Page images
PDF
EPUB

that of Lucan, a contemporary of St. Peter, who fays, at the beginning of his Pharfalia,

Cumque fuperba foret Babylon fpolianda trophæis
Aufoniis, umbraque erraret Craffus inulta.

Here Lucan undoubtedly meant Seleucia on the Tigris, where the Parthian general Surena had held his triumph over Craffus: and it is felf-evident, that the Roman eagles and trophies were hung up by the Parthians either at Seleucia or Ctefiphon, not in the ancient and forfaken Babylon, which the Parthians totally neglected. Laftly, in the Septuagint verfion, the Hebrew word,

, which denotes Ctesiphon, is rendered Xaham, Ifaiah x. 9. with the following addition, not found in the Hebrew, i wueyos wxodoμnon. Now this interpolation, though probably not made by the Greek tranflator himself, fhews at leaft, that in the time of the interpolátor the ancient Babylon began already to be confounded with Ctesiphon and Seleucia.

Since then the name of Babylon was actually given to Seleucia, it is not impoffible, that St. Peter thus understood the word Babylon, and that his first Epistle therefore was written at Seleúcia on the Tigris. But I have fhewn in the preceding part of this fection, that there is likewife a poffibility of its having been written in Babylon, properly fo called, or in the ancient Babylon on the Euphrates. The queftion therefore is, which of thefe two fenfes fhall we afcribe to the word Babylon? for one of thefe two we muft afcribe to it, unless we give it, without any reafon, a myftical interpretation. In the two laft editions of this Introduction, I preferred the former fenfe: but after a more mature confideration I think it much more probable at prefent, that St. Peter meant the ancient Babylon. It is true, that Lucan, Sidonius Apollinaris, and Stephanus Byzantinus gave the name of Babylon to Seleucia. But the two laft of thefe writers lived fo late as the fifth century,

and

and therefore their authority is perhaps not fufficient to prove, that Seleucia was called Babylon in the first century. Lucan indeed was a contemporary of St. Peter but then he ufes this word in an epic poem, in which a writer is not bound by the fame rules, as in profe and it is not improbable, that he felected the word Babylon, partly becaufe its celebrity added to the pomp of his diction, and partly becaufe neither Ctefiphon nor Seleucia would have fuited the verfe. The writer of an Epiftle, on the contrary, can allow himself no fuch latitude, and perfpicuity requires, that in the date of his Epiftle, he should use no other name for the town, where he writes, than that which properly belongs to it. If therefore St. Peter had really written at Seleucia, he would hardly have called this city by the name of Babylon, though this name was fometimes applied to it. Confequently, it is moft probable, that St. Peter wrote his firft Epiftle in the ancient Babylon on the Euphrates'.

Before I conclude this fection I must take notice of a paffage in Jofephus, which not only confutes all notions of a fpiritual or myftical Babylon, but throws a great light on the whole of our prefent inquiry. And: this paffage is of fo much the more importance, because Jofephus was an hiftorian, who lived in the fame age with St. Peter, and the paffage itfelf relates to an event, which took place thirty-fix years before the Christian era, namely, the delivery of Hyrcanus, the Jewish high prieft, from imprisonment, by order of Phraates, king of Parthia, with permiffion to refide in Babylon, where there was a confiderable number of Jews. This is recorded by Jofephus, Antiquit. XV. 2. 2. in the following

On the fuppofition, that the ancient Babylon did not exist when St. Peter wrote, it has been conjectured, that he meant, not the city, but the province of Babylon. But fince the fuppofition is ungrounded, there is no neceflity for having recourfe to this conjecture, which is very improbable, becaute, if St. Peter had meant the province, and not the city, he would not have written ev Babuλwvi, but Η Βαβυλωνία.

following words, Δια τετο δεσμων μεν αφήκεν, εν Βαβυλώνε δε καταγίσθαι παρείχεν, ενθα και πληθος ην Ιεδαίων. Jofephus then adds, that both the Jews in Babylon, and all, who dwelt in that country as far as the Euphrates refpected Hyrcanus, as high prieft, and king. Now the word Babylon in this paffage of Jofephus, evidently means a city in the eaft, and it cannot poffibly be interpreted in a myftical manner either of Jerufalem or of Rome, The only queftion is, whether he meant the ancient Babylon on the Euphrates, or Seleucia on the Tigris, The former is the most obvious interpretation, and it is warranted by the circumftance, that in other places, where Jofephus fpeaks of Seleucia on the Tigris, he calls it by its real and proper name, Seleucia".

