Note that this is presented as part of Whiston’s translation of Josephus, not as modern scholarship and not as my own opinion or work. If you want to argue about its content or its conclusions, I will not answer. Mr. Whiston of course cannot answer. You will need to hold your disputes for the afterlife.

That the copy of the Books of the Old Testament laid up in Herod’s temple, and thence used by Josephus, the Jewish Historian, in his Antiquities, was no other than that most ancient Collection or Library made by Nehemiah, in the days of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes; and was free from the several additions and alterations made afterwards in the other copies, which are now extant.

This appears by the Arguments following.

1. It is expressly told us, in the publick epistle sent by the Jews of Jerusalem to their brethren in Egypt, in the 144th year before the Christian æra, and preserved in the second book of Macabees, that as Judas Maccabeus had made a collection of the sacred books of the Jews after the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes; so had Nehemiah done the like long before it; and not very long after the captivity of Babylon, and the rebuilding the Jewish temple by Zorobabel. The words are these, The same things also are related in the writings and commentaris of Nehemiah: how he founded a library, and gathered together the acts of the Kings, and of the prophets, and of David, and the epistles of the Kings concerning the holy gifts. In like manner also Judas gathered together all those things [books] that were lost, by reason of the war we had, and they remain with us. Wherefore if ye have need thereof, send some to fetch them unto you. [2 Maccab. ii.13, 14, 15.] Nor is there reason to doubt but such authentick collections made by governors of the Jewish nation, would naturally be reposited in the Jewish temple: (whence Grotius [In Loc.] justly concludes that Nehemiah’s library itself was erected in that very temple:) and would there be preserved, and thence removed into Herod’s temple, when it was rebuilt. Out of which temple, as I have elsewhere proved, from Josephus’s own words [Essay on the Old Teatment, p. 190–195.], he received that copy which he made principal use of in his Antiquities. And because this is the great foundation of my present proposition, take the evidence at large, in the terms I formerly gave it.

It well deserves our farther remark, that Josephus, when he wrote his Antiquities, seem not only to have had the use of one or more ordinary Hebrew copy, but probably of the most authentick copy in the whole nation; I mean that which had been laid up in the temple it self. Which very book seems to have been given him, or however the use freely allowed him after the destruction of the temple, and when he wrote his Antiquities. For thus stand his own accounts. “Titus Cesar, says Josephus, when the city of Jerusalem was taken by force, persuaded me frequently to take whatever I pleased out of the ruins of my countrey: for he told me that he gave me leave so to do. But there being nothing that I much valued, now my country was destroyed, I only asked of Titus liberty for my self and my family, as the only comfort now remaining in my calamities: I also had the holy books by his concession:” —— From all which facts laid together ’tis plain, that either Josephus had the authentick copy of the holy books, that was found in the temple, given him by Titus entirely; or at least that such authentick copy was at his command in the Emperor’s palace at Rome; in which city he wrote his Antiquities. And if we compare these things with his own assertion, — that two of the accounts he had given [viz. that of the miracle of Water out of the rock, and of the sun’s standing still [Antiq. III.1.7. V.1.17.]; ]and one of them, even of a miracle, not contained in the Pentateuch, but in Josephus, was extant in the scriptures laid up in the temple, we shall see reason to believe, not only that he still made use of the Hebrew copies in general, but even of that very most authentick copy of all, which used to be laid up in the temple at Jerusalem.

Whether the Pentateuch made a part of Nehemiah’s collection, the text of the Macabees does not directly inform us: though one cannot easily believe it as wanting in his library. Possibly Nehemiah supposed the vulgar copies of the Pentateuch perfect enough, and though there was little occasion for that operose collectin which he perceived necessary about the other books and papers.

N. B. Though it may be an objection to the authentick nature of this epistle of the Jews at Jerusalem, that the festival of dedication in the days of Nehemiah, (the observation of which is therein recommended to the Jews in Egypt) is there said to have been after he had builded the temple and the altar, [2 Maccab. i.18. Neh. ii.8.] of which our copies of the book of Nehemiah say very little; yet is this objection taken away by the better copy of Josephus: who informs us, that Nehemiah desired of the King to let him go, not only to build the walls of Jerusalem, but to finish the building of the temple also. And introduces Nehemiah, in his speech to the whole body of the Jews in the midst of their temple, informing them, of the King’s grant to him of leave, not only to build those walls, but to finish that temple also. Which testimonies are strong attestations to the truth of this epistle.

2. That Josephus’s copy was not a little different from even the Samarian and Septuagint copies, as they stood in his age; and much more from the Masorete copy, as t has been since the days of Barchocab, is most evident. That his copy was, generally speaking, more perfect and authentick than those other copies, will certainly appear by a critical comparison of them all along; and has been frequently observed and proved in my Essay towards restoring the true Text of the Old Testament; and in my Supplement to the literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies. And that thhis copy of Josephus’s was not a common copy, but one laid up in the temple, we know from his own affirmations, just now set down. What bible then could this be, but that which we know was collected by Nehemiah, about 520 years before Josephus had his copy out of Herod’s temple, and 540 before he wrote his Antiquities? and this in the same city Jerusalem; and, in all probability, reposited by him in its temple also?

3. That Josephus followed a better copy of the historical books, written after the Babylonish captivity, I mean of Esdras, of Nehemiah, and of Esther, than either the present Masorete copy, or even the Septuagint version contains, appears by the particular character of those books, or of the materials out of which they were composed, in this very letter of the Jews: viz. that they principally contained the Epistles of the Kings of Persia, concerning their sacred donations to the people of the Jews. Of which Epistles we have the fewest accounts and copies in the Masorete bible; more in the Septuagint version; and most of all in Josephus’s Antiquties.

4. It is evident that Josephus made use of an uncommon copy, or materials for a copy of Nehemiah, as to the building the walls of Jerusalem, not under Artaxerxes, but Xerxes, contrary to all our Majorete and Septuagint copies; and this still in such a certain agreement with the chronology of Ptolemy’s canon, and of Daniel’s LXX weeks; (which LXX weeks could never be cleared till this copy was made use of;) as is very extraordinary. See Lit. Accomp. of Proph. Supplem. p. 56–93. This implies that Josephus had a most authentick copy of this book of Nehemiah, or of part at last of those materials out of which it was afterward composed: and such an one as neither the Masoretes, nor the Septuagint interpreters appar to have had. All which exactly agrees to this collection or library of Nehemiah’s before us, and to no other. I am still obliged to speak cautiously concerning the histories after the captivity; without determining concerning them, whether they were already reduced into the books of Esdras, Nehemiah and Esther; or whether they were then only a collection of materials, out of which those books were afterward to be composed. For these three histories being all, in a manner, contemporary with Nehemiah, and the two last intirely so, ’tis a great question whether their materials were digested into books as early as the collection of Nehemiah’s library, or not. The words hre are, that this last part of the library had, not these Books, but only the Epistles of the Kings concerning the holy gifts. Which way of speaking, somewhat different from what went before, seems to me rather to imply authentick papers, out of which the books were to be afterward composed; than the books themselves, when they were already composed.

5. There is a large ranch of the book of Nehemiah, which all our Masorete, Septuagint, and vulgar Latin copies give us as part of his book, though it be rather an appendix to the book of Esdras; and is undoubtedly later than the rest of the book of Nehemiah: [being neither in his name, in the first person [See Suppl. to Lit. Accompl. of Proph. p. 57, 58, 59.]; as is the rest of his book: nor continued with it in the vulgar Latin; but exhibited as a distinct history when it is introduced; and containing accounts as late as Jaddua, who was High Priest under Alexander the great, long after the days of Ezra and Nehemiah:] the branch I mean is from Chap. vii.70. to Chap. xii.26. Now since it is plain that this entire branch could not be in Nehemiah’s copy or library; and yet is in all the other copies; we may hence draw a strong κριτήριον or character to determine, whether Josephus followed the other copies, or that of Nehemiah himself only. If he own this branch, he must have used some later copy: if not, he must have used Nehemiah’s. Now it is very plain, and taken notice of by me several years ago, that though Josephus abridges some of the foregoing and following parts of this book, yet does it not appear that he had a syllable out of that branch. See Essay on the Old Testament, p. 55. which plainly shews us, that he made use of Nehemiah’s own copy, and of no other.

