Sur le faux prophète égyptien, voy, SCHUERER, t. I p. 575. — 1 : κράτησας mss., JOSEPHE ; κρατήσαι A. — τυραννικῶς ADMT, τυραννεῖν Β, τυραννεῖ ΕR syr.; les mss. de Joséphe flottent entre τυραννεῖ, τυραννίδι, τυραννεῖν. — καὶ κρατῆσαι τῆς Ῥωμαικῆς φρουρᾶς καὶ τοῦ δήμου τυραννικῶς, χρώμενος, κ.τ.λ.. : SCHWARTZ, pour le texte de Joséphe. Nous traduisons comme s'il y avait κρατησιι. RUFIN : Peruenit cum ipsis ad montem qui uocatur Oliueti, paratus inde irruere Hiierusolyma et vi ac potestate urbem tenere simulque Romanorum praesidia ac plebem tyrannidi suae subiugare, fretus per omnia his quos secum eduxerat satellitibus. ↩

Jos. B. J. II. 13. 5. ↩

An Egyptian Jew; one of the numerous magicians and false prophets that arose during this century. He prophesied that Jerusalem, which had made itself a heathen city, would be destroyed by God, who would throw down the walls as he had the walls of Jericho, and then he and his followers, as the true Israel and the army of God, would gain the victory over the oppressors and rule the world. For this purpose he collected his followers upon the Mount of Olives, from whence they were to witness the falling of the walls and begin their attack. ↩

Josephus gives two different accounts of this event. In the B. J. he says that this Egyptian led thirty thousand men out of the desert to the Mount of Olives, but that Felix attacked them, and the Egyptian "escaped with a few," while most of his followers were either destroyed or captured. In Ant. XX. 8. 6, which was written later, he states that the Egyptian led a multitude "out from Jerusalem" to the Mount of Olives, and that when they were attacked by Felix, four hundred were slain and two hundred taken captive. There seems to be here a glaring contradiction, but we are able to reconcile the two accounts by supposing the Egyptian to have brought a large following of robbers from the desert, which was augmented by a great rabble from Jerusalem, until the number reached thirty thousand, and that when attacked the rabble dispersed, but that Felix slew or took captive the six hundred robbers, against whom his attack had been directed, while the Egyptian escaped with a small number (i.e. small in comparison with the thirty thousand), who may well have been the four thousand mentioned by the author of the Acts in the passage quoted below by Eusebius. It is no more difficult therefore to reconcile the Acts and Josephus in this case than to reconcile Josephus with himself, and we have no reason to assume a mistake upon the part of either one, though as already remarked, numbers are so treacherous in transcription that the difference may really have been originally less than it is. Whenever the main elements of two accounts are in substantial agreement, little stress can be laid upon a difference in figures. Cf. Tholuck, Glaubwürdigkeit, p. 169 (quoted by Hackett, Com. on Acts, p. 254). ↩

Acts xxi. 38. ↩

Valesius and Heinichen assert that Eusebius is incorrect in assigning this uproar, caused by the Egyptian, to the reign of Nero, as he seems to do. But their assertion is quite groundless, for Josephus in both of his accounts relates the uproar among events which he expressly assigns to Nero's reign, and there is no reason to suppose that the order of events given by him is incorrect. Valesius and Heinichen proceed on the erroneous assumption that Festus succeeded Felix in the second year of Nero, and that therefore, since Paul was two years in Caesarea before the recall of Felix, the uprising of the Egyptian, which was referred to at the time of Paul's arrest and just before he was carried to Caesarea, must have taken place before the end of the reign of Claudius. But it happens to be a fact that Felix was succeeded by Festus at the earliest not before the sixth year of Nero (see chap. 22, note 2, below). There is, therefore, no ground for accusing either Josephus or Eusebius of a blunder in the present case. ↩