died in child-bed: she was the only one of
Jacob's kindred that had not the honor of burial at Hebron. And when he
had mourned for her a great while, he called the son that was born of her
Benjamin, <SPAN href="#linknote-39" name="linknoteref-39" id="linknoteref-39"><small>39</small></SPAN>
because of the sorrow the mother had with him. These are all the children
of Jacob, twelve males and one female.--Of them eight were
legitimate,--viz. six of Lea, and two of Rachel; and four were of the
handmaids, two of each; all whose names have been set down already.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0022" id="link2HCH0022">
<!-- h3 anchor --> </SPAN></p>
<h3> CHAPTER 22. How Isaac Died, And Was Buried In Hebron. </h3>
<p>From thence Jacob came to Hebron, a city situate among the Canaanites; and
there it was that Isaac lived: and so they lived together for a little
while; for as to Rebeka, Jacob did not find her alive. Isaac also died not
long after the coming of his son; and was buried by his sons, with his
wife, in Hebron, where they had a monument belonging to them from their
forefathers. Now Isaac was a man who was beloved of God, and was
vouchsafed great instances of providence by God, after Abraham his father,
and lived to be exceeding old; for when he had lived virtuously one
hundred and eighty-five years, he then died.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_FOOT" id="link2H_FOOT">
<!-- h3 anchor --> </SPAN></p>
<h3> FOOTNOTES: </h3>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-1" id="linknote-1">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
1 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-1">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Since Josephus, in his
Preface, sect. 4, says that Moses wrote some things enigmatically, some
allegorically, and the rest in plain words, since in his account of the
first chapter of Genesis, and the first three verses of the second, he
gives us no hints of any mystery at all; but when he here comes to ver. 4,
etc., he says that Moses, after the seventh day was over, began to talk
philosophically; it is not very improbable that he understood the rest of
the second and the third chapters in some enigmatical, or allegorical, or
philosophical sense. The change of the name of God just at this place,
from Elohim to Jehovah Elohim, from God to Lord God, in the Hebrew,
Samaritan, and Septuagint, does also not a little favor some such change
in the narration or construction.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-2" id="linknote-2">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
2 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-2">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ We may observe here, that
Josephus supposed man to be compounded of spirit, soul, and body, with St.
Paul, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, and the rest of the ancients: he elsewhere
says also, that the blood of animals was forbidden to be eaten, as having
in it soul and spirit, Antiq. B. III. ch. 11. sect. 2.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-3" id="linknote-3">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
3 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-3">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Whence this strange notion
came, which yet is not peculiar to Joseph, but, as Dr. Hudson says here,
is derived from older authors, as if four of the greatest rivers in the
world, running two of them at vast distances from the other two, by some
means or other watered paradise, is hard to say. Only since Josephus has
already appeared to allegorize this history, and take notice that these
four names had a particular signification; Phison for Ganges, a multitude;
Phrath for Euphrates, either a dispersion or a flower; Diglath for Tigris,
what is swift, with narrowness; and Geon for Nile, what arises from the
east,—we perhaps mistake him when we suppose he literally means
those four rivers; especially as to Geon or Nile, which arises from the
east, while he very well knew the literal Nile arises from the south;
though what further allegorical sense he had in view, is now, I fear,
impossible to be determined.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-4" id="linknote-4">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
4 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-4">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ By the Red Sea is not here
meant the Arabian Gulf, which alone we now call by that name, but all that
South Sea, which included the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf, as far as the
East Indies; as Reland and Hudson here truly note, from the old
geographers.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-5" id="linknote-5">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
5 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-5">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Hence it appears, that
Josephus thought several, at least, of the brute animals, particularly the
serpent, could speak before the fall. And I think few of the more perfect
kinds of those animals want the organs of speech at this day. Many
inducements there are also to a notion, that the present state they are
in, is not their original state; and that their capacities have been once
much greater than we now see them, and are capable of being restored to
their former condition. But as to this most ancient, and authentic, and
probably allegorical account of that grand affair of the fall of our first
parents, I have somewhat more to say in way of conjecture, but being only
a conjecture, I omit it: only thus far, that the imputation of the sin of
our first parents to their posterity, any further than as some way the
cause or occasion of man's mortality, seems almost entirely groundless;
and that both man, and the other subordinate creatures, are hereafter to
be delivered from the curse then brought upon them, and at last to be
delivered from that bondage of corruption, Romans 8:19-22.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-6" id="linknote-6">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
6 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-6">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ St. John's account of the
reason why God accepted the sacrifice of Abel, and rejected that of Cain;
as also why Cain slew Abel, on account of that his acceptance with God, is
much better than this of Josephus: I mean, because "Cain was of the evil
one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own
works were evil, and his brother's righteous," 1 John 3:12. Josephus's