6. Josephus, in his first book against Apion, § 8. is so peculiarly express, as to the very different regard the Jews paid to the holy books before and after the reign of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes; or, which is much the same, before and after Nehemiah’s government; to which time he reckons the constant succession of the prophets extended, but not longer: [which so different regard does however no where else appears in any other original author; no not in the Septuagint version it self:] that it is exceding remarkable; and affords us no small foundation for conjecture, that the bible he had out of the Jewish temple ended in the days of Nehemiah: and in all probability was no other than Nehemiah’s own collection or library. Which argument will be the stronger, if we consider,

7. That the prophecy of Malachi, a book ever owned as sacred by the whole Jewish nation, was written after the days of Artaxerxes and Nehemiah, as I have elsewhere proved. [Lit. Accompl. of Proph. Suppl., p. 79, 80, 81.] This book will therefore afford us another κριτήριον or character of Josephus’s copy. If he had Malachi in his bible, he must have had a later copy, or such an one as the Masoretes or Septuagint give us: but if he had not Malachi, he must ave had this earlier bible of Nehemiah. Now ’tis clear that Josephus, though he mention by name Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Nahum, Haggai, and Zachariah, never says one word of Malachi, or of his prophecy: which yet, had it concluded his most authentick Old Testament, as it hath done the most authentick Old Testament of the rest of his nation in all the later ages, he would hardly have omitted. Especially since he omits no other Hebrew book, whether historical or prophetical, in or after the Babylonish captivity. Nor if Josephus had read Malachi in his copy, would he surely have ended his succession of the prophets, and his catalogue of the most sacred books of his nation, with Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes; but either with Darius Nothus, or Artaxerxes Mnemon: in one of whose reigns, in all probability, this prophet wrote his prophecy. Which character therefore determines, and that with great probability, that it was Nehemiah’s bible which was used by Josephuss, and no other.

8. This farther appears by Josephus’s entire omission of the book of Canticles, and I think only of that book, in the whole Old Testament, now extant, earlier than Nehemiah: which yet is in all our Masorete, Septuagint, and other copies: tho’ it can make no just pretence to the title of a sacred book: as I have elsewhere proved. [Suppl. to the Essay on the Old Testament, p. 25–29. See the entire Supplement.] Nor is this other than a considerable κριτήριον or character, that Josephus used no later copy than that of Nehemiah. There being not the least sign that the Jews so early admitted that strange book into their ccanon: though it appear some of them, at least, did so when the Septuagint version was made, about 200 years afterward. I mean thi sif their later copies be in that case like the original ones.

9. Josephus, by his perpetual using the Hebrew original of the first book of Apocryphal Esdras, as we now call it, instead of the Hebrew Canonical Ezra; which is indeed a kind of epitome, or rather an imperfect cpoy of the other, though perhaps as old as the Septuagint version, affords us another κριτήριον or character, which bible he used: I mean one older than the Hebrew Canonical Ezra: which he never once cites in his large and particular accounts of that entire history. I say only perhaps this Canonical Ezra is as old as the Septuagint version. For though it stand now in all our copies of that version, yet we having no citations from it, that I know of, till long after the days of Barchocab, [Essays on the Old Testament, p. 50–53.] I am doubtful about such its antiquity. Possibly it may be of equal date with our imperfect Hebrew Nehemiah and Esther; and that they were all distinct original compositions from such such authentick papers which Nehemiah’s library contained; but those very imperfect and ill digested. It also contains some Chaldee chapters; as does our Hebrew Daniel. For which Chaldee chapters of these two books we have, I think, no evidence older than Barchocab. So that I a little suspect this Hebrew and Chaldee Era to be no earlier than his time. By all which it appears, that Josephus’s bible was different from and elder than the present Masorete and Septuagint bibles; or, in other words, that it was Nehemiah’s bible, and no other.

10. But the principal κριτήριον or character that Josephus’s bible was that of Nehemiah, is the general state of the book of Nehemiah itself, in all our later copies, as compared with Josephus’s accounts of his history. If Josephus has used a copy of Nehemiah that extended to all the acts of his life, and in particular during the most publickly remarkable part of it, his twelve years government of Judea, from the 20th to the 32d of King Artaxerxes; [Neh. v.14; xiii.6] as our copies now do; we might suppose he had made use of a copy of this book like ours, and as late or later than those twelve years government extended to. But if he used only Nehemiah’s own papers, as they stood collected in his own library, he could proceed no farther than that part of his life which preceded that collection. Now this is the certain state of Josephus’s history of Nehemiah. For though he intimate his knowledge of Nehemiah’s later glorious acts, and particularly, as we have seen, of his finishing the temple, yet do his distinct accounts reach no farther than the days of Xerxes; and contain very little more than the building the walls of Jerusalem; or about three years of the latter end of that reign of Xerxes: without a syllable of his twelve years government under Artaxerxes. Accordingly, while the third book of Esdras in the compleat Greek and Latin editions, has 434 verses; and the book of Esther has about 270 verses; and in all editions the book of Nehemiah has 406 verses, Josephus’s account of Esdras is no less, in the Cologne edition, without notes, than 14 pages. And his account of Esther is almost 10 pages: in a near proportion to their largeness. While his whole account of Nehemiamh, which by a just proportion, ought to be above 13, is no more than 2 pages. Nor indeed does Josephus contain any part of this history that is in our present copies any farther than what is in part of the 1st, in part of the 2d, in part of the 4th, in part of the 12th, and in part of the 13th chapters, while he omits part of the 1st, part of the 2d, all the 3d, part of the 4th, all the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th,11th, part of the 12th, and part of 13th chapters. And what parts of our copies are not omitted, are yet told us by him in such a different and better manner, and with such a different and better chronology, as demonstrates he did not taken even those small parts from our present copies, but from other original papers, not a little different from them, and more authentick than they were. Which things are highly worthy the consideration of the learned.

N. B. To confirm this argument from the great disproportion there is in Josephus’s account of the book of Nehemiah, as compared with his accounts of the other historical books in the canon of the Old Testament, I observe, that while there are one with another, 382 pages of the same edition of Josephus, which correspond to 436 chapters of our bible, from Genesis to Esther; which is almost a page to a chapter. We have in Nehemiah only those two pages, to those 13 chapters. Whic is a proportion utterly unexampled, I think, through Josephus’s whole eleven books of Antiquities: which include that intire history. Nor is there, I believe, room for any other solution than what I have here given the inquisitive reader.

N. B. Since therefore Josephus’s materials for the historical books, after the captivity, reach as far as the entire history of Esther, [Esther iii.7.] i. e. to the 12th of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes; and yet did not extend to the government of Nehemiah, from his 20th to the 32d yar, we ought to state the time of the collection of Nehemiah’s library after the 12th, but little or nothing later than the 20th of Artaxerxes. Accordingly I should, all things considered, determine the time to that very 20th of Artaxerxes, upon Nehemiah’s return to his government; that he and his people might have authentick copies of those sacred books ready at hand, by which his authority, and their obedience were to be directed every afterwards.

11. The Order of the several parts of the Pentateuch, and of other histories of the Old Testament, is in Josephus so frequently different from, and better than either that in the Masorete copy, or the Septuagint version, or even sometimes than that in the Samaritan Pentateuch itself, that he must have had an earlier, and more uncorrupt copy than were any of the others.

12. Not only the order, but many portions of sacred history themselves are so much fuller and more exact, consistent and agreeable with chronology, with natural religion, [See Suppl. to Lit. Accomp. of Proph., p. 75, 76, 77.] and with one another, in Josephus, than they are in any of our other copies, that he must have had an earlier, and more uncorrupt copy than any we now have. These two last observations have forced themselves upon me in my late careful comparison of the Masorete copy, in our common bibles, with the eleven first books of Josephus’s Antiquities. And I dare boldly affirm, that when other learned Christians will take the pains to make the like careful comparison, they will hardly be able to avoid making the same observations. And what immense light such an entire comparison of the other copies of Josephus’s Antiquities, and their improvements and corrections from those Antiquities, will cast upon many of those sacred books, and indeed upon the entire Old Testament history, and upon many of the prophecies also, I had much rather other learned men should discover by their own trials, than take my bare affirmations or observations for the truth of it.

