least Spartian has so stated, and we are not competent to dispute the authority of an author who lived under Dioclesian. A law was passed, by which the Roman citizen, who allowed either himself or his children to be circumcised, was banished, and the physician who performed the rite was capitally punished; and further, the Jew who circumcised pagan children, or any individual of a different religion, was either banished or put to death.* St. Chrysostom, and some distinguished men after him, have entertained the opinion, that the Jews sought to increase the number of their proselytes by circumcising the heathen, in order to secure in the end the re-establishment of their commonwealth; but it does not appear probable that they expected to raise from Roman converts, or from their slaves, an army sufficiently powerful to effect this purpose. The edicts respecting circumcision were only intended to prevent the changes in religious opinions which sometimes took place at Rome, and highly offended the pagans. Antonius allowed the Jews to practise this rite, even after his war with them. He had become tired of insurrections, and seeing how irritated the Jews were, he conceded to them the privilege of circumcision; but they were in no state, at that time, to obtain proselytes in such numbers, as to create an expectation of reviving their theocracy. The prohibition of Adrian deprived the Jew of one of the principal rites of his religion; it took from him the badge which distinguished him from the Gentiles, the seal of his peculiar relation to God, and the Divine favour which he connected with it. We need not wonder, then, that the Jews rebelled when forbidden to practise circumcision.‡

VI. 2. Moreover, Adrian sent a colony to Jerusalem, and built on its ruins a city which received his name, and was consecrated to Jupiter Capitolinus. This second cause of the war has excited as opposite opinions as the first; for Eusebius says that the colony was not sent to Jerusalem until Bither was taken, and Dion, on the other hand, affirms that the war was occasioned by this colony, for the Jews could not endure in their city the presence of heathen who worshipped strange gods; and therefore took up arms against them.§ We cannot doubt the accuracy of Dion, and, to reconcile him with Eusebius, we would observe that it is probable that the designs of the emperor were crossed at the outset, by the revolt of the Jews, who expelled the colonists; but were accomplished afterwards, when they were subdued. Thus, then, Adrian sent colonists to Jerusalem before the war, as Dion informs us, and permanently established them there when the Jews were conquered, in conformity to Eusebius. 3. The ambition of Barchochebas, who took advantage of the excitement produced among the people by the circumstances we have mentioned, urged the Jews to rebellion. It may be proper, now we Jul. Paul. Recept. Sent. lib. v. tit. 22. + Spencer in Orig. cont. Cels. p. 35.

1 Spart. in Adr. p. 7. Modestinus ap. Casaub. Not. in Spart. p. 27.

§ Euseb. Histor. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. vi.

Evang. lib. vi. cap. xviii.

Xiphil. in Adriano, p. 263.

Demonstrat.

are speaking of the false Messiahs who deceived their nation, to give their history from an earlier period.

VII. About the time of Gamaliel, impostors appeared with the greatest hardihood. He had seen two of them perish, and the failure of their enterprise made such an impression on him that he would not oppose the progress of Christianity, because he thought that God would suppress it, if it were not from heaven. "For before these days rose up Theudas, (said he,) and was defeated. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him, and he also perished. So if this counsel or work be of men, it will come to nought." (Acts v. 37.) Christians have been so well pleased with his moderation that they have made Gamaliel, with his son and grandson, saints; and their relics are shown at Pisa, where travellers are exhorted to invoke them, in the hope of obtaining salvation through their merits.

"Sanctus Gamaliel, Abybas et Nicodemus,
Insimul ipse pater, filius atque nepos

Hoc epigramma legens, horum suffragia quære,
Teque recommendans, posce salutis opem."