reason seems to be no better than a pharisaical notion or tradition.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-7" id="linknote-7">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
7 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-7">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ From this Jubal, not
improbably, came Jobel, the trumpet of jobel or jubilee; that large and
loud musical instrument, used in proclaiming the liberty at the year of
jubilee.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-8" id="linknote-8">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
8 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-8">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ The number of Adam's
children, as says the old tradition was thirty-three sons, and
twenty-three daughters.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-9" id="linknote-9">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
9 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-9">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ What is here said of Seth
and his posterity, that they were very good and virtuous, and at the same
time very happy, without any considerable misfortunes, for seven
generations, [see ch. 2. sect. 1, before; and ch. 3. sect. 1, hereafter,]
is exactly agreeable to the state of the world and the conduct of
Providence in all the first ages.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-10" id="linknote-10">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
10 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-10">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Of Josephus's mistake
here, when he took Seth the son of Adam, for Seth or Sesostris, king of
Egypt, the erector of this pillar in the land of Siriad, see Essay on the
Old Testament, Appendix, p. 159, 160. Although the main of this relation
might be true, and Adam might foretell a conflagration and a deluge, which
all antiquity witnesses to be an ancient tradition; nay, Seth's posterity
might engrave their inventions in astronomy on two such pillars; yet it is
no way credible that they could survive the deluge, which has buried all
such pillars and edifices far under ground in the sediment of its waters,
especially since the like pillars of the Egyptian Seth or Sesostris were
extant after the flood, in the land of Siriad, and perhaps in the days of
Josephus also, as is shown in the place here referred to.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-11" id="linknote-11">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
11 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-11">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ This notion, that the
fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the
constant opinion of antiquity.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-12" id="linknote-12">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
12 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-12">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Josephus here supposes
that the life of these giants, for of them only do I understand him, was
now reduced to 120 years; which is confirmed by the fragment of Enoch,
sect. 10, in Authent. Rec. Part I. p. 268. For as to the rest of mankind,
Josephus himself confesses their lives were much longer than 120 years,
for many generations after the flood, as we shall see presently; and he
says they were gradually shortened till the days of Moses, and then fixed
[for some time] at 120, ch. 6. sect. 5. Nor indeed need we suppose that
either Enoch or Josephus meant to interpret these 120 years for the life
of men before the flood, to be different from the 120 years of God's
patience [perhaps while the ark was preparing] till the deluge; which I
take to be the meaning of God when he threatened this wicked world, that
if they so long continued impenitent, their days should be no more than
120 years.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-13" id="linknote-13">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
13 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-13">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ A cubit is about 21
English inches.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-14" id="linknote-14">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
14 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-14">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Josephus here truly
determines, that the year at the Flood began about the autumnal equinox.
As to what day of the month the Flood began, our Hebrew and Samaritan, and
perhaps Josephus's own copy, more rightly placed it on the 17th day,
instead of the 27th, as here; for Josephus agrees with them, as to the
distance of 150 days to the 17th day of the 7th month, as Genesis 7. ult.
with 8:3.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-15" id="linknote-15">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
15 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-15">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Josephus here takes
notice, that these ancient genealogies were first set down by those that
then lived, and from them were transmitted down to posterity; which I
suppose to be the true account of that matter. For there is no reason to
imagine that men were not taught to read and write soon after they were
taught to speak; and perhaps all by the Messiah himself, who, under the
Father, was the Creator or Governor of mankind, and who frequently in
those early days appeared to them.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-16" id="linknote-16">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
16 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-16">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ This [GREEK], or Place of
Descent, is the proper rendering of the Armenian name of this very city.
It is called in Ptolemy Naxuana, and by Moses Chorenensis, the Armenian
historian, Idsheuan; but at the place itself Nachidsheuan, which signifies
The first place of descent, and is a lasting monument of the preservation
of Noah in the ark, upon the top of that mountain, at whose foot it was
built, as the first city or town after the flood. See Antiq. B. XX. ch. 2.
sect. 3; and Moses Chorenensis, who also says elsewhere, that another town
was related by tradition to have been called Seron, or, The Place of
Dispersion, on account of the dispersion of Xisuthrus's or Noah's sons,
from thence first made. Whether any remains of this ark be still
preserved, as the people of the country suppose, I cannot certainly tell.
