¹ See below, p. 374.

² In the brief account of Jonathan's times in the War (Bell. Jud. i. 2, 1) there is no corresponding mention of these parties or sects.

³ See especially Ant. xviii. 1, 5, §18: Ἐσσηνοῖς δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν θεῷ καταλείπειν ϕιλεῖ τὰ πάντα ó λóγος.

⁴ Ant. xiii. 10, 5 ff.

⁵ Again with a reference to Bell. Jud. ii.

⁶ Ant. xvii. 13, 5; xviii. 1, 1 and 6.

⁷ With powers, including that of capital punishment, not ordinarily conferred on procurators.

⁸ Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 1; ii. 17, 8; Ant. xx. 5, 2.

⁹ Ant. xviii. 1, 1.

¹⁰ Ant. xviii. 1, 1.

¹¹ Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 1.

¹² Ant. xviii. 1, 1; xviii. 1, 6.

¹³ It is common to find a name for the adherents of the “Fourth Philosophy” in the “Zealots,” who play such an active part in Josephus' account of the siege of Jerusalem. It should be observed, however, that Josephus makes no such identification, either where he is recounting all the evils which sprang from the new philosophy of Judas Galilaeus (Ant. xviii. 1, 1), or where he is relating the doings of the Zealots in Jerusalem (Bell. Jud. iv. 3 ff.). The name first occurs in Bell. Jud. iv. 3, 9, as that which the faction gave themselves, ώς ἐπ’ ἀγαθοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν, not (as in reality) ζηλώσαντεϛ τ κκιστα — Josephus calls them ‘robbers.’ The typical zealots of the Old Testament history in Jewish apprehension were Phineas (Num. 25) and Elijah, and in taking this name to themselves the Zealots probably had these examples in mind. Simon the Zealot among the apostles of Jesus (Luke 6, 15; Acts 1, 13), for which Matthew and Mark in their lists have δ Καναναῖος, there is no occasion to discuss here.

¹⁴ A son of this Judas, named Menahem, was active in the beginning of the insurrection under Gessius Florus (Bell. Jud. ii. 17, 8—10); two other sons were crucified by Tiberius Alexander (Ant. xx. 5, 2).

¹⁵ Above, p. 373. See Mark 12, 13–17 and parallels.

¹⁶ Vita, c. 2.

¹⁷ Here comes a sentence on the Pharisees’ doctrine of a future life: “Every soul is imperishable (ἄϕθαρτον), but only the soul of the good passes into another body, while that of the bad is punished with eternal torment.”

¹⁸ ‘Evil’ is probably here to be taken in the sense of ‘harmful.’

¹⁹ Here follows the Sadducean doctrine of the hereafter: “They deny the lasting existence of the soul and the punishments and rewards in Hades.” The friendly concord of the Pharisees among themselves is contrasted with the rudeness of the Sadducees.

²⁰ In these points an affinity with the Stoics is perhaps intimated; note particularly the hegemony of reason (λóγος). See Josephus, Vita, c. 2 (end).

²¹ Κρᾶσιν, Niese κρίσιν; cf. (earlier in the paragraph) ὧν τε ὁ λóγος κρίνας παρέδωκεν ἀγαθῶν ἕπονται τῇ ἠγεμονίᾳ.

²² Something like this seems to be meant. The manuscripts offer τῷ θελήσαντι, τòἐθέλησαν. Niese conjectures τῷ θελήσοντι.

²³ Πράσσεσθαί τε εἱμαρμένῃ τὰ πάντα ἀξιοῦντες οὐδὲ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τò βουλóμενον τῆςἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἀϕαιροῦνται δοκῆσαν τῷ θεῷ κρίσιν γενέσθαι καὶ τῷ ἐκείνης βουλευτηρίῳ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῷ ἐθελἠσαντι προσχωρεῖν μετ' ἀρετῆς ῆ κακίας (Niese's text). If the sense is rightly interpreted above, the Pharisees made the moral quality of men's actions depend on their assent to the impulse; by this they became responsible. We should then have something like the theory of kasb (‘appropriation’) by which some Moslem theologians thought that they reconciled not only foreordination, but the immediate divine causation (‘creation’), of every act of man with the freedom of the will, or, in their way of putting it, with man's ability to produce acts. We might then imagine that the Pharisees were thinking of the ‘evil impulse’ within (ערה רצי), man's assent to which makes the evil deed his own. But we may well hesitate to draw such large inferences from the text which lies before us.

