son to prefer any
of them before Josephus, who had more original ones before him. This
reproach upon Alexander, that he was sprung from a captive, seems only
the repetition of the old Pharisaical calumny upon his father, ch. 10.
sect. 5.

[39] This Theodorus was the son of Zeno, and was in possession of
Areathus, as we learn from sect. 3 foregoing.

[40] This name Thracida, which the Jews gave Alexander, must, by the
coherence, denote as barbarous as a Thracian, or somewhat like it; but
what it properly signifies is not known.

[41] Spanheim takes notice that this Antiochus Dionysus [the brother of
Philip, and of Demetrius Eucerus, and of two others] was the fifth son
of Antiochus Grypus; and that he is styled on the coins, "Antiochus,
Epiphanes, Dionysus."

[42] This Aretas was the first king of the Arabians who took Damascus,
and reigned there; which name became afterwards common to such Arabian
kings, both at Petra and at Damascus, as we learn from Josephus in many
places; and from St. Paul, 2 Corinthians 11:32. See the note on Antiq.
B. XVI. ch. 9. sect. 4.

[43] We may here and elsewhere take notice, that whatever countries or
cities the Asamoneans conquered from any of the neighboring nations, or
whatever countries or cities they gained from them that had not
belonged to them before, they, after the days of Hyrcanus, compelled the
inhabitants to leave their idolatry, and entirely to receive the law of
Moses, as proselytes of justice, or else banished them into other lands.
That excellent prince, John Hyrcanus, did it to the Idumeans, as I have
noted on ch. 9. sect. 1, already, who lived then in the Promised Land,
and this I suppose justly; but by what right the rest did it, even to
the countries or cities that were no part of that land, I do not at all
know. This looks too like unjust persecution for religion.

[44] It seems, by this dying advice of Alexander Janneus to his wife,
that he had himself pursued the measures of his father Hyrcanus and
taken part with the Sadducees, who kept close to the written law,
against the Pharisees, who had introduced their own traditions, ch. 16.
sect. 2; and that he now saw a political necessity of submitting to the
Pharisees and their traditions hereafter, if his widow and family
minded to retain their monarchical government or tyranny over the Jewish
nation; which sect yet, thus supported, were at last in a great measure
the ruin of the religion, government, and nation