Mons. Tournefort had, not very long since, a mind to see the place
himself, but met with too great dangers and difficulties to venture
through them.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-17" id="linknote-17">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
17 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-17">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ One observation ought not
here to be neglected, with regard to that Ethiopic war which Moses, as
general of the Egyptians, put an end to, Antiq. B. II. ch. 10., and about
which our late writers seem very much unconcerned; viz. that it was a war
of that consequence, as to occasion the removal or destruction of six or
seven nations of the posterity of Mitzraim, with their cities; which
Josephus would not have said, if he had not had ancient records to justify
those his assertions, though those records be now all lost.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-18" id="linknote-18">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
18 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-18">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ That the Jews were called
Hebrews from this their progenitor Heber, our author Josephus here rightly
affirms; and not from Abram the Hebrew, or passenger over Euphrates, as
many of the moderns suppose. Shem is also called the father of all the
children of Heber, or of all the Hebrews, in a history long before Abram
passed over Euphrates, Genesis 10:21, though it must be confessed that,
Genesis 14:13, where the original says they told Abram the Hebrew, the
Septuagint renders it the passenger, [GREEK]: but this is spoken only of
Abram himself, who had then lately passed over Euphrates, and is another
signification of the Hebrew word, taken as an appellative, and not as a
proper name.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-19" id="linknote-19">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
19 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-19">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ It is worth noting here,
that God required no other sacrifices under the law of Moses, than what
were taken from these five kinds of animals which he here required of
Abram. Nor did the Jews feed upon any other domestic animals than the
three here named, as Reland observes on Antiq. B. IV. ch. 4. sect. 4.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-20" id="linknote-20">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
20 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-20">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ As to this affliction of
Abram's posterity for 400 years, see Antiq. B. II. ch. 9. sect. 1.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-21" id="linknote-21">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
21 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-21">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ These sons-in-law to Lot,
as they are called, Genesis 19:12-14, might be so styled, because they
were betrothed to Lot's daughters, though not yet married to them. See the
note on Antiq. B. XIV. ch. 13. sect. 1.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-22" id="linknote-22">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
22 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-22">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Of the War, B. IV. ch. 8.
sect. 4.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-23" id="linknote-23">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
23 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-23">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ This pillar of salt was,
we see here, standing in the days of Josephus, and he had seen it. That it
was standing then is also attested by Clement of Rome, contemporary with
Josephus; as also that it was so in the next century, is attested by
Irenaeus, with the addition of an hypothesis, how it came to last so long,
with all its members entire.—Whether the account that some modern
travelers give be true, that it is still standing, I do not know. Its
remote situation, at the most southern point of the Sea of Sodom, in the
wild and dangerous deserts of Arabia, makes it exceeding difficult for
inquisitive travelers to examine the place; and for common reports of
country people, at a distance, they are not very satisfactory. In the mean
time, I have no opinion of Le Clerc's dissertation or hypothesis about
this question, which can only be determined by eye-witnesses. When
Christian princes, so called, lay aside their foolish and unchristian wars
and quarrels, and send a body of fit persons to travel over the east, and
bring us faithful accounts of all ancient monuments, and procure us copies
of all ancient records, at present lost among us, we may hope for full
satisfaction in such inquiries; but hardly before.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-24" id="linknote-24">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
24 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-24">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ I see no proper wicked
intention in these daughters of Lot, when in a case which appeared to them
of unavoidable necessity, they procured themselves to be with child by
their father. Without such an unavoidable necessity, incest is a horrid
crime; but whether in such a case of necessity, as they apprehended this
to be, according to Josephus, it was any such crime, I am not satisfied.
In the mean time, their making their father drunk, and their solicitous
concealment of what they did from him, shows that they despaired of
persuading him to an action which, at the best, could not but be very
suspicious and shocking to so good a man.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-25" id="linknote-25">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
25 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-25">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ It is well worth
observation, that Josephus here calls that principal Angel, who appeared
to Abraham and foretold the birth of Isaac, directly God; which language
of Josephus here, prepares us to believe those other expressions of his,
that Jesus was a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, Antiq. B.
