great inconsistency, to approve every thing in this paffage of the Greek hiftorian, although he hath not found fault with him. For how could Jofephus believe with Herodotus, that the people he enumerates, were alone of all men circumcifed, when he tells us, That the Arabians circumcife their children,' who are a different nation from any in his catalogue of them that practised that rite? Nay, how could he believe the very thing which Voltaire makes him to confefs, That circumcifion prevailed among the Egyptians before it obtained among the Jews, when he tells us, 'That God gave unto Abraham the command of circumcifion, because he was willing his pofterity should continue feparate, and diftinguished from others.' Surely he who fays this, shews his opinion that it was, at the time of its institution, peculiar to them, and unobferved by the reft of the world.

We will now try the author upon another point, whether his reprefentations of Jofephus are agreeable to truth. Says he, "The fame Jofephus acknowledges, that his nation, whofe credit he endeavours neverthelefs to enhance, had for a long time no commerce with other nations; that it was in particular un'known to the Greeks, who however were at the fame 'time acquainted with the Tartars and Scythians. Nor is it furprising,' fays he, meaning Jofephus, that a people fo far removed from the sea, and neglecting 'the cultivation of letters, fhould be fo little known.'

.

Antiq. 1. xii. 2.

Jofephus's words are, Antiq. 1. 10. 5. Прoσetage de (ö eos) βελόμενος το απ' αυτά γενος μένειν τοις άλλοις μη συμφυρόμενοι, που μετεμνεσθαι τα αιδοια,

But where does Jofephus give this account? I might insist he does not mention the Tartars at all, as a nation known to the Greeks, for he speaks of the Scythians and Thracians; but the Thracians will not be allowed by any, who are skilled in geography, to have poffeffed the fame tract of land with the Tartars: They are rather thought to have been settled about Conftantinople, and through that country where the Turks now live, as indeed Jofephus mentions their being known to the Greeks, on account of their neighbourhood, which fuits that opinion very well. But to pass this, Jofephus does indeed attribute their ignorance of his nation to these things, To • their want of a country upon the sea-coast, and to 'their neglect of trade, which things were chief 'causes of intercourse with strangers; for their towns 'were distant from the fea, and they were employ'ed in cultivating their good land. Above all, they were intent upon educating their children, and obferving their laws, and the religion delivered according to them, which they reckoned the most neceffary work of their whole lives.' He imputes it further, To their peculiarity of diet, and to their 'fathers not being addicted to war, through defire ' of more extensive territory, though their country ❝ abounded with many thousands of brave men:' and he fhews that other nations were also long unknown to them, for like reasons, as the Romans and Spaniards, &c. But he does not say that their ignorance of the Jews, proceeded from this people's omiffion to cultivate letters, as Voltaire alledges. So far is he from affigning this reason, that he contends the Py

6

See Jofephus's first book against Appion, p. 12.

thagoreans had taken fome of their leffons from them, and that divers ftates had imitated their cuftoms.

.

He goes on: • When the fame historian relates with his ufual exaggerations, the manner equally ❝ honourable as incredible, in which the king Ptolomy Philadelphus purchased a Greek translation of the Jewish books, done by Hebrew writers in the city of Alexandria; Jofephus, I fay, adds that Demetrius of Phalereus, who ordered this tranflation for his king's library, asked one of the * tranflators how it happened, that no hiftorian, no foreign poet, had ever fpoke of the Jewish books?" The tranflator replied, As these laws are all divine, f no one has dared to undertake speaking of them, and those who have thought proper to do it, have been chaftifed by heaven.' Now here again are two mistakes; for whereas Mr. Voltaire makes Demetrius afk the tranflators, Jofephus represents the king to have done it: and whereas he makes one of the translators reply, Jofephus tells us that Demetrius answered him. His words are, • Philadelphus rejoiced, feeing his fcheme ufefully finifhed; but especially he was pleased with the laws read to < him, and was aftonished at the wisdom and underftanding of the lawgiver; wherefore he began to hold a converfation with Demetrius, how, the legiflation being thus admirable, none of the histori ans or poets had mentioned it. But Demetrius replied, that none dared to touch the writing of these laws, because it was divine and venerable, and be 'cause fome were hurt by God who attempted it.f

See the fame book, Sect. 22. † See Antiq. 12. 2. 13.

Voltaire after this, cites the ftories about Theopompus and Theodectes, as related alfo by the fame tranflator, for he continues them all as a part of his reply to Demetrius, ere he fhut up the period which he had begun, with the requifite mark, The

opompus being inclined to infert fome part of it (the Jewish law) in his hiftory, loft his fenfes for thirty years; but being acquainted in a dream, that 6 he had become an ideot for wanting to penetrate into divine things, and to acquaint the prophane therewith; he appeased the wrath of God by prayer, and recovered his fenfes. Theodectes, a Grecian poet, having introduced fome paffages, which he had taken from our holy books, in a tragedy, became blind; and did not recover his fight, till ' after he had acknowledged his fault:' But neither were these stories, which to many seem incredible, told by one of the translators of the law unto Greek, or indeed by any Jew, according to Jofephus, but by Demetrius himself; fo that he must answer for them, as well as for the account to the king, of the cause why the historians and poets were filent about the legislation of the Jews, with which he introduced them.

So much for the misrepresentations of Jofephus in this chapter. Yet it may be proper to fubjoin, in confequence of the detection of falfhood here made, that the cenfure with which he finishes it is ill placed, These two stories of Jofephus,' fays he, which are unworthy of a place in history, or of being related by a man that has common sense, are in fact contradictory to the praises he bestows upon this f Greek tranflation of the Jewish books; for if it was a crime to infert any part of them in another lan

guage, it was a far greater crime doubtlefs to enable all the Greeks to understand them. Jofephus ' in relating these tales, at least agrees that the Greeks ' never had any knowledge of the writings of his nation.' But how does this follow? The ftories are Demetrius's, not Jofephus's, for they are only mentioned as a part of his reply to the Egyptian monarch, without any affirmation of their truth. And was it inconfiftent with fuch recital of them, to commend the tranflation of their facred books into the Greek language? Surely not. He might even, I think, have believed them himself, and averred their reality to the world, and have praised that work, without incurring any juft blame for felf-contradiction. For the inftances of divine vengeance were upon them, who mixed and blended paffages from their facred books, with prophane fables or relations, placing them on a level. Here, their holy volumes were exhibited pure and unalloyed. Still plainer it is, that in perfect confiftency with his infertion of thefe ftories of Demetrius, in fo indifferent a manner, he might suppose the Greeks to have had knowledge of their affairs, either by converfation with Jews, or by a version of their scriptures in whole or in part, into a language which they understood. But our defign was not to defend the truth of Jofephus's narrative, but only to convict Voltaire of† grofs mif

These remarks, upon this forty-ninth chapter of the Philofophy of History, were all, except the last, published in the Museum, so long ago as December 1765. Nor had I then any intention of taking any more notice of Mr. Voltaire, for I concluded them thus, ' I leave it to every unprejudiced perfon to judge, whether any confidence can be repofed in fuch an author's account of facts. It cannot be thought,

1