The critics are much embarrassed, because St. Luke mentions Theudas before Judas; whereas Josephus places Judas in A. D. 10, and refers Theudas to a much later period.* Eusebius has followed Josephus, and places Theudas in the reign of Claudius. Whence can this diversity of opinions have arisen? Has Josephus assigned these men to a wrong period? or has St. Luke erred with Gamaliel, believing that this doctor of the Jews could not mistake respecting a fact in the

history of his own country, of which he was an fer the evidence of Josephus to that of St. Luke, eye-witness? Finally, how could Eusebius prewhen he received St. Luke as an inspired writer? M. d'Valois, with the usual blindness of commentators to the faults of the historians whom they interpret, defends Eusebius, and, to set aside the authority of a sacred writer, supposes that St. Luke adduces the example of the last rebel first; or rather, that he introduces Theudas into the speech of Gamaliel, although Theudas made no insurrection for ten years after this session of the Jewish sanhedrim. M. d'Valois would have us believe that St. Luke added this noted exam

ple, and adduced it with that cited by Gamaliel, because it bore on the same point. Virgil has placed Æneas, with equal propriety, in a harbour which did not exist in his day: "Portusque require Velinos." What does M. d'Valois think of a parallel between St. Luke and Virgil, between an inspired writer and a poet who cared little how he blended fiction with truth, if he could but add interest to his epic. The critics have hardly pardoned Virgil for making Dido contemPorary with Æneas, and mentioning the harbour of Piediluco, ("Portusque Velinos") at a time when it was not constructed; and could St. Luke anticipate an event by twelve or fifteen years Joseph. Antiq. Judaic. xviii. 2. 618; xx. 2. 690.

+ Euseb. lib. ii. cap. ix. p. 49.

Baronius expresses the same opinion as M. d'Valois, An. 34, num. 279; and Scaliger says that there were two men called Theudas. See Antiq. Baron. p. 133.

without exposing himself to censure? Could St. Luke, with any propriety, make Gamaliel in the sanhedrim refer to an event as proof in point, when that event had not taken place, and did not happen till after his death? The commentator, who has only thrown out these conjectures to defend Eusebius, might have done it in another way; he might have supposed two Theudases; the one, mentioned by Josephus, living under Claudius, and the other, by Gamaliel as quoted by St. Luke, revolting before Judas the Galilean. It is not incredible that two men of the same name should live in the same age, and attempt the same thing.

VIII. The Romans sent a body of troops against Judas, and put him to a cruel death; and his children were persecuted and finally murdered by Alexander, who succeeded Fadus. The followers of Judas maintained the tenets of their master with unyielding fortitude amidst the severest trials, and they existed until the destruction of Jerusalem, when they were besieged in the castle of Masada. Fugitives from among them spread their opinions in Egypt, and occasioned fresh

massacres.

IX. Origen has likewise placed Simon the magician and Dositheus in the number of false Messiahs. These two men were Samaritans; the latter was an instructer, and the former his pupil. Dositheus, if we may believe Origen, openly declared himself the Messiah foretold by the ancient prophets. His disciples, to make his death accord with this character, spread the report that he had risen from the grave; and, if he did not expose himself to public view, it was because he was obliged to pass a number of years in a cavern.

Simon proclaimed himself the Excellency of the great God, who had given the law on Sinai, assumed the body and nature of a son under Tiberius, and afterwards descended on the apostles at the feast of pentecost. It must be owned that Simon did not declare himself the Messiah very explicitly; but as he was the head of a sect, and as there are some chronological difficulties as to the time when Dositheus lived, we shall treat more fully of both as we proeed.

X. Coziba or Barchochebas assumed the character of Messiah, with greater splendour than any other pretender to this dignity. He was a robber, as were the others, and wished to enrich himself by pillage, and to acquire an influence among his countrymen by opposition to the Romans. Some authors have thought that there were two impostors of this name, the grandfather and grandson; and the Jews thus relate their history: "Coziba I. was elected king fifty-two years after the destruction of the former temple, and died in Bither, the capital of his dominions, situated near Jerusalem. His son called the Red succeeded him, and the throne was afterwards filled by his grandson Romulus or Coziba, whom the Jews acknowledged as their Messiah. When the emperor Adrian was informed of their proceedings, he marched against them with a powerful army, stormed Bither, and slew a great number of Jews, in the seventy-third year from the destruction of the temple."* Then the reigas

Rabbi Abraham, Cabala Historica, apud Petit. Obs.

of the three Cozibas lasted but twenty-one years, though some writers extend this term, because they place the elder Coziba under Domitian.† The ancient Jewish chronicle allows but two years and a half to the Cozibas; but probably it only speaks of the grandson, who was slain by his followers, because he could not completely personate the Messiah and distinguish criminals by their smell. The Talmud relates the same thing.

XI. This account is a fabrication, so badly put together that it is astonishing able commentators should be found among Christians who maintain its correctness. 1. They are unfortunate in supposing two Cozibas or Barchochebases, for the greater part of the Jews acknowledge but one, and they are correct. 2. The rebellion of the Jews towards the close of Trajan's reign, was excited by a man named Andrew, not Barchochebas, and he made no pretensions to the Messiahship. Besides, his insurrection was in Egypt, whereas that of Coziba was in Judea. 3. They display an ignorance of the genealogy of Trajan, for they relate that he sent Adrian, his sister's son, against the Jews of Egypt. But Ulpia, the grandmother of Adrian, was Trajan's aunt, and therefore these princes were only cousins. 4. The critics are also in an error as to the length of Coziba's reign, (twenty-one years,) the duration of the war against him, and the successors and heirs to his throne and property; for he was the last of his race, and his war was soon ended, as we shall see in the sequel. 5. They place his death in the seventy-third year from the destruction of the temple, whereas Adrian, who in the eighteenth year of his reign closed the war by the storm of Bither and death of Coziba, died before A. D. 141. This chronological error plainly shows that the whole account is false. The author of the Jewish Chronicle is more correct than his commentators, for he allows but two years and a half to the reign of Coziba, and speaks of him only as an impostor. 6. Finally, the Jews relate a fable that savours of rabbinic conceit, when they tell us that Coziba was put to the test by being required to distinguish criminals from others. Is there the least probability that the Jews would test the Messiah by his powers of smelling? I can admit but one Barchochebas, who lived under Adrian, and brought many dreadful calamities on his countrymen.

XII. This Coziba, endeavouring to persuade the Jews that he was their Messiah, furthered his design by changing his name, and calling himself the Son of the Star, or Barchochebas, to spread a belief that he was the star seen by Ba laam in vision, Num. xxiv. 17. He proclaimed himself a light from heaven, sent to succour the people, and to deliver them from the oppression of the Romans. To confirm his assertions, he made fire issue from his mouth when he spoke; at least St. Jerome relates that he made the people Sac. lib. iii. cap. iv. p. 310. David Ganz. ad an. 388. Jud. p. 102.

+ Seder Olam, cap. xxxi.

believe this, by means of lighted tow. He chose a precursor with a character like his own, and thus materially furthered his purposes.

XIII. Coziba selected for this dignity, Akiba, who was supposed to be a descendant from Sisera, commander in chief under Jabin king of Tyre, by a Jewish mother." He passed forty years of his life as a shepherd, guarding the flocks of a rich citizen of Jerusalem, named Calba Chuva. His master's daughter fell in love with him, and urged him to apply himself to study because she did not wish a shepherd to be her husband.† They were secretly married, and Akiba left her, and spent about twelve years at a college. When he returned to his wife, twelve thousand disciples followed him; but his wife advised him to go back to his college, and he complied. At the close of the next twelve years, he went again to his wife, with twenty-four thousand disciples. She came before him with her dress torn and disordered; for her father, in his rage at her marriage, had disinherited her. But when he saw Akiba, he knelt before him, and gave him a large amount of property, though in violation of an oath which he had taken.

We have no mention of the location of the college whence Akiba drew his disciples. Their immense number surprises us; and our wonder is increased when we learn, that these twentyfour thousand followers all died between the passover and pentecost, that no one should have any advantage over another, and that they were buried, together with Akiba and his wife, at the foot of a hill near Tiberias.‡ Akiba continued to instruct his followers, and he wrote two works, one of which is cabalistic,§ and called Jetsirah ;|| and must be distinguished from the book, with the same title, attributed to Abraham. He was so wise a man, that he could give a reason for the use of the most insignificant letter in the law, and it is boldly asserted, that God revealed more to him than to Moses. The Mishna and Talmud contain a thousand maxims, which the Rabbins attribute to him, and believe to inculcate the most profound wisdom. Indeed a whole volume would not contain the wonderful things which he did and said. The Deity permitted Akiba to enter paradise with doctor Asai, to whom his sister was betrothed. Thus the Rabbins praise this man, who brought desolation on his country, and aided an impostor who pretended to the Messiahship.