XVIII. ch. 3. sect. 3, and of God the Word, in his homily concerning
Hades, may be both genuine. Nor is the other expression of Divine Angel,
used presently, and before, also of any other signification.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-26" id="linknote-26">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
26 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-26">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Josephus here calls
Ismael a young child or infant, though he was about 13 years of age; as
Judas calls himself and his brethren young men, when he was 47, and had
two children, Antiq. B. II. ch. 6. sect. 8, and they were of much the same
age; as is a damsel of 12 years old called a little child, Mark 5:39-42,
five several times. Herod is also said by Josephus to be a very young man
at 25. See the note on Antiq. B. XIV. ch. 9. sect 2, and of the War, B. I.
ch. 10. And Aristobulus is styled a very little child at 16 years of age,
Antiq. B. XV. ch. 2. sect. 6, 7. Domitian also is called by him a very
young child, when he went on his German expedition at about 18 years of
age, of the War, B. VII. ch. 4. sect. 2. Samson's wife, and Ruth, when
they were widows, are called children, Antiq. B. V. ch. 8. sect. 6, and
ch. 9. sect. 2 3.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-27" id="linknote-27">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
27 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-27">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Note, that both here and
Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham's only begotten son, though he at
the same time had another son, Ismael. The Septuagint expresses the true
meaning, by rendering the text the beloved son.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-28" id="linknote-28">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
28 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-28">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Here is a plain error in
the copies which say that king David afterwards built the temple on this
Mount Moriah, while it was certainly no other than king Solomon who built
that temple, as indeed Procopius cites it from Josephus. For it was for
certain David, and not Solomon, who built the first altar there, as we
learn, 2 Samuel 24:18, etc.; 1 Chronicles 21:22, etc.; and Antiq. B. VII.
ch. 13. sect. 4.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-29" id="linknote-29">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
29 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-29">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ It seems both here, and
in God's parallel blessing to Jacob, ch. 19. sect. 1, that Josephus had
yet no notion of the hidden meaning of that most important and most
eminent promise, "In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be
blessed. He saith not, and of seeds, as of many, but as of one; and to thy
seed, which is Christ," Galatians 3:16. Nor is it any wonder, he being, I
think, as yet not a Christian. And had he been a Christian, yet since he
was, to be sure, till the latter part of his life, no more than an
Ebionite Christian, who, above all the apostles, rejected and despised St.
Paul, it would be no great wonder if he did not now follow his
interpretation. In the mean time, we have in effect St. Paul's exposition
in the Testament of Reuben, sect. 6, in Authent. Rec. Part I. p. 302, who
charges his sons "to worship the seed of Judah, who should die for them in
visible and invisible wars; and should be among them an eternal king." Nor
is that observation of a learned foreigner of my acquaintance to be
despised, who takes notice, that as seeds in the plural, must signify
posterity, so seed in the singular may signify either posterity, or a
single person; and that in this promise of all nations being happy in the
seed of Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob, etc., it is always used in the
singular. To which I shall add, that it is sometimes, as it were,
paraphrased by the son of Abraham, the son of David, etc., which is
capable of no such ambiguity.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-30" id="linknote-30">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
30 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-30">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ The birth of Jacob and
Esau is here said to be after Abraham's death: it should have been after
Sarah's death. The order of the narration in Genesis, not always exactly
according to the order of time, seems to have led Josephus into this
error, as Dr. Bernard observes here.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-31" id="linknote-31">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
31 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-31">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ For Seir in Josephus, the
coherence requires that we read Esau or Seir, which signify the same
thing.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-32" id="linknote-32">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
32 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-32">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ The supper of savory
meat, as we call it, Genesis 27:4, to be caught by hunting, was intended
plainly for a festival or a sacrifice; and upon the prayers that were
frequent at sacrifices, Isaac expected, as was then usual in such eminent
cases, that a divine impulse would come upon him, in order to the blessing
of his son there present, and his foretelling his future behavior and
fortune. Whence it must be, that when Isaac had unwittingly blessed Jacob,
and was afterwards made sensible of his mistake, yet did he not attempt to
alter it, how earnestly soever his affection for Esau might incline him to
wish it might be altered, because he knew that this blessing came not from
himself, but from God, and that an alteration was out of his power. A
second afflatus then came upon him, and enabled him to foretell Esau's
future behavior and foretell Esau's future behavior and fortune also.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-33" id="linknote-33">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
33 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-33">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Whether Jacob or his
mother Rebeka were most blameable in this imposition upon Isaac in his old
age, I cannot determine. However the blessing being delivered as a
prediction of future events, by a Divine impulse, and foretelling things
to befall to the posterity of Jacob and Esau in future ages, was for
certain providential; and according to what Rebeka knew to be the purpose
of God, when he answered her inquiry, "before the children were born,"
Genesis 25:23, "that one people should be stronger than the other people;
and the elder, Esau, should serve the younger, Jacob." Whether Isaac knew
or remembered this old oracle, delivered in our copies only to Rebeka; or
whether, if he knew and remembered it, he did not endeavor to alter the
Divine determination, out of his fondness for his elder and worser son
Esau, to the damage of his younger and better son Jacob, as Josephus
elsewhere supposes, Antiq. B. II. ch. 7. sect. 3; I cannot certainly say.