§ 13. There are none of those passages in Josephus’s Antiquities which appear not to be so ancient as the times of Moses, or Joshua, or of the other original sacred historians; though the be in the Masorete Hebrew, and Septuagint version; and even several times in the Samaritan Pentateuch itself. Which passages have afforded a plausible handle to many, since the days of Aben Ezra, to suppose those books themselves in general later than the authors to whom they are ascribed. This is an observation, as I think, entirely new, and of very great consequence: and will therefore well deserve a through consideration. I shall trace all the several expressions or additions at large, in the order they lie in our bibles, and compare the places all along with Josephus.

(13.1) Gen. xii.6, when Abraham was newly come out of Mesopotamia, it is taken notice of in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, and in the Septuagint version, that the Caananites were then in the land. And

(13.2) Again xiii.7, That the Canaanite and Perizzite dwelt then in the land. Which could hardly be remarked, as worth notice, that the land of Canaan had Canaanites in it, till after Joshua had driven those Canaanites out of it: which we all know was not done till after the death of Moses. Now we have both these histories in Josephus: but not a syllable of either of these passages. Nor are these passages either quoted or alluded to, that I know of, in any other book afterwards, before the making of the Septuagint version. Which is supposed of the other examples, to be here given, without any special repetition.

(13.3) Gen. xiv.18, it is said, not only in all the other copies, but in Josephus also; that Abram pursued afer those that had taken Lot prisoner, unto Dan, which place is by some supposed to be the old city Laish, called afterwards Dan, [Judg. xviii.] from a colony of the tribe of Dan there settled, considerably later than the death of Moses. But then, as it is no way certain that by Dan is here meant the city of Laish, afterward called Dan; or indeed any city at all; so Josephus directly assures us, that the place whither Abram pursued his enemies was rather one of the fountains of Jor-Dan, which was called Dan, than any city whatsoever. And as to the city Laish, when it was rebuilt by the Danites, and named Dan, Josephus mentions that its rebuilding, and this its new name; but seems to have had no notion that this was the place whither Abram pursued his enemies. And if we observe, that in Josephus’s copy here it was the fifth night that Abram overtook them; see also V.1.18. and that, upon their defeat, it was the second day afterward when they were fled no farther than Hobah, on the left side of Damascus: and consider, that when an army flies for their lives they march much swifter than at other times; we shall look for this place Dan nearer to the sea of Galilee, than either to the fountains of Jordan, or the city Laish, which was not far from them. Nor indeed do I take it to be any other than that Dan, in the tribe of Nephtali, which was situate thereabout: Josh. xix.38. with 1 Kins xv.20. and 2 Chron. xvi.4. If indeed the Masorete Hebrew, and Roman copy of the Septuagint could be depended on, God shewed Moses from mount Nebo, all the land of Gilead unto Dan: [Deut. xxxiv.1.] which must then have been a place about the fountains of Jordan, according to Josephus’s opinion. But since both the Samaritan and the Alexandrian copy of the Septuagint, as well as Josephus have no such text there, I still prefer this conjecture, that it was Dan near the sea of Tiberias whither Abram pursued his enemies, and no other: which might well be its name in the days of Moses himself. As for the common phrase, From Dan even to Beersheba, as the intire length of the land of Canaan in after ages; we meet not with it till after the city of Laish was called Dan, [Judg. xx.1.] and for certain means no other place in all the Old Testament. But this is of no consequence in our present enquiry.

(13.4) Gen. xix.37, Moses informs us, that Moab, the son of Lot, by his elder daughter, was the father of the Moabites, unto this Day: and (13.5) ℣ 38. that Ammi or Ammon, the other son of Lot, by his younger daughter, was the father of the Ammonites, unto this day. These expressions are in all copies, and in Josephus also: and very well do they suit to the days of Moses, under whose government these Moabites and Ammonites were considerable nations, with which he and the Israelites were greatly concerned, during the forty years abode in their neighbourhood, in the wilderness.

(13.6) Gen. xxvi. 26, 32, 33, our present copies inform us, that the city Beersheba, or the well of the oath was so called, because Isaac there sware to Abimelech King of Gerar, to Ahuzza, and Phicol his courtiers, at a well dug by him, without the least notice that this well was dug in the days of Abraham, and that there Abraham sware unto the same Abimelech King of Gerar, and to the same Ahuzza and Phicol his courtiers, about ninety years before. [Gen. xxi.22, 30, 31, 32.] Certainly this is a later addition or repetition: certainly this is a mistake of Isaac for Abraham. But then we have not a word of this here in Josephus.

(13.7) ’Tis said by some, that the city Hebron, so called in the Pentateuch itself, had not that name till it was given to Hebron, [Gen. xxiii. 2. Num. xiii.22.] the [grand] son of Caleb by Joshua, after the death of Moses. But certainly this is a great mistake. Hebron was given to Caleb himself, and to none else. [Josh. xiv. 14. xxi. 11, 12.] Upon which, probably, it was that Caleb’s grandson was called Hebron. Nor does Josephus give us the least intimation that the name Hebron was of so late an original as the days of Joshua. I have elsewhere suggested that Kiriath Arba was buit, or rather rebuilt by Hebron, the second son of King Tanis, or Zoan; [See Authent. Rec., p. 971.] and thenceforward called after his own name. Whereas its name, when Abraham came first thither, was no other than Kiriath Arba: though long before Moses wrote the Pentateuch, its name was changed to Hebron. It was being built or rebuilt seven years before Zoan in Egypt. See Gen. xxiii. 2. Josh. xiv. 15. Judg. i.10. and my Chronological Table.

(13.8) Gen. xxxii.32. we learn, that the children of Israel eat not of a certain sinew of the thigh of animals, unto this day. This is in all copies, even in Josephus also; and was equally true when Moses and when Josephus wrote, and is equally true at this very day.

I pass over (13.9) the clause in the Septuagint, Gen. xxxv.4. that Jacob destroyed the teraphim or idols, which some of his family had brought out of Mesopotamia with them to this very day, as being in no other copy or version whatsoever.

(13.10) Gen. xxxv.20. the text informs us, that the pillar set up by Jacob upon Rachel’s grave was there, unto this day: of which Josephus is entirely silent: as indeed he omits the setting up of the pillar itself also: though we are sure her grave or monument was known in the days of Samuel, about 600 years afterwards, 1. Sam. x.2.

(13.11) Gen. xxxvi.31., &c. [and 1 Chron. i.43, &c.] we have a compleat catalogue of the Kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any King over the children of Israel. Which language seems to imply, that at the time of writing this catalogue, there had been one or more Kings that reigned over the children of Israel: of whom yet King Saul is supposed the first, long after the days of Moses. And the number of the Kings of Edom here being eight, ’tis supposed they might possibly reach as low as Saul. But I take all this to be very uncertain. God had lately promised or foretold that Kings should come out of Jacob’s loins: chap. xxxv.11. Moses himself is said, both in the Hebrew and Samaritan, to have been King in Jeshurun, Deut. xxxiii.5. The interval between Joshua and the Judges is described both in the Hebrew and Septuagint as a state of anarchy, when there was no King in Israel, Judg. xvii.6. xviii.1. as an unusual thing in those days, and among that people. And Abimelech, one of the Judges, denotes my father the King, and the text assures us, Judg. ix.6. that all the men of Shechem went and made Abimelech King. Nor does it at all appear that these Kings of Edom reigned till the days of Saul. Eight Kings might reign not much above a century, and the last reign might be over before the Exodus out of Egypt. Nay, we really know that Edom was governed by dukes, who succeeded these eight Kings, when the Israelites came first into the wilderness, Exod. xv.15. However, certain it is, that all the latter part of Gen. xxxvi. from ℣ 20. to the end, including these Kings of Edom, is omitted in Josephus. So that we can have no evidence that he had here either our present language or our present catalogue of the Kings of Edom, in his temple copy.

(13.12) Gen. xlviii.26. we are assured, that the law which Joseph made for the Egyptians, that the King should have the fifth part of all the lands of Egypt, excepting those belonging to the priests, continued unto this day: or in Josephus’s phrase, unto the later Kings, or to the Kings afterwards. This agrees well to the days of Moses; when there had been about nine Kings of Egypt, in Manetho, since the coming of Joseph into that countrey. See my Chronological Table.

§14. (13) Exod. vi.26, 27. after an enumeration of the ancestors of Moses and Aaron, in the twelve foregoing verses, we have this addition, These are that Aaron and Moses to whom the Lord said, Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, according to their armies: these are they which speak to Pharaoh King of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt: those are that Moses and Aaron. These words do not, for certain, look like the words of Moses himself; no more than does the whole genealogy seem to fit the place wherein it now stands in all our copies. Accordingly Josephus entirely omits, not only these two verses, but the whole genealog in this place.

(14.14) Exod. xvi.32, 33, 34. Moses enjoins Aaron to lay up the pot of manna before the Lord, — before the testimony, to be kept for their generations: and Aaaron, in obedience thereto, lays it up there accordingly, and this before the tabernacle, with its tables of the testimony, and ark of the testimony were in being. Sure thi sis a dislocation. And if we consult Josephus, we shall see, that the last five verses of this chapter, wherein both this command, and its execution are related, are themselves wholly omitted: and so very probably he had them not in his temple copy in this place.

(14.15) Exod. xvi.35. it is said, that the Israelites did eat manna forty years; until they came to a land inhabited they did at manna; till they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan. This text is in all copies, even in Josephus’s copy also; and exactl agrees to the end of the life of Moses: and might easily be written by himself, as Josephus would naturally suppose; or might be added by Joshua, when he also added the history of the death of Moses, a little afterwards.

§ 15. (16) Numb. xii.3. we have this verse, by way of parenthesis, inserted into the Masorete Hebrew, into the Samaritan Pentateuch, and into the Septuagint version, Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men who were upon the face of the earth. This great commendation of Moses for his unexampled meekness does by no means, to be sure, look like Moses’s own writing. Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. Prov. xxvii.2. is an undoubted maxim of wisdom in Solomon; and not likely to be transgress’d by Moses, the meekest of men. Josephus does not give us the history into which this parenthesis is inserted: so we cannot have any reason to suppose it was in his copy. And indeed, to add this farther, I have not observed that in Josephus’s frequent and great commendations of Moses, he ever particularly celebrates this his extraordinary meekness; as did those that used the later Hebrew, or the Septuagint copies, wherein this commendation of Moses is extant. I mean the father of Sirach; the apostles, or Clement in the constitutions; and Ignatius in his epistles both to the Ephesians and Magnesians. [Ecclus. xiv.4. Constitut. vi.3. vii.7. Ignat. ad Eph. § 10. ad Magnes. § 12.] So that ’tis most probable Josephus’s copy had neither this history, nor this clause inserted into it; and that both were additions later than the days of Nehemiah.

(15.17) Numb. xxi. 1, 2, 3. we have this account, that Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt in the south of Palestine, westward of Jordan, fought against Israel, and took some of them prisoners; and that, on the Israelites devoting their cities to utter destruction, as God had commanded them, God heard their prayer, and the people, with their cities were utterly desroyed; and ath utter destruction gave the name Hormah, of which that is the signification, to that place afterwards. This history plainly belongs to the time after the death of Joshua,, Judg. i.16, 17. and there we find it also in its proper place. But how it came into our Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint copies of the book of Numbers, I cannot tell. For it is certain, that the Israelites could have no war on that side Jordan during the life of Moses. ’Tis true, we are farther told,, Numb. xxxiii.4. that when Aaron died at Mount Hor, King Arad hearda of the coming of the children of Israel: which is all that could belong to the days of Moses. However, Josephus entirely omits this history, in this mistaken place; though it be touch’d upon by him in its proper place of the book of Judges. So that it still appears Josephus’s copy was purer and more uncorrupt than any of those other copies now extant.

(15.18) Numb. xxxii.41. and Deut. iii14. we are told, that the countrey or cities Bashan-Havath-Jair, were so named by Jair the son of Manasseh, unto this day. Now all this rather belongs to the days of the judges, one of which was this Jair, of the tribe of Manasseh, as Josephus agrees: but not a syllable of this in Josephus, till the days of the judges; nor even there a syllable of the continuance of the names of these cities or villages, unto this day.

§ 16. (19) Deut. i.1. we have this text, These are the words which Moses spake unto all Israel beyond Jordan: and Chap. iii.8. Moses is introduced again speaking thus, And we took at that time out of the hand of the two Kings of the Amoraites, the land that was beyond Jordan. This expression beyond Jordan in these and other places in the Masorete Hebrew, and Samaritan texts, as well aas in the Septuagint version. Yet because the place where Moses was could not yet be styled the land beyond Jordan, till the Israelites had been on the other side of Jordan, which did not happen till after the death of Moses, our English and other versions have ventured to render he original, directly against its natural signification, on this side Jordan. Josephus is so far from acknowledging so strange an expression, as we find in our copies, that he introduces Moses here telling the Israelites, very truly, that God did not permit him to go beyond Jordan, nor to enjoy the good things he would there bestow upon them: as t were in opposition to all our other and later copies.

(16.20, (21) Deut. ii.21. in the lx[x]vii. we are informed, that the Ammonites, conquered and dwelt in the land of the Rephaim, instead of the Rephaim, unto this day. And ℣ 22. in the Hebrew and Samaritan, that the children of Esau conquered and dwelt in Seir, instead of the Horites, even unto this day. Of whom, ℣ 12. the same succession is described; with this addition, that these children of Esau conquered and dwelt in the land of the Horites, as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them: As if these accounts were written after the Israelites were settled in the land of Canaan; or after the death of Moses. But of all this we have not a word in Josephus.

(16.22) Deut. xxxiv.6. it is affirmed, that no one knows of the place where Moses was buried, unto this day. But no such assertion appears in Josephus.

N.B. I do not here set down the three last verses of the book of Deuteronomy, [Deut. xxxiv.10, 11, 12.] concerning Moses, that there arose no prophet like him afterward, which though extant in all copies, and in the copy of Josephus also, are plainly no part of either Moses’s or Joshua’s writing; but a very proper Appendix to the Pentateuch: and could not have any other author than one of the later Jewish prophets, or the governors of the Jewish church, about or after the Babylonish captivity. Nor is it at all improbable, but Ezra and Nehemiah, with one or both their contemporary prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, might add this remarkable clause, to prepare the Jewish nation to look hereafter from Moses and the old prophets, the great prophet like Moses, or to King Messiah: [Chap. xviii. 14–19] to whom they were entirely to hearken, upon the penalty of excision from among their people. However I venture to say that common readers ought not to be deluded by seeing these verses stand as a part of the original book of Deuteronomy, which are so clearly no other than a later appendix to it.

§ 17. (23) Josh. iv.9. we meet with this assertion, that the twelve stones, which were set up by Joshua in the midst of Jordan when they came over it, are there, unto this day. But no such assertion is in Josephus.

(17.24) Chap. v.9. we are acquainted, that the place of Joshua’s encampment was called Gilga, unto this day. Of which we find no sign in Josephus. to say nothing of the addition of to the anathema on the builder of Jericho, in the LXXII. Josh. vi.26. as evidently taken from its completion long afterward, 1 Kings xvi.34. and not elsewhere, and wanting in the Hebrew. I observe that,

(17.25) Chap. vi.25. it is noted, that Rahab, the inn-keeper, who saved the spies at Jericho, dwelt in Israel, unto this day. But not such note is set down in Josephus.

(17.26, 27) Chap. vii.26. it is related, that the Israelites raised over Achar or Achor a great heap of stones, unto this day — and that therefore the name of that place was called the valley of Achor, unto this day. But no such language appears here in Josephus.

(17.28) Chap. viii.28. we find this passage, that Joshua made Ai an heap for ever, a desolation, unto this day. But we find no such thing in Josephus. And

(17.29) Chap. viii.29. that the carcase of the King of Ai was cast in at the entring of the gate of the city of Ai, and a great heap of stones raised thereon unto this Day; without the least countenance from Josephus.

(17.30) Josh. ix.23. in the Hebrew we find, that the Gibeonites were doomed by Joshua and the elders, to be Hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of God, or for the temple: which was not built till long afer the days of Joshua. Now whether the house of God here denote the temple, or only the tabernacle, which was already erected in the days of Joshua, I shall not now enquire: because Josephus has no such expression, but only that they were doomed to be publick servants: as both the Hebrew and Septuagint copies have it, ℣ 21. and 27. or that they should be hewers of wood and drawers of water to all the congregation, unto this day. Which was probably the old readaing of ℣ 23. also. Now the Septuagint have no mention of the house of God here: and Josephus acknowledges not the addition, unto this day.

(17.31) Josh. x.10. it is said, that the Canaanites were chased along the way that goeth up to Bethboron. This name of Bethboron is in the Hebrew and Septuagint, as well as in Josephus: yet are we told 1 Chron. vii.24. that this city Bethboron was built by Sherah, the daughter or grand-daughter of Ephraim, after the Israelites were settled in Canaan; and not at the time when it is here mentioned. Now this is so common in old times, to say a city was built when it was rebuilt, or greatly improved, that ’tis not worth our while to make any farther apology for such an expression. See Judg. xviii.28, 29. xxi.23. 1 Kings xii.25. 2 Chron. xi.5–10. Nor do I see any reason to believe that Bethboron had not that name till this reedification by Sherah; but suppose it the old name when Joshua first came into the land of Canaan.

(17.32) Chap. x.4. we have these words, upon occasion of the sun’s standing still, that there was no day like that before it nor after it. This expression looks like a much later addition. But then we have not a syllable like it in Josephus, upon this occasion.

(17.33) Chap. x.27. we find this history, that the children of Israel laid great stones in the caves mouth of five Kings of the Amorites, until this very day. But this is not mentioned by Josephus.

(17.34) Josh. xiii.13. we learn, that the Geshurites and Maachathites dwelt among the Israelites, unto this day; but nothing of this in Josephus.

(17.35) (35) Josh. xv.13–19. we have a particular account of Caleb’s driving away the Anakims, and taking Debir, and Kiriath Sepher, and giving his daughter Achsah to wife to Othniel the son of Kenaz, who took it: with other occurrences; all belonging to the interval after Joshua’s death: and they are accordingly repeated in their proper place of the book of Judges [Judg. i.10–15]. This clause is in both our Masorete and Septuagint ccopies; but not a syllable of it in Josephuss under Joshua; but only, in its proper place, under the judges. But it would be too tedious to give here all the examples of books, clauses, and facts dislocated both in the Masorete, and even the Samaritan Hebrew copies, and in the Septuagint version, but set in their proper places by Josephus, from his better copy. See many of these taken notice of in my Essay on the Old Testament: and Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies, with its Supplement.

(17.36) Josh. xv.63. we are informed, that the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Judah at Jerusalem, unto this day. But we have no mention of this in Josephus.

(17.37) Josh. xvi.10. we read, that the Canaanites dwelt among the Ephraimites, unto this day. And in the Septuagint we have this much later addition. Until Pharaoh King of Egypt came up, and took the city [Gazer] and burnt it with fire, and he persecuted the Canaanites, and Perizzites, and the inhabitants of Fazer; and Pharaoh gave it in dowry to his daughter: [as 1 Kings ix.15.] But of all this Josephus says nothing — And so far the additional passages to the Pentateuch and to Joshua are found to be peculiar to our other and later copies, and to have had no place in the temple or Nehemiah’s copy made use of by Josephus. And so far is abundantly sufficient for the vindication of the original texts of Moses and Joshua from the objections arising from these later additions, of the continuance of certain names and memorials unto this day, or until some time considerably later than the history itself. Now the Pentateuch and Joshua are the principal books liable to this sort of exceptions. For as to other books, that contain the history of several hundred years, such expressions might properly enough be added about ancient facts when those books were composed and published; without any such suspicion upon them. Though it will appear, as we go along, that Josephus had not very many of those expressions in his copy; unless when they were equally true in his own time, as they were at the time of the original books publication. to proceed therefore to the remaining examples.

(17.38) Josh. xix.27. we have, in both our copies, mention made of a place or city in the borders of the tribe of Aser, called Cabul: which is supposed to be in that countrey which was not called Cabul till the days of Solomon: as we find 1 Kings ix.13. where it is added, that this countrey retained that name of Cabul, unto this day. But then Josephus has neither that name in the history of Joshua, nor a syllable of its retaining taht name, unto this day in the history of Solomon.

(17.39) At the end of the book of Joshua, in the Septuagint, we have this additional clause, that the Israelites put the flint knives, wherewith Joshua circumcised the children of Israel in gilgal, into Joshua’s monument at Timnath Serah; and that they are there unto this day. But of this not a syllable in any other copy.

§ 18. (18.40) Judg. i.21. we are assured, that the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Benjamin, unto this day. But this is not in Josephus.

(18.41) And ℣ 26. that Luz, so named between the death of Joshua, and Othniel the first judge, was the name of a town, unto this day. But this is not in Josephus.

(18.42) And ℣ 27. The Septuagint, and they only say, that the tribe of Manasseh did not possess Bethel [Bethsan] which is Scythopolis. This must be a very late addition; though perhaps earlier than the Septuagint version, as all the learned very well know. But we have nothing of this in Josephus.

(18.43) Chap. vi.24. we learn that Gideon’s altar is unto this day yet in Ophrah of the Abierzites. But of this Josephus says nothing.

(18.44) Chap. xvi.19 we are told, that the place where Sampson slew the Philistins with the jaw bone of an ass, was called Lehi, unto this day. this text was in Josephus’s copy, and was true, not only when the book of Judges was published, and when Josephus wrote, but as late as the days of Glycas, or the 12th century of Christianity also. See Reland’s Palæstina in Lechi and Eleutheropolis.

(18.45) Chap. xviii.12. it is said, taht the place where the 600 Danites first pitched their camp in the tribe of Judah, when they went upon the expedition to Laish, was called Mahane Dan, or the Camp of Dan unto this day. But of this Josephus makes no mention.

(18.46) Chap. xviii.30. it is said, that the idolatry of Micah lasted, until the day of the captivity of the land, i. e. either to the captivity of the ark by the Philistins, in the days of Eli; or to the captivity of the ten tribes in the days of Nebuchadnezzar.

(18.47) And ℣ 31. that it lasted all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh, which favours the first interpretation. However, both clauses seem to me to be additions, later than the book of Judges itself. But then, Josephus omits the entire history of this idolatry of Micah; and so we can have no reason to suppose that he had either of those clauses in his copy.

§ 19. (19.48) 1 Sam. v.5. we learn, that the priests of Dagon, and his worshippers, in memory of their gods falling upon the threshold of his temple before the ark of the true God, did not tread on that threshold unto this day. But nothing of this is in Josephus.

(19.49) Chap. vi.8. that the stone on which the inhabitants of Bethshemesh sacrificed, upon the ark’s return from the country of the Philistins, remained to this day, in the field of Joshua the Bethshemite. But not a word of this in Josephus.

(19.50) Chap. vii.15. it is said, that Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life: which could hardly be written by Samuel himself. Accordingly the clause is wanting in Josephus.

(19.51) Chap. ix.9. we have a parenthesis added, both the in Hebrew and Greek copies; Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God thus he spake, Come and let us go to the seer: [For he that is now called a prophet, was before time called a seer.] How far these last words are true, or who inserted them, I know not. But so far I know, that we have no footsteps of their truth in any other text, but rather the contrary. The word Seer is never once before used: and the word Prophet very often, in all the preceding books of the Old Testament. However, Josephus is so far from confirming this parenthesis, that, on the contrary, he uses no other than the word Prophet through this whole history. As for myself, I suspect a ddisorder in the present text, from what hand soever it came, and that it originally ran thus: Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thuss he spake: Come and let us go to the prophet. For he that is now [sometimes] called a seer, was before [always] called a prophet. Which exactly agrees to the fact, even in all our present copies of the Old Testament; wherein the word Prophet is always used before this time, and after it both the words are used promiscuously.

(19.52) Chap. xxvii.6. the history informs us, that Ziklag, given to David by Achish King of Gath, pertaineth to the Kings of Judah unto this day. Which could not well be written till after the days of David. Accordingly this addition is wanting in Josephus.

(19.53) Chap. xxx.25. we learn, that David’s ordinance to divide the spoils equally among those that went out to battel, and those who cnotinued in and guarded the camp, was a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day, or when this history was published. And this ordinance is mentioned by Josephus also, and I suppose lasted not only to the time of the Macabees [Maccab. viii.29, 30.], but also to his own time. And no wonder, since ’tis rather a revival, an explication, and execution of an old law of Moses [Numb. xxi.35. &c. Josh. xxi.8.], than the enacting of a new one. Nor do I know that David had, at this time, any power to enact new laws; though he were certainly obliged to obey the old ones.

§ 20. (20.54) 2 Sam. iv.3. it is said, that the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, after the death of Saul; and were sojourners there unto this day. But we meet with no such addition in Josephus.

(20.55) Chap. vi.8. and 1 Chron. xiii.11. it is observed that the place where Uzzah was slain for taking hold on the ark, being no priest, see Numb. iv.15. was called Perez Uzzah, or the breach of Uzzah to this day. This is in all the copies, even in Josephus; and might well retain its name, not only when these books were published, but when Josephus himself wrote also.

(20.56) Chap. viii.7. in the Septuagint version we have this addition, to the series of the history, as to those bracelets or shields of gold which David took from the servants of Hadadezer, King of Zobah, and brought them to Jerusalem, jthat Sousakim, or Shishac, King of Egypt, took them, when he came up to Jerusalem, in the days of Rehoboam the son of Solomon. And the same clause was in Josephus’s Hebrew copy: and was a very proper addition when these books of the Kings were finished and published, some time after the reign of Rehoboam. Though how it has come to pass that our present Masorete Hebrew wants this clause, which was extant in Josephus’s Hebrew, I cannot determine.

(20.57) Chap. xiv.27. we have just such another addition, in the Septuagint, as to Tamar the daughter of Absalom, that she became the wife of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, and bare him Abia. And the same clause was in Josephus’s Hebrew copy: and in both with the same propriety: though in the same manner wanting in our present Hebrew also.

(20.58) Chap. xviii.18. we are informed, that Absalom’s pillar or place was so called, unto this day. But this is omitted in Josephus.

(20.59) Chap. xxiv.25. in the Septuagint version we have this addition to the series of the history: concerning the altar on which David offered sacrifices at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite: and Solomon added to [enlarged] the altar at llast; for it was too little at first. But of this we have not a syllable either in our Masorete Hebrew copies, or in Josephus.

§ 21. (21.60) 1 Kings viii.8. and 2 Chron. v.9. we read, that the ark, or its staves were in the most holy place of Solomon’s temple, unto this day. Or when the books of Kings and Chronicles were published. Of which additional clause Josephus says not a word. but we must note here, that this clause could not be true in the days of the author of the book of Chronicles, unless that book were published before the carrying away the ark in the days of Zedekiah. Whence the last two verses of the book, which are verbatim the same with the two first of Ezra, concerning the decree of Cyrus for the return of the Jews, are plainly a later and a very inaccurate addition: as indeed the last eight verses of Chap. xxxv. and the whole xxxvi. Chapters seem to be such an addition, and in our present copies, a very inaccurate addition also.

(20.61) Chap. ix.21. and 2 Chron. viii.8. we read, that Solomon laid a tribute upon the remains of the seven nations of Canaan, unto this day: but this clause is not in Josephus.

(20.62) Chap. xii.19. and 2 Chron. v.19. we find this passage, that Israel rebelled against the house of David, from the foolish answer of Rehoboam to the twelve tribes at Sichem, unto this day: though Josephus has no such passage.

§ 22. (22.63) 2 Kings ii.22. it is said, that the waters at Jericho were healed by Elisha, unto this day. This addtion seems here to have been in Josephus also. Nor was it less true when he wrote, than when those books of Kings were published; nor it is less true at this day: as the travellers inform us [see Maundrel p. 79].

(22.64) 2 Chron. xx.26. we learn that the Valley of Berachah or Blessing, was so called from the blessing of God there, after Jehosaphat had received a wonderful deliverance therein, unto this day. Josephus has all the rest of the history, but without those additional words unto this day.

(22.65) 2 Kings viii.22. and 2 Chron. xxi.10. we are informed, that Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, unto this day: which is omitted in Josephus.

(22.66) Chap. x.27. we are informed, that Jehu and his forces made the house of Baal a draught-house, unto this day. But Josephus says nothing of this addition.

(22.67) Chap. xiv.7. we are assured, that Amaziah, King of Judah, took Selah or a rock of war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day. But we have nothing of this addition in Josephus.

(22.68) Chap. xvi.6. we are told, that the Syrians, who had taken Elath from Ahaz, dwelt there, to this day; but we have no such addition in Josephus.

(22.69) Chap. xvii.23. and 1 Chron. v.26. we learn, that Israel was carried captive to Assyria, unto this day: without any confirmation of it from Josephus.

(22.70) Ver. 33, 41. we learn farther, that the Samaritans or Cuthites, that came into the deserted parts of the countrey of the ten tribes, feared the Lord, and served their graven images, both their children, and their childrens children; as did their fathers, so do they to this day. and this they did when this book was published, and in the days of Josephus, as he here and elsewhere informs us; nay so did they still lower, till the days of Nero: as I haev shewn elsewhere, Lit. Accomp. of Proph. p. 155, 156. Proposals, p. 13.

(22.71) 2 King xviii. and 2 Chron. xxxv.20. ap. lxxii, we read, that after Hezekiah, as well as before him, there was none like him among all the Kings of Judah. And

(22.72) The very same is said of Josiah, xxiii.25. without the least confirmation to either of the clauses in Josephus’s history of those Kings.

§ 23. (23.73, 74) 1 Chron. iv.41, 43. we read of certain Simeonites, that in the days of Hezekiah, King of Judah, smote a certain people, of Arabia, perhaps, and devoted them to destruction unto this day: and that others of them, 500 in number, smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day. But Josephus entirely omitting all the former nine genealogical chapters of ths book, we can have no pretence fr supposing these additions to have been in his copy.

(23.75) Chap. v.18–22. we read, that the tribes beyond Jordan made war with the neighbouring Arabians, and conquered them, and made a great slaughter of them, and dwelt in their stead until the captivity [under Pul, and tiglath Pul Assar, ℣ 26.] This additin was a very natural one when these books of Chronicles were published, long after those captivities: but cannot be discovered to have been in Josephus’s copy, for the reason before mentioned.

§ 24. (24.76) 2 Chron. xxv.25. and 3 Esdras i.32. we are inform’d, that the Israelites made lamentation for Josiah, unto this day: and that this was given out for an ordinance, to be done continually in all the nation of Israel. And well might this be added when this last branch of this book of Chronicles, and when Esdras were written, after the captivity: though as to Josephus, who takes all out of this Apocryphal Esdras, and not out of the Canonical Ezra, we find no such clause in his history.

(24.77) 2 Kings xxiii.32. and 2 Chron xxxvi.2. in the LXXII. we are informed that Jehoabaz did evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done. And 2 Kings xxiii.37. and 2 Chron. xxxvi.5. in the LXXII. we have the same expression of his brother Jehoiakim, while yet of their four immediate ancestors Hezekiah, Manasses, Amon, and Josias, the first and last were among the best of the Kings of Judah. so that one may doubt of the propriety of the expression in both these cases: and that not only because it is sometimed drop’d in the Hebrew, but because it is entirely omitted by Josephus in both these histories.

Upon the whole, there does not appear so much as one of these sort of passages, which ought to be supposed later than the original finishing and publishing of the historical books of the Old Testament, in all the Antiquities of Josephus: and by consequence we have not the least evidence that his temple copy had any one of them. However, the reader will excuse me if I conclude this catalogue with two observations of a somewhat different nature from most of the foregoing; though not foreign to my present design.