XIV. According to Lightfoot, Akiba was president of the sanhedrim, while this sovereign council held its sessions at Jafna, assuming this office in the second year of Domitian, after the death of Jochanan whom he succeeded.** He enjoyed his dignity until his death at the capture of Bither. We need not refute Lightfoot's opinion • Ganz, Zemach, David, p. 99.

by a reference to what has been proved, that the sanhedrim never removed to Jafna, for there is other evidence that he is wrong. The Rabbins, his authority, are themselves in error, for they place the death of Akiba in the year fifty-two or fifty-five after the destruction of the temple, which corresponds with A. D. 125. But Bither was taken in A. D. 138; and therefore Akiba must be supposed to have lived one hundred and thirty-three years before these chronological computations can be reconciled. No confidence then can be given to the accounts of the Jews respecting the birth and death of Akiba, since they show themselves ignorant of the time when both these events happened.

XV. Barchochebas appeared when Akiba enjoyed the highest reputation. This doctor exclaimed, when he saw the impostor: “Behold the star which was to rise in Judah," and he proclaimed himself his precursor, as John the Baptist was the forerunner of Christ. These two men shaped their characters to the expectations of the people, who looked for a conquering Messiah to deliver them from the Roman yoke, which the last war and the severities of Adrian rendered daily more burdensome. Barchochebas found many who were willing to follow him, and he assembled an army of two hundred thousand men. The Rabbins are extravagant in their praise of the bravery and bodily strength of each man in his army; for they tell us, there was not a soldier in it who could not, with his horse at full speed, tear up a cedar of Lebanon.

Bither was chosen for the capital of the empire, and for a place of refuge in case of defeat. The Jews call this city the Dwelling of Spies (n, Bethtar,) because, after the destruction of Jerusalem, informers watched here to discover who went up to Zion, that they might ingratiate themselves with the Romans by accusing the pilgrims, or perhaps, that they might enrich themselves with the offices and confiscated property of the impeached. The Jews were at times brought before the Romans on other charges. Eusebius places Bither in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, but there were two cities of this name, the one distant twelve and the other fifty-two miles from that place. According to St. Jerome, both these places were called Beth-horon, were built by Solomon, and ruined in the war. Beth-horon was given by Pharaoh as his daughter's dower on her marriage with Solomon, who granted it to the Levites, because it was located in their division of the soil. But the Jews inform us, that this was not the true Bither, for its name means the Dwelling of Spies; whereas the capital of Barchochebas was called the Abode of Liberty. Coziba selected this city for the ceremony of his coronation, and for the emission of his money as the Messiah the king of the nation. He only waited for the departure of Adrian from Egypt to declare war, which broke out in A. D. 134, corresponding to the seventeenth year of Adrian. As some may hesitate to receive this date of the Jewish rebellion, we shall establish its correctness.

XVI. St. Jerome has given us a very different date, from a computation of the seventy weeks

of Daniel, by the Jews of his time. Sixty-two of these weeks, say they, had passed when Vespasian reduced Judea to complete submission. Seven weeks, that is forty-nine years, after this emperor appeared Adrian, who built Elia on the ruins of Jerusalem, and by his general Tinnius Rufus, subdued the Jews. Then the sacrifice ceased. A single week of the seventy remained, and this was divided between the two emperors; three years and a half were allowed to the war of Vespasian, and the same time to that of Adrian, and thus were accomplished the seventy weeks of the prophet. St. Jerome observes with much reason, that ninety-nine weeks or six hundred and ninety-six years elapsed from the delivery of the prophecy to Adrian, and therefore the computation of the Jews is incorrect. Moreover, if we calculate on the seven weeks, from the death of Vespasian, which happened in A. D. 79, then the war of Adrian must have broken out in A. D. 127; but if from the destruction of Jerusalem, our error will be greater still, since the subjugation of the Jews would then fall in A. D. 119. But we shall see that this is impossible