If so, this might tempt Rebeka to contrive, and Jacob to put this
imposition upon him. However, Josephus says here, that it was Isaac, and
not Rebeka, who inquired of God at first, and received the forementioned
oracle, sect. 1; which, if it be the true reading, renders Isaac's
procedure more inexcusable. Nor was it probably any thing else that so
much encouraged Esau formerly to marry two Canaanitish wives, without his
parents' consent, as Isaac's unhappy fondness for him.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-34" id="linknote-34">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
34 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-34">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ By this "deprivation of
the kingdom that was to be given Esau of God," as the first-born, it
appears that Josephus thought that a "kingdom to be derived from God" was
due to him whom Isaac should bless as his first-born, which I take to be
that kingdom which was expected under the Messiah, who therefore was to be
born of his posterity whom Isaac should so bless. Jacob therefore by
obtaining this blessing of the first-born, became the genuine heir of that
kingdom, in opposition to Esau.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-35" id="linknote-35">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
35 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-35">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Here we have the
difference between slaves for life and servants, such as we now hire for a
time agreed upon on both sides, and dismiss again after he time contracted
for is over, which are no slaves, but free men and free women.
Accordingly, when the Apostolical Constitutions forbid a clergyman to
marry perpetual servants or slaves, B. VI. ch. 17., it is meant only of
the former sort; as we learn elsewhere from the same Constitutions, ch.
47. Can. LXXXII. But concerning these twelve sons of Jacob, the reasons of
their several names, and the times of their several births in the
intervals here assigned, their several excellent characters, their several
faults and repentance, the several accidents of their lives, with their
several prophecies at their deaths, see the Testaments of these twelve
patriarchs, still preserved at large in the Authent. Rec. Part I. p.
294-443.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-36" id="linknote-36">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
36 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-36">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ I formerly explained
these mandrakes, as we, with the Septuagint, and Josephus, render the
Hebrew word Dudaim, of the Syrian Maux, with Ludolphus, Antbent. Rec. Part
I. p. 420; but have since seen such a very probable account in M. S. of my
learned friend Mr. Samuel Barker, of what we still call mandrakes, and
their description by the ancient naturalists and physicians, as inclines
me to think these here mentioned were really mandrakes, and no other.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-37" id="linknote-37">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
37 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-37">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Perhaps this may be the
proper meaning of the word Israel, by the present and the old Jerusalem
analogy of the Hebrew tongue. In the mean time, it is certain that the
Hellenists of the first century, in Egypt and elsewhere, interpreted
Israel to be a man seeing God, as is evident from the argument
fore-cited.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-38" id="linknote-38">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
38 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-38">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Of this slaughter of the
Shechemites by Simeon and Levi, see Authent. Rec. Part I. p. 309, 418,
432-439. But why Josephus has omitted the circumcision of these
Shechemites, as the occasion of their death; and of Jacob's great grief,
as in the Testament of Levi, sect. 5; I cannot tell.]</p>
<p><SPAN name="linknote-39" id="linknote-39">
<!-- Note --></SPAN></p>
<p class="foot">
39 (<SPAN href="#linknoteref-39">return</SPAN>)<br/> [ Since Benoni signifies
the son of my sorrow, and Benjamin the son of days, or one born in the
father's old age, Genesis 44:20, I suspect Josephus's present copies to be
here imperfect, and suppose that, in correspondence to other copies, he
wrote that Rachel called her son's name Benoni, but his father called him
Benjamin, Genesis 35:18. As for Benjamin, as commonly explained, the son
of the right hand, it makes no sense at all, and seems to be a gross
modern error only. The Samaritan always writes this name truly Benjamin,
which probably is here of the same signification, only with the Chaldee
termination in, instead of im in the Hebrew; as we pronounce cherubin or
cherubim indifferently. Accordingly, both the Testament of Benjamin, sect.
2, p. 401, and Philo de Nominum Mutatione, p. 1059, write the name
Benjamin, but explain it not the son of the right hand, but the son of
days.]</p>
<p><br/> <br/></p>
<hr />
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />