Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

then, Voltaire had no good cause to say, that Jofephus did not include the book of Job among the writings of the Hebrew canon.

SECTION VII.

Of his concluding, in chapter forty-ninth, that the Jews did not call Jacob, Ifrael, nor themselves Ifraelites, till they were flaves in Chaldaea, from a paffage of Philo.-And of his faying, That Jofephus owns the practice of circumcifion was learned from the Egyptians, agreeably to the testimony of Herodotus.-That he ascribes their being unknown by the Greeks, to their omiffion to cultivate letters.-That he makes the tranflators of the law into Greek, tell fome ftories to Philadelphus, which he does not.-And of his wrong inference from these stories.

I

ONLY further accufe him of injuries to Jofe

phus in another chapter of this treatife. It is in the forty-ninth, where he difcuffes this queftion, "Whether the Jews were instructed by other nations, ' or other nations by the Jews.' Here I find him guilty of fuch a number of mifreprefentations, as perhaps can scarce be paralelled in fo few fentences.

[ocr errors]

As it is my profeffed intention to fhew that Mr. Voltaire gives falfe accounts of Jofephus, I might omit animadverting upon his first paragraph; where, from Philo's telling us, That Ifrael is a Chaldaean word, that it was a name the Chaldaeans gave to the juft who were confecrated to God; that Ifrael fignified, feeing God;' he concludes, That this a

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

lone seems to prove, that the Jews did not call Jacob, Ifrael; that they did not take upon themselves the name of Ifraelites, till fuch time as they had * fome knowledge of this Chaldaean tongue, which could not be but when they were flaves in Chaldaea.' And the rather that here indeed I cannot blame him for wrong quotation. Nevertheless I cannot forbear obferving, that there is in it very false reasoning. For Mofes reprefents, not the Hebrews, as Mr. Voltaire supposes, but God himself, whose knowledge of all languages will not be difputed, to have bestowed the name of Ifrael upon their great progenitor, which again gave rife to the nation's being called Ifraelites. He also makes God to have fubjoined at the fame time, a very different interpretation of it from that by this dreaming allegorist, and an interpretation which hath its foundation in an Hebrew etymology. Nay Philo himself, in his treatise concerning drunkennefs, fets forth God altering Jacob's name into Ifrael, and produces the ve

Thus Mofes acquaints us, that the perfon who wrestled with Jacob in human form, faid unto him, Thy name fhall no more be cal'led Jacob, but Ifrael; for as a prince haft thou power with God ⚫ and with men, and haft prevailed.' Gen. xxxii. 28. Wherefore Ifrael must be derived from the Hebrew words, U dominari, principem effe, et Deus. How ftrange is it then that Philo's explication of it should have been adopted by fo many fathers in the Christian church, as Origen, Eufebius, Didymus of Alexandria, and even Jerome in one place! though indeed he argues against it in another, at confiderable length, as violent and unnatural; it being neceffary for de- fence of it to suppose that it is an abridgment of three Hebrew words, with the alteration of fome of their letters, and the fuppreffion of others. Compare his Treatife de Nominibus Hebraicis, Bened. edit. tom. 2. P. 536, and his Commentary upon the paffage in Genefis

ry words of Scripture, quoted below, concerning the cause of that change, according to which it must have happened many hundred years before the captivity by Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans; tho' there likewise he proposes his own idle fancies about its fignification. When God was about (fays he) to make him fee those things which he had before heard, for the fight is more faithful than the ears, the oracle founded, His name fhall not be called Jacob, but Ifrael fhall be thy name, because thou ' haft prevailed powerfully with God and with man. Jacob then is a name of learning and proficiency, depending upon the powers of hearing, but Ifrael of perfection, for the name denotes the fight of 'God.' And agreeably he introduces Mofes calling his people in his time, by the name of the children of Ifrael: *For it is rightly faid, the children of If