²⁴ Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 11; Ant. xviii. 1, 5 (Essenes); B. J. ii. 8, 14; Ant. xviii. 1, 3 (Pharisees); B. J. ii. 8, 14; Ant. xviii. 1, 4 (Sadducees).

²⁵ On Heimarmene, iv. 4, 6, § 297; vi. 1, 8, § 84; vi. 2, 1 § 108; vi. 4, 8, § 267 f.

²⁶ Cf. ταύτην ἔθετο τὴν ψῆϕον ὁ θεóς, Bell. Jud. vii. 8, 7, § 359; καταπαύσεως ἀρχῆς ὑπò θεοῦ ἐψηϕισμένης, Ant. xvii. 2, 4.

²⁷ In the apologetic pamphlet Contra Apionem (ii. 34, § 250) Josephus, satirizing the Greek gods, tells of Zeus κρατοὺμενος ὐπò τῆς εἱμαρμένης.

²⁸ What we call ‘the laws of heredity,’ which play so large a part in modern fatalism, did not enter into their consideration.

²⁹ Seneca, Nat. Quaest. ii. 45. He continues: Vis ilium fatum vocare, non errabis. Hic est, ex quo suspensa sunt omnia, causa causarum. Vis illum providentiam dicere, recte dices. Est enim, cuius consilio huic mundo providetur, ut inoffensus exeat et actus suos explicet. Vis illum naturam vocare, non peccabis. Hic est ex quo nata sunt omnia, cuius spiritu vivimus. Vis illum vocare mundum, non falleris. Ipse enim est hoc quod vides totum, partibus suis inditus, et se sustinens et sua. Cf. Nat. Quaest. ii. 36; De Benef. iv. 7, 1 f.; 8, 3; Epist. 19, 6, etc.

³⁰ Gellius gives, ostensibly from memory, Chrysippus’ own words in the fourth book of his Περὶ Προνcίας: εὶμαρμένην esse dicit ϕυσικήν τινα σύνταξιν τῶν ὅλων ἐξ ἀϊδίου τῶν ἑτέρων τοῖς ἑτέροις ἐπακολουθοὺντων καὶ μεταπολουμένων, ἀπαραβάτου oὔσης τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπιπλοκῆς.

³¹ On this use of veritas (ἀλήθεια) as equivalent to αἰτσία, ϕύσις, ἀνάγκη, etc., see Stobaeus, Eclog. i. 79, 1 (ed. Wachsmuth); v. Arnim, No. 913. If we had to translate it in modern terms, we should probably say ‘reality.’

³² See Stoic. Vet. Frag., No. 176.

³³ The arguments of Carneades, Epicurus, and (within the Stoic school) Diodorus of Tarsus against Chrysippus are summarized in Cicero's De Fato. Epicurus saw no way to escape admitting Fate (and necessity) except by denying the logical principle of the excluded middle, and physically by the ‘swerve’ of the atoms for which no cause could be assigned. That the initial oblique swerve of the atoms was very small does not remove the difficulty.

³⁴ Cf. Josephus, Ant. xiii. 5, 9; Cicero, De Fato, c. 19, § 45.

³⁵ Cicero, De Fato, c. 18, § 41; cf. Aul. Gellius, vii. 2, 6 ff. According to the latter, Chrysippus held, “Quamquam ita sit, ut ratione quadam necessaria et principali coacta et connexa sit fato omnia, ingenia tamen ipsa mentium nostrarum proinde sunt fato obnoxia, ut proprietas eorum est ipsa et qualitas.” Note the following development of the last clause.

³⁶ ‘Adpetitus’ is here put for ὁρμή in the technical sense.

³⁷ See Cicero, De Fato, cc. 18, 19.

³⁸ De Fato, c. 19, § 45.

³⁹ The importance to our happiness of thus distinguishing what is in our power (ἐϕ' ἡμῖν) and what is not will be familiar to all readers of Marcus Aurelius.