(24.78) 2 Chron. xxxvi.6. we have this account of Jehoiakim’s end, that Nebuchadnezzar bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon: or as the Septuagint have it, and brought him to Babylon, and in the same Septuagint is added, ℣ 18. in contradiction thereto, that Jehoikim slept with his fathers, and they buried him in Ganosan, [i. e. with Manasseh in the garden of Uzza, 2 Kings xxi.18.] How these accounts agree with one another, or with Jeremiah’s predictions, that the Babblonians should be so far from giving leave to bury the bodies of the Jews their enemies, that the should give them for meat to the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth, and that none shold fray them away. Jer. vii.33. that, in particular, they should bring out the bones of the Kings of Judah, and the bones of the princes, and the bones of the Priests, &c. out of their graves, and should spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, with which they had committed idolatry: that they should not be gathered, nor be buried, but should be for dung upon the face of the earth, Chap. viii.1, 2. Nay that, in a most especial manner, Chap. xxii.19. this Jehoiakim should be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem: how these accounts and the predictions of Jeremiah agree, I am not able to say. But then, as I have already observed, p. xlii. priùs, and as he that will compare the Hebrew and Septuagint, will soon see; the eight last verses of the xxxvth, and all the xxxvith Chapter of the second book of Chronicles, are too late and too inaccurate additions to that book to be depended on, against any sacred authority. Nor do I know that Josephus ever owns any facts peculiar to these Chapters. Which seems indeed no other than a part of the present Book of Ezra, never owned by Josephus. However, so far is plain, that Josephus’s temple copy of the sacred history agrees here with Jeremiah’s predictions. And he thence assures us, that the carcass of Jehoiakim was ordered to be cast out unburied before the walls of Jerusalem, exactly according to the predictions of Jeremiah. Which account highly deserves the consideration of the inquisitive.

§ 25. (25.79) 1 Sam. xvii:50–58. we have an account, both in the Hebrew and Septuagint, that King Saul, when he saw David go forth against Goliath, the Philistin, did not know him, or at least did not know who was his father: which seems a later addition. For it looks like an impossibility that Saul should be so ignorant at that time, considering how long David, the son of Jesse, had been his servant and armour-bearer; and that by Jesse his father’s leave: as we read in the end of the foregoing chapter: and the following chapter, is but the history of about forty or fifty days. But of this whole history, and of what follows it, in the next five verses, Chap. xviii.1–5. we have not a word in Josephus. And indeed this seems to me a portion of true history, but entirely dislocated or removed out of its proper place; and that it happened, not when David went out against Goliath, but when he had formerly gone out against some other of the same Philistins. For we read, that when David was first sent for to live with Saul, he was recommended to him as a mighty valiant man, and a man of war: Chap. xvi:18. To which character so early Josephus agrees also. Now it is very probable, that this martial character of David was not acquired without some martial exploits, and those against the Philistins, the known enemies of his nation and religion. At one of which earlier exploits it is most likely Saul made this enquiry before us, and not at the time specified in our copies. Nor is the occasion of this dislocation unobvious, viz. that it might be at a time when David had slain another Philistin, and had that Philistin’s head in his hand. Which likeness of circumstances might easily induce a later compiler to place it to this time, when he had Goliath’s head in his hand, long afterward. However, Josephus’s perfect silence about this history, and about what follows it; and his connection of the foregoing victory to the song of the women dancers, Chap. xviii:6. are plain indications, that either some mistake or some transposition has here happened in our later copies; of which he saw no footsteps in his temple copy.


§ 26. N.B. We have in many places of the historical Books of the Old Testament quotations of, or references to other old Jewish books, or to other records not now preserved; as confirming or enlarging the histories contained in our bible. Whether these quotations or references were original, or were afterward added, I cannot certainly say. Only I must here take notice, that I have never observed the least traces of any of these quotations or references in all Josephus’s Antiquities.

§ 27. Corollary 1. It appears by what has been already proved, that the voluntary additions, omissions, or dislocations which we may observe in the present copies of the Old Testament, are of a bare human original; and that we have no evidence of any such till after the days of Nehemiah and Xerxes, or indeed during the constant succession of prophets among the Jews. For this deserves to be particularly remarked, that these additions appear in almost every historical Book of the Old Testament, till the days of Nehemiah, but no farther. Nor has either the Book of Nehemiah or Esther, in any copy one example; and, indeed, the Books of Ezra and Esdras have but one such example in our other copies, and not one in Josephus’s copy; as we have seen already: although there were otherwise not less occasions for inserting them into those, than into other historical Books of the Old Testament.

Corol. 2. Yet are most of these later additional passages, which speak of many of the old names of places and monuments of that nation, as still in being, at this day, or after the days of Nehemiah, i. e. many hundred years after most of the histories themselves were written, strong attestations to the truth of those histories; and great evidence that such histories were all along publickly owned to be true by the Jewish nation.

Corol. 3. It is therefore now incumbent upon the learned Christians, and especially upon the bishops and pastors of the church, to publish better and more authentick editions and versions of the Old Testament, than has hitherto been done. I mean with the text of the Pentateuch according to the Samaritan; the text of the rest according to the Septuagint version; together with the various readings of Josephus, and of the Masorete Hebrew: which are all the original remains of those books now extant among us.

Coroll. 4. No learned and judicious commentators ought hereafter to pronounce about any Books or clauses of consequence and difficulty in the Old Testament, without consulting the remains we now have of these four several editions of those holy Books: especially not without consulting the Antiquities of Josephus, who used the best of them.