XVII. St. Jerome, however, receives this date, for he tells us that Adrian put down a second insurrection of the Jews in A. D. 119.† How could he call this the second rebellion, and how can Scaliger be correct in the conjecture, that it was in distinction from that under Vespasian; when the wars against Vespasian and Trajan had both preceded it? Besides St. Jerome is at variance with himself, for he says as he proceeds, that the Jews revolted in A. D. 133, and Adrian sent an army under Tinnius Rufus to subdue them; but Barchochebas rose to power in the following year, and the war ended in a D. 135, by the complete subjugation of the Jews. This statement cannot be reconciled with our former quotations from him. Scaliger attempts to do away with these discrepancies by a conjecture, that there were seditious movements in A. D. 119, and an open declaration of war fourteen years after. But he is unsupported by any authority. Then we must seek the date of the final conquest of Judea from other sources, than those already mentioned.

XVIII. According to Dion, "Adrian sent a colony to Jerusalem, and erected the statue of Jupiter where the temple of God had stood. The enraged Jews were only prevented from violence at this introduction of heathen idolatry, by the approach of the emperor, who was in Egypt, and thence intended to visit Syria.§ They manufactured imperfect instruments of war, and sold them to the Roman soldiery, that these might be less effective in case of rebellion. The departure of Adrian from Syria, was the signal of a general rising among the Jews." We must then ascertain when Adrian went to Egypt and Syria, to fix the date of the war. According to Pagi, the emperor visited those countries in A. D. 128, and he conjectures this from the number of medals cast by the cities of Syria and Egypt, at this period,

Hieron. in Daniel, cap. ix. p. 1074.

+ Hieron. in Chron. p. 166.

Ibid. p. 167.

§ Xiphil. p. 262.

in honour of Adrian.* There is much plausibility in this supposition, for the presence of the emperor would naturally excite the liberality of the people; but no certain inference can be drawn from such grounds. The fact that Adrian was at Rome the year following, makes somewhat against this supposition.

XIX. Phlegon, secretary to Adrian, has preserved a letter from his master to the consul Servian. The emperor gives him an account of the wonders of Egypt, and of the rebellious spirit of its inhabitants; and he sends him and his wife, Adrian's sister, some vases, which he requests may be used at their table. The date of the Jewish war may be more correctly ascertained by this letter than by the medals of the Syrian cities, for it must have been written while the emperor was in the East. Servian was his brother-in-law, and the letter is addressed to him as consul, which dignity he enjoyed under Adrian in A. D. 134. We may conclude, then, that the prince was in Syria or Egypt early in this year, and that his departure was the signal of the Jewish revolt shortly after. Another pagan historian, as quoted by Eusebius, informs us that the war was prosecuted with vigour at this date, and Bither, which had been fortified by the rebels, was taken the 10th of August, in the eighteenth year of Adrian.‡ Then the war broke out the year preceding, as at this date it was at its height, and drawing to a close. The emperor gave his own name to the city which he had built on the ruins of Jerusalem in A. D. 136, when he celebrated the twentieth year of his reign. Thence we conclude that the war began in a. D. 134, and ended two years after.

Buonarotti produces a medal cast by Adrian in the eighteenth year of his reign, on account of the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, and of a great victory obtained over the rebels.§ The evidence derived from this medal in our favour is opposed only by the writings of the Jews as quoted by St. Jerome, which inform us that the war lasted three years and a half. But it is evident that the Jews gave this duration to the war, that it might accord with their erroneous computation of the seventy weeks of Daniel. They were obliged to divide seven years between the wars of Vespasian and Adrian, and therefore they have allowed three years and a half to each, without troubling themselves to ascertain whether they were correct. They were evidently wrong when they made the interval between the captivity and the destruction of the temple but four hundred and ninety years.

XX. We would not conceal the fact, that a great author has maintained the war of Adrian in Judea to be a fabrication by Dion. He allows that Spartian has mentioned this war, occasioned by Adrian's forbidding the Jews to circumcise; but he says, besides, that the account of Spartian differs from that of Dion, as the former declares that nothing important resulted from these seditious movements; Spartian was an impostor who took the name of an ancient author to gain credit Critica, ad an. Christi, 132. Adriani, xvi.

+ Vopiscus in Saturn. p. 245.

↑ A. D. 134.

Buonarotti, Observations on some Medals of Adrian.