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

rael groaned on account of their labours.' Since then God was the author of the name of Ifrael, both according to Mofes and Philo, were the unacquaintedness of the Hebrews, who however had their original from Ur of the Chaldees, as great as Mr. Voltaire supposes, till they were carried into that country by their enemies, his inference from the paffage of Philo, in the beginning of his History of his Misibid. p. 215. The fame glofs is also to be found in the Apoftolic Conftitutions, lib. 7. cap. 37. and lib. 8. cap. 15. But when Daille brings this as an evidence, that these Constitutions were a later production than the third century, as he does in his Book de Pfeudepigraphis Apoftolicis, lib. 1. p. 188. edit. Harderovici, 1683; saying, Their authors must have borrowed it from the fathers in that age of the church, he must certainly have forgot that Philo taught the explication long before.

• See Philo, p. 333. and compare Exod. ii. 23, 24.

fion to Caligula, muft fall to the ground. I give now a literal tranflation of it, that every reader may judge how far it will bear his fuperftructure upon it: That fort of men,' (he is speaking of the fupplicant or devotional kind, to iXETIKOV yeros) is called indeed in the Chaldaean tongue, Ifrael; but, the name being interpreted into the Greek language, seeing God.'

But let us now confider his grofs mifreprefentations of Jofephus here, which must be ftill more inexcufable than his falfe reasoning, Flavian Jofephus, fays he, in his reply to Appion, Lyfimachus, and Molon, plainly acknowledges, that the Egyptians taught other nations circumcifion, as Herodotus teftifies.' But does Jofephus confefs, that the practice of circumcifion was learned by the Jews from the Egyptians, which is evidently Voltaire's meaning, fince otherwife he acknowledges nothing to his purpose? I think he does it not, either in exprefs terms, or by juft deduction. Let us examine the paffage. To confute Appion's charge, that the Jews were an upftart race, he obferves, * Neither

was Herodotus the Halicarnaflian, ignorant of our ⚫ nation, but appears to have mentioned it after fome 'fashion; for writing about the Colchians in his fe

cond book, he says, "The Colchians, and Egypti"ans, and Ethiopians, do alone of all men practise "circumcifion from the beginning: for the Phoeni"cians and Syrians in Palestine, confefs they learned "it from the Egyptians; but the Syrians about Ther" modon, and the river Parthenius, and their neigh"bours the Macrones, fay they learned it lately from "the Colchians: and these are they who only of all

See Book I. against Appion, Sect. 22. Hudfon's edit,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"men are circumcifed; and they feem to do fo in "the fame manner with the Egyptians. But I can. not tell as to the Egyptians or Ethiopians, which "of them learned it from one another." Thus far Jofephus quotes Herodotus, then follows his own reflection. He (meaning Herodotus) hath faid therefore, that the Syrians in Palestine are circumcifed; but the Jews only, of them that inhabit Palestine, are circumcifed: he therefore hath mentioned this, 'knowing about them.' Now is there here any plain acknowledgment by Jofephus, that the Jews learned circumcifion from the Egyptians? Herodotus indeed, according to him, relates that they confeffed it; but he himself does not in terms own the truth of that account. Nor can it be argued from his filence, that he thought it juft: for that he makes no objection to Herodotus's affertion, that they confeffed they derived the custom from the Egyptians, can never be a proof that he believed it had its rife from them, when he only produced the paffage against Appion, who had not reproached the Jews with having borrowed that ceremony from the Egyptians, but merely denied that the Greeks had any knowledge of them. Every one must perceive, it was enough against his adverfary, to fhew that Herodotus had mentioned a practice prevalent among the Jewish nation; nor had he any business to difcufs whether he gave a right or wrong account of its introduction, as there was no controversy between them upon that point. There are even strong reafons against putting fuch a conftruction upon Jofephus's omitting to contradict Herodotus about the original of circumcifion among the Jews; because he cannot be fuppofed, without

« ForrigeFortsæt »