⁴⁰ This difficulty appears in the recent Hebrew translation of the War from the Greek by Shemchuni. He can do no better than render εἱμαρμένη by הרזנ, ‘decree’ (of God), putting the Greek word in a note and explaining it by החנשה, which is modern Hebrew for ‘providence.’

⁴¹ Above, p. 371.

⁴² Above, p. 374.

⁴³ G. F. Moore, Judaism, II, p. 67. See also I, pp. 454–456.

⁴⁴ Technical Stoic term.

⁴⁵ Cf. Matt. 10, 29.

⁴⁶ See Judaism, I, pp. 453–456.

⁴⁷ Niddah 16b.

⁴⁸ The passage is one of the additions in the Mantua edition; it is not in the preceding editions nor in the manuscripts on which Buber's edition is based. See Buber's Introduction, 86a, n. 3. It is interesting on other accounts, the microcosm-macrocosm, the analogies between embryology and cosmogony, and the seven ages of man (not the scheme familiar to us).

⁴⁹ When the ‘preëxistence of souls’ in the Wisdom of Soloman is discussed, it would be advisable to take the possibilities of Jewish midrash into account as well as Greek philosophy. The connection with Prov. 4, 3 should not be overlooked.

⁵⁰ The intervening sentence seems in another version to have been the end of the story.

⁵¹ A very good illustration of this art is the use made of Job 9, 10.

⁵² Above, p. 380.

⁵³ Above, p. 374.

⁵⁴ For his own account of his Greek, see Ant. xx. 11, 2.

⁵⁵ Above, p. 371.

⁵⁶ Nicolaus was not unacquainted with other characteristics of the Pharisees as a party; but apparently did not regard them as of philosophical interest.

⁵⁷ Tha phraseology throughout and in all three passages gives evidence of familiarity with Stoic terminology; and in other respects of accommodation to Greek con ceptions. When the soul of the good is said μεταβαίνειν εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα (B. J. ii. 8, 14), the Pharisees’ doctrine of the revivication of the dead (in the same body), for which no intelligible Greek expression could be found, is transformed into a μετενσωμάτωσις (transmigration). Cf. also Ant. xviii. 1, 3 (ῥᾳστώνην τοῦ ἀναβιοῦν), which a Greek would probably have understood in the same way.

⁵⁸ In the laws, also ‘mathematici’ (‘calculators’).

⁵⁹ Cicero, De divinatione, ii. 42, § 88.

⁶⁰ Cf. also Ephesians 6, 12.

⁶¹ The difficulties which this verse presents do not affect the certainty of the reference to astrology, which was recognized by the Greek translators.

⁶² Berakot 32b.

⁶³ Each hour of each day having its presiding planet; see Dio Cassius xxxvii. 19; and Boll, art. ‘Hebdomas,’ in Real-Encyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, VII, 2547 ff., esp. 2560 f.

⁶⁴ Phrases outlive ideas. When a Jew to-day politely salutes another with בוט לזמ, he wishes him good health or success, with no reminiscence of the original astrological significance.

⁶⁵ חונינגםציא. The word is unknown, but that astrological divination is intended is clear; compare the references to Pharaoh's astrologers. On Abraham's astrological attainments and God's disapproval of the art see Ginzberg's “Legends of the Jews,” V, p. 227, no. 108, especially Gen. R. 44, 10–12.

⁶⁶ קדצ ‘righteousness’; as a proper name, the planet Jupiter.

⁶⁷ Above, p. 380.

⁶⁸ Quis rerum divinarum heres, c. 60 (ed. Mangey I, 516).

⁶⁹ 1 Kings 22, 38 transfers the washing of the chariot and thus the fulfilment of Elijah's prophecy to the city of Samaria, where Ahab was buried. The origin of this confusion is here irrelevant.

⁷⁰ Chrysippus is reported to have drawn the same inference from the examples of Oedipus and Alexander son of Priam. Laios and Priam had been fully and explicitly warned by oracle; they tried to frustrate the prediction by exposing the infants, but in vain. “Thus the prediction of the evils was of no profit even to them, on account of the necessity there is in Fate” (διὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς εἱμαρμένης αἰτίαν); v. Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 939 (I, pp. 270 f.).