ence, as usual, on the stronger side, and
poor Sabbeus and Theodosius, the Samaritan disputants, were martyred,
and this, so far as appears, without any direct hearing at all, which
is like the usual practice of such political courts about matters of
religion. Our copies say that the body of the Jews were in a great
concern about those men [in the plural] who were to dispute for their
temple at Jerusalem, whereas it seems here they had but one disputant,
Andronicus by name. Perhaps more were prepared to speak on the Jews'
side; but the firstraying answered to his name, and overcome the
Samaritans, there was necessity for any other defender of the Jerusalem
temple.

[7] Of the several Apollonius about these ages, see Dean Prideaux at
the year 148. This Apollonius Daus was, by his account, the son of that
Apollonius who had been made governor of Celesyria and Phoenicia by
Seleueus Philopater, and was himself a confidant of his son Demetrius
the father, and restored to his father's government by him, but
afterwards revolted from him to Alexander; but not to Demetrius the son,
as he supposes.

[8] Dr. Hudson here observes, that the Phoenicians and Romans used to
reward such as had deserved well of them, by presenting to them a golden
button. See ch. 5. sect. 4.

[9] This name, Demetrius Nicator, or Demetrius the conqueror, is so
written on his coins still extant, as Hudson and Spanheim inform us; the
latter of whom gives us here the entire inscription, "King Demetrius the
God, Philadelphus, Nicator."

[10] This clause is otherwise rendered in the First Book of Maccabees,
12:9, "For that we have the holy books of Scripture in our hands to
comfort us." The Hebrew original being lost, we cannot certainly judge
which was the truest version only the coherence favors Josephus. But if
this were the Jews' meaning, that they were satisfied out of their Bible
that the Jews and Lacedemonians were of kin, that part of their Bible is
now lost, for we find no such assertion in our present copies.

[11] Those that suppose Josephus to contradict himself in his three
several accounts of the notions of the Pharisees, this here, and that
earlier one, which is the largest, Of the War B. II. ch. 8. sect. 14,
and that later, Antiq. B. XVIII. ch. 1. sect. 3, as if he sometimes said
they introduced an absolute fatality, and denied all freedom of human
actions, is almost wholly groundless if he ever, as the very learned
Casaubon here truly ob