Burial, and Comparison between him and the fucceeding Prophets in Ifrael, together with the other allow'd interpolated Paffages, which are to be found in the Vulgar Hebrew and Septuagint Pentateuch; which interpolated Paffages, are ufually (upon Tradition or Conjecture) attributed to ESDRAS, who, on his Return from the Babylonish Captivity, is fuppofed to have publish'd the Old Teftament, or a great Part of it, corrected and enlarged? And if it has them; how can that Pentateuch be derived from a Copy extant feveral hundred Years before the Time of ESDRAS? Must it not be from a Copy made long after the Separation of the ten Tribes, even long after the firft Return from the Babylonifh Captivity? All the Paffages, fays SIMON, (k) which I have produced to prove, that Moses was not wholly the Author of the Pentateuch, as we now have it, are exactly the fame in the Samaritan Pentateuch; and therefore we cannot fay, that the Samaritans have kept a Copy of the Original, as it was before the Captivity of the Jews. 4. I obferve also, that there is a great Agreement in Chronology after the Deluge, between the Samaritan and Septuagint Pentateuchs, wherein they both differ from the original Hebrew about feven hundred Years; which Chronology (1) may be justly deem'd invented and forged and inferted into the Septuagint, in (k) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Test. p. 66. (7) Ib. p. 68. 207. Lightfoot's Works, Vol. 2. P. 701. order order to render the Books of the Jews more credible to the Heathens, and from thence, like other Particulars, added to the Samaritan Pentateuch. And This the Jews of Jerufalem, Alexandria, and other Places, and the Samaritans, might all probably concur to practise as a pious Fraud, like the Miffionaries of our Days to CHINA; who, tho' they may think the Septuagint Chronology falfe, yet ufe that Chronology (in Oppofition to their Bible) the better to prepare the Chinese for the Reception of the Gofpel; for which wife Conduct the Miffionaries are much (m) commended. Il fera toujours permis aux Millionaires de la Chine de fe fervir de la Chronologie des 70 toute fauffe qu'elle eft, dans les Entretiens qu'ils ont avec les Chinois. Cette fage Oeconomie, dont le fefuites qui prechent l'Evangile en ce Pais la feavent fi bien fe fervir, & avec tant de Fruit, n'a jamais ete defendue. Les Peres & mefme les Apoftres (n) l'ont mise en pratique, fans nuire a la Verite de la Religion Chretienne, comme le Pere PETAU l'a demontre par plufieurs Exemples, dans la judicieuse Preface qu'il a mife a la Tete du fecond Tome de fes Dogmes theologiques. Mr. W. in a former (0) Work makes it one of his Poftulata or Axioms, that the Hebrew Text of the Old Teftament, being the Original itself, is reasonably to be allowed our most authentick (m) Simon Bibl. Crit. Vol. 2. p. 472. mus in Acta Apoft. c. 17. v. 23. (0) Whilton's bort View of the Chron. p. 2. 3. (n) See Eraf Guide Guide in the CHRONOLOGY of the Old Teftament, and not the Septuagint Tranflation; and by Confequence not the Samaritan Pentateuch. Which Paffage I urge to Mr. W. no farther than the Reafon imply'd in it will bear. For I am fenfible Mr. W. has much (p) changed his Thoughts in Refpect to the Chronology of the Hebrew and Samaritan Text; the first whereof he now thinks falfe, notwithstanding he formerly thought it fo evidently true as to lay it down for an Axiom to be granted him without Contest, and the latter true. Nor do I in the leaft blame him for fo doing; who has a Right to follow his Judgment, in all Matters, where-ever it leads him; but, perhaps, he may need to be told, that it very much becomes him, to bear with the Differences of others from him; who by his own great Change of Opinion, and by the Difficulties, wherewith he fees himself encompafs'd, fhould naturally think most of the theological Subjects he treats of to be of the utmoft Uncertainty, and, bating their Curiofity, to be in themselves of no Manner of Importance to the World. 5. To derogate yet farther from the Authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch, I obferve with the learned PRIDEAUX, that tho' that Pentateuch be faid to be written in the Old Hebrew (or Phænician, or Canaanitish) Character, and fo may seem to have fome Advantage over the Vulgar Hebrew Pentateuch, (P) Whiston's Essay, to restore, &c. p. 214. which is written in the Chaldee Character, yet is that Pentateuch, according to him, but a Tranfcript from the Vulgar Hebrew out of the Chaldean into the old Hebrew Character. For, (q) fays he, first, it has all the Interpolations, that ESDRAS's Copy (That is, the Vulgar Hebrew) hath; whereas had it been antienter than ESDRAS's Copy, it must have been without them. Secondly, there are a great many Variations in that Copy, which are manifeftly caufed by the Miftake of the fimilar Letters in the Hebrew Alphabet; which Letters having no Similitude in the Samaritan Character, This evidently proves thofe Variations in the Samaritan Copy were made in tranfcribing That from the Vulgar Hebrew, and not in tranfcribing the Vulgar Hebrew from the Samaritan. From whence it feems paft Doubt, that the Pentateuch, fuch as it now is, was not in being among the Samaritans till after the Compilation of the Vulgar Hebrew Pentateuch by EsDRAS, and Tranfcript of it into Chaldean Characters. How long after I pretend not to determine. Dr. PRIDEAUX (r) supposes, or conjectures, that MANASSEH, when he fled to the Samaritans with other Apoftate Jews and fettled in Samaria, firft brought the Law of MoSES among them; which was not long after the fuppofed Compilation of ESDRAS, and was about four hundred Years before CHRIST. (g) Prideaux's Connection, V. 1. p. 416. See also Simon H. C. du V. T. p. 66. 67. (r) Prideaux, Ib. p. 416, 417. I fhould I should fuppofe they had their present Pentateuch, first, among them, much later. For about an hundred and fixty Years before. CHRIST they seem to me to have had as little Occafion for the Law of MoSES, as the mere Cuthean-Samaritans (s) had from the Time of their Establishment till long after the Return of the Jerufalem Jews from the Babylonish Captivity; during all which Time they (t) ferved their own Heathen Gods. For fo lately, as an hundred and fixty Years before CHRIST, they (u) petition'd ANTIOCHUS King of Syria, to whom then all Judea was tributary, that their Temple on Gerizim, which had been dedicated to no efpecial Deity might thenceforth be made the Temple of the GRECIAN JUPITER, and be fo called for the future; and ANTIOCHUS gratified their Requeft, and caufed their Temple to be confecrated to the GRECIAN JUPITER, by the Name of JUPITER THE PROTECTOR OF STRANGERS; which additional Title, they themselves also defired, that it might thereby be express'd that they were Strangers in that Land, and not of the Race of Ifrael. Mr. W. labours (w) to prove, that ESDRAS was not the Tranfcriber of the Old Testament out of the Old Hebrew into the Chaldee Cha racter; as is afferted by PRIDEAUX and others, in Virtue of fome Conjectures; and he (x) gueffes, that it was a Work done about the Ènd (s) 2 Kings 17. N (x) Ib. p. 159. of |