JEWISH ANTIQUITIES. CHAPTER I. OF DAYS, HOURS, WEEKS, AND YEARS. THE Hebrews, in common with other nations, distinguished their days into natural, consisting of twenty-four hours; and artificial, that is, from sun-rise to sun-set. Concerning the natural day, it is inquired when it began and ended. Godwin conceives the ancient Jews had two different beginnings of the natural day; one of the sacred or festival day, which was in the evening; the other of the civil or working day, which was in the morning. That the sacred day began in the evening is certain from the following passage of Leviticus: "From even unto even shall ye celebrate your sabbaths," chap. xxiii. 32; and also from the following words in the book of Exodus: "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even;" chap. xii. 18. Nevertheless, the passage which our author alleges out of the evangelist Matthew, "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week," chap. xxviii. 1, does not so certainly prove, that the civil, natural day began in the morning. For "the first day of the week" may there be understood of the artificial day; as indeed the word Ewokovσn* seems to imply. In like manner, though we επιφωσκουση* begin the natural day at midnight, yet we speak of the day breaking or dawning a little before sun-rise. That the Jews began the day, not at evening, but at midnight, or in the morning, at the time of their migration out of Egypt, appears * See on this word Dr. Macknight's Commentary in loc. nary sanctity in them, if they had been more expensive and durable; whereas being raised just to serve a present exigence, and presently pulled down, or falling of themselves, they could not administer any temptation to superstition or idolatry. But to return: Though some places were called by the name of high places, which had never been polluted with heathen idolatry, and in which God was acceptably worshipped, nevertheless, all which had been actually so defiled the Israelites are commanded utterly to destroy; insomuch, that it is left upon record, as a stain and blemish upon the character of some of the more pious kings of Judah, that they did not destroy them, but suffered the people, who were very prone to idolatry, to sacrifice in them: which is the case of Asa, 1 Kings xv 14; Jehoshaphat, chap. xxii. 43; and several others. CHAPTER V. OF THE CITIES OF REFUGE. THE Latin word asylum, used for a sanctuary, or place of refuge, has so near an affinity with the Hebrew word bus eshel, a tree or grove, as to make it probable, that the sacred groves, which we spoke of in the last chapter, were the ancient places of refuge, and that the Romans derived the use of them from the eastern nations. So we find in Virgil, that the asyla were groves :* Hinc lucum ingentem quem Romulus acer asylum Æneid, viii. 1. 342. And God's altar appears to have been the asylum of the Jews, before the cities of refuge were appointed; Exod. xxi. 14. Some persons have imagined, that all the cities of the Levites, in number forty-two, were asyla. But that appears to be a mistake; for in the book of Numbers, chap. xxxv. 6, among the cities that were given to the Levites, only six are mentioned as appointed to be cities of refuge. These asyla were not only intended for Jews, but for Gentiles, or for strangers, who dwelt among them; ver. 15. They were not designed as sanctuaries for wilful murderers, Mr. Jones supposes, that the reason why these groves were considered as places of refuge, was the opinion which prevailed, that the demons, to whom they were dedicated, afforded their assistance to those who fled to them for protection. "Asylorum origo mihi deducenda videtur ex antiquorum erga mortuos reverentia, et opinione eorum potentiæ opem ferendi supplicibus. Illi, qui à potentioribus metuebant, ad sepulcra virorum eximiorum confugiebant." Vid. Senecam in Troad. act iii. Ita Plutarchus Thesei sepulcrum fuisse asylum dicit in vitâ Thesei, sub fin. He observes, that God never appointed his altar for an asylum; nevertheless, it was so considered before the giving of the law in Exodus concerning the cities of refuge. On which account he imagines, that the origin of asyla was not a divine institution, but that God, by his appointment of cities of refuge, perhaps intended to check and restrain the superstitious and idolatrous use of groves and altars for this purpose. Annot. MS. in Godwini Mos. et Aaron. |