1

SECT. V.

Confutation of the arguments alleged in favour of a mystical interpretation of the word Babylon.

HE first argument in favour of a mystical, and

Tagainst a literal, interpretation of the word Babylon,

is, that in the whole country of Babylonia there were no Jews in the time of St. Peter: and thence it is inferred, that he could not have gone to preach the Gofpel there. Now in this argument both the premifes and the inference are falle. The inference is

falfe,

m Mixers Eupeare. This expreffion does not imply, that the Babylon, of which Jofephus fpeaks, did not lie on the Euphrates. He writes here, in reference rather to the fituation of the Parthian empire, than to the fituation of Judæa.

For instance, Antiquit. Lib. XVIII. C. 2. § 4. C. 9. § 8, 9

• This is afferted by Pearfon in his Opera pofthuma.

[ocr errors]

false, because, even if there had been no Jews in the whole country of Babylonia, St. Peter might have gone to preach the Gofpel there: for he preached to the uncircumcised at Cæfarea, and he himfelf declared, that it was ordained by God, that the Gentiles by his mouth fhould hear the word of the Gofpel, and be lieve. The premises themselves likewife are totally ungrounded for, if we except Palestine, there was no country in the world, where the Jews were fo numerous and fo powerful, as in the province of Babylonia, in which they had their two celebrated feats of learning, Nehardea and Sura.

It is true, that Jofephus mentions a cruel maffacre of the Jews in Seleucia, which happened about forty years after the birth of Chrift: but whoever attentively reads the whole relation of Jofephus muft perceive, that this maffacre by no means extirpated the Jews of that country, and that the effect, which it had in the province of Babylonia, was rather an augmentation than a diminution of their number. This relation is given in the last chapter of the eighteenth book of his Antiquities and the following is an extract from it.

It was the custom of the Jews, who lived in the east, to deposit their half fhekel, and other offerings deftined for the temple, in the fortified cities of Nifibis, and Nehardea, whence they were annually tranfported to Jerufalem, under a fafe convoy, on account of the bands of robbers, which infested the country. In the latter of these two cities, which, from its fituation on the Euphrates, was almoft impregnable, Afinæus and Anilæus, two Jews, who were brothers, and had been ill treated by their heathen mafters, put themfelves at the head of a gang of robbers, and by degrees made themselves masters of the place. In this fituation they continued, fubject indeed to the kings of Parthia, but very troublesome to their neighbours: till at laft they were defeated in a war, which they had undertaken against the Parthian governor of an ancient diftrict.

[blocks in formation]

From

From this time Anilæus had again recourfe to robbery, and infefted with his depredations the province of Babylonia. Upon this, the Babylonians demanded of the Jews in Nehardea, that Anilæus fhould be delivered up to them which the Nehardeans refufing, the Babylonians attacked Anilæus in his camp', defeated and killed him. The Jews being now the weaker party were expofed to numerous inconveniences: and ac cordingly they, who lived in the neighbourhood of Nehardea, retired to Seleucia, where they remained five years in fecurity. Their numbers being now very confiderable in Seleucia, they began to be very troublefome and having interfered in a dispute between the Syrian and Greek inhabitants of the place, they were attacked by both parties, and a maffacre enfued, in which fifty thousand Jews loft their lives. This maffacre, according to the relation of Jofephus, must have happened a fhort time before the death of Caligula,w that is, about the year 40 of the Chriftian era, and not long before the events recorded in the twelfth chapter of the Acts of the Apoftles. They, who efcaped, retreated to Ctefiphon, which was feparated* from Seleucia by the Tigris; but not finding themselves fafe even here, they fled, though it is uncertain in what year, to Nifibis and Nehardea, where the ftrength of these cities, and the bravery of the inhabitants, afforded them that protection, which they could not obtain elsewhere. Hence it appears, that Nehardea conftantly remained in the poffeffion of the Jews: and, as only, an part of thefe had retired out of Babylonia to Seleucia, on the death of Anilæus, fo it is probable, that after ~

a

the

It must be particularly noted, that this happened in the camp of Anilæus, not in the town of Nehardea.

The Jews, who lived in the town, did not leave it, for it appears from the fequel, that Nehardea ftill remained in their poffeffion, Nor did all the Jews, who lived in the neighbouring district, go away for Jofephus relates, that between five and fix years afterwards another colony of Jews retreated out of Babylonia to Seleucia on → account of the plague.

7

« PreviousContinue »