§ 28. N.B. There is among many other things that Josephus’s copy appears to want, but which are in the other copies, one omission of so important a nature as ought to be particularly taken notice of in this place: I mean of the heinous sin of the golden calf, or the idolatrous worship paid to it in the wilderness, by the people of Israel. What makes it stranger is this, that Josephus’s account is not only negative, by a bare omission; but positive, by affording an exact coherence without it, nay such a coherence as is plainly inconsistent with it. And what still makes it the more surprizing is, that Josephus frequently professes, in these Antiquities, neither to add to nor take away from the sacred Books which lay before him. And when he thought proper to digest many of the laws of Moses into a regular system [Antiq. IV.8.4.], and this only in an order different from that in which they were delivered, and in which they stood in the Pentateuch, he does not venture upon that procedure but with great caution, and with giving a distinct intimation of it: that so he might not incur any blame among his brethren of the Jewish nation, as having made some unwarrantable alteration in their bible. Accordingly he, in the most solemn manner, appeals to all original records, sacred or profane, and to those that please to compare his accounts with those originals, for his justification upon all occasions. Nor do we need to trust his bare affirmations, and protestations, but have abundant evidence from his entire works, that he really did all along regard, not the honour or reputation of his nation, or of the great men of it, but the real truth of facts; whether they were to their honour or dishonour. Of which the reader will meet with innumerable instances, every where in his writings. One example I shall give, because it is so exactly to the present case, and it is that of the later idolatry of the ten tribes with the two golden calves at Dan and Bethel. Which he is so far from omitting, that he does not so much as attempt to disguise it, but plainly sets it down in its proper place, and always owns that the captivity of those ten tribes was the punishment of that idolatry. All which notwithstanding, and notwithstanding the great reputation he has ever obtained among the best judges for his fidelity and integrity; this omission is universally ascribed to him; and laid against him; and that sometimes with the highest aggravations. But all this without any real evidence at all. ’Tis plain that his copy was taken out of the temple, and was not a little different from our other copies. ’Tis pretty plain also, as I have proved that he used Nehemiah’s own copy or library. And what parts were wanting in that copy we have no other way to know at present but by Josephus himself. So that this accusation is entirely a supposition without proof. Those indeed who have suffered themselves to be imposed upon by the later Jewish rabbins, and have been by them made to believe that the original copies of the sacred Books of the Old Testament were the very same with those we have had from them since the days of Barchocab, may charge this and many other omissions and additions and corrections upon Josephus, as their author; and may blame him for corrupting the sacred text in these cases. But those who will have the patience that I have had, in comparing the ancient Samaritan, Septuagint, and Masorete copies, with that of Josephus all along; and will therein use the same impartial sagacity which they would think proper in comparing the copies of other ancient authors; will see a very different state of things before them. They will particularly admire and adore the good providence of God, in preserving, not only the oldest and most authentick version of the Septuagint interpreters, in a considerable degree of purity; but chiefly the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the eleven first Books of Josephus’s Antiquities: and this last as a faithful extract out of Nehemiah’s library, collected about 270 years earlier than the Septuagint version was made, and above 600 years earlier than Barchocab, the Jews spurious Messiah was set up: from which time I date our present Masorete copy. Any sober enquirer, who compares all these copies, will soon discover such varieties in them, and gain such great light by the comparison of those varieties, as will greatly surprize, and, if I be not much mistaken, will greatly please him also. Thus he will soon find, on such a comparison, that the heinous sins of David, as to his adultery and murder; as well as his punishments for them: as also the heinous sins of his son Solomon, in his polygamy and idolatry, are entirely omitted in our books of Chronicles. He will also soon find, that most of the glorious things done by Jehosaphat, and God’s miraculous delivery of him and his people in the sudden and dangerous invasion by the Moabites, Ammonites, and the inhabitants of Mount Seir. As also the famous repentance and restoration of Manasseh, are entirely omitted in our Books of Kings: to give no more examples at present: though they be all preserved in other Books of our Bible, and are all thence faithfully described in Josephus’s Antiquities. But the examples of this kind are too many to be here set down: so many indeed, that I am satisfied this omission in Josephus is no sufficient evidence of his want of integrity; but rather an evidence of a great degree of it, in following his temple copy, even where it so greatly differed from all the other copies; and where it might expose him to the censure of his countreymen for an omission of a very famous history, always own’d for true and genuine by that nation. It may well enough be supposed, that Nehemiah’s copy might deliver this account nearly as it is in Josephus. I mean that Moses came down the first time from Mount Sinai or Horeb, with two large tables of the laws of righteousness contained, Exod. xxi, xxii, xxiii. like those two great stones in the Samaritan text, Chap. xx.17. for the very same purpose afterwards: and with the description of the tabernacle contained Exod. xxv–xxx. and that the people had not then offended, and did then receive Moses with great joy and a ready obedience to those laws: as Josephus assures us they did. Although when he went a second time to receive the two small tablets of the covenant, containing the ten words, they made the golden calf; as we find in all our other copies. Those Jews seem to have had a notion of some such thing who supposed Moses to have been three distinct times in the mount, for 40 days. [See bishop Patrick on Deut. ix.25.] And if we consider the words of our ordinary copies, Exod. xxiv.12. I will give thee [Moses] tables of stones: the law and the commandments which I have written: and compare the language of scripture, still distinguishing the covenant, and the ten words delivered solemnly by God himself at Mount Sinai, from these other laws and commandments delivered by Moses; as I have long ago observed; we shall not perhaps be averse to such an interpretation. See Prim. Christ. Reviv’d, Vol. III. pag. 56, 57. However, I must not here conceal a remarkable fragment produced from the Greek Catenæ by Vossius [De 70 Inter. Apud Ittig. Prolegom.] out of Josephus, which seems to belong to this very matter, and to be an intimation that this idolatry by the golden calf was not of old omitted in all the copies of Josephus. The words are these, He [Moses] concluded that it was absurd for the people, when they were drunk, and in their transgression, to receive the legislation of God: which passage highly deserve the reflexion of the learned upon this occasion. But the reader will judge better of such matters after he has considered better of my next observation.

29. N.B. It will be fit to observe here, the several occasions, steps, and methods by which the sacred Books of the Old Testament have come down to us in their present form, and in so imperfect and disordered a manner, as we now find them. We all know there have been many distreses, idolatries, persecutions, and captivities, which the Israelites fell into after the days of Moses, and before the days of Christ. Under which not only some of their old Books have been entirely lost; a catalogue of which Mr. Du Pin has give us [Bibliotheca: Prelim. Dissert. pag. 30. See also 3 Kings viii.53. ap LXVII, {“τότε ἐλάλησεν Σαλωμων ὑπὲρ τοῦ οἴκου ὡς συνετέλεσεν τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι αὐτόν ἥλιον ἐγνώρισεν ἐν οὐρανῷ κύριος εἶπεν τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐν γνόφῳ οἰκοδόμησον οἶκόν μου οἶκον ἐκπρεπῆ σαυτῷ τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ καινότητος οὐκ ἰδοὺ αὕτη γέγραπται ἐν βιβλίῳ τῆς ᾠδῆς”. The idea is that this “Book of Song” is really a mistranslation of “Book of Jashar”, the “Book of the Righteous”, and that this book was quoted by name in the original Hebrew text used by the 72.}]; but many of the rest have either lost some parts, or had those parts greatly disordered and dislocated by collectors and compilers, when they put them together afterward. The first of the moderns who seem to have been throughly sensible of these disorders and dislocations, I speak it on my own personal knowledge, was the most learned bishop Lloyd; though he very rarely let the publick into that his discovery. Possibly his interlined Bible, that great treasure of sacred learning, if once decyphered, would afford us many excellent observations of this kind. In the mean time, take this small sketch of my own observations on this subject. To omit then the observation, that after nine Chapters of the Book of Proverbs are over, the tenth begins like a new collection of them; the Proverbs of Solomon; we find in the first place a collection, or rather an improvement of an ancienter collection of the sacred Books, in the days of Hezekiah King of Judah; about 710 years before the Christian æra: when the xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, and xxix. Chapters were added to the Book of Proverbs. Which Chapters begin thus: These are also Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah copied out. And perhaps the two last Chapters, ascrib’d, the former to Agur, the son of Jakeh; and the latter to King Lemuel [or to Solomon himelf], might be added not long afterwards. I interpret King Lemuel of King Solomon; because we meet with no King whose proper name was Lemuel: and because the last part of the Chapter ascribed to him, is quoted in the Apostolical Constitutions [Constitut. I.8] as Solomon’s. Though I confess the subject of these verses is so different from the rest of the foregoing Chapter: and its manner of handling so different also; that it may pass for a distinct Chapter; and may possibly belong to a distinct author. Thus after the long, and, for the greatest part, most wicked and idolatrous reign of Manasseh, and the short, but alike wicked and idolatrous reign of his son Amon, there was found by Hilkiah, the High Priest, upon repairing the temple in the days of Josiah [2 Kings 22:8. &c. 2 Chron. 34:14. &c.], the original copy of the Book of the Law, or of the principal laws of Moses: and that as Josephus informs us, not ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, in the buildings about the courts of the temple only, in which he supposes the entire collection of sacred books to have been placed; but particularly ἐν τῷ ναῷ in the Holy House itself; the proper place for that small most sacred Book of the Laws of Righteousness: and, as I suppose, written by Moses’s own hand. Of the contents of which Book see Horeb Covenant Reviv’d, pag. 107, 108. Upon this discovery it was, probably, that those principal laws of Moses came to be inserted into the Pentateuch; where we now find them. This I may call the second collection, or rather an improvement of such collection, which we meet with any intimation of in ancient records. Next to this we may reckon Nehemiah’s, as a third collection: of which largely already. Only upon its particular nomination of the acts or works of David, as distinct from the acts or works of the Kings, and of the Prophets, it may not improbably be supposed, that the present collecton of David’s Psalms into five Books, or parts, was now made: though Josephus never mentioning this five fold division, as belonging to his copy, I cannot be at all positive about it. this collection of the holy Books of Nehemiah is justly called a Library [see Esth. ii.23 ap. LXXII, “καὶ προσέταξεν ὁ βασιλεὺς καταχωρίσαι εἰς μνημόσυνον ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ βιβλιοθήκῃ ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐνοίας Μαρδοχαίου ἐν ἐγκωμίῳ”]; and is, I think, one of the earliest examples of such a collection under that name of a Library in all Antiquity. This original collection of the holy books of the Old Testament, this Biblia, or Bible, appears to have been met with by Josephus, upon the sacking and burning of Herod’s temple by Titus Vespasian: when it was given him by Titus; but had perhaps lain concealed many years in that temple: as had the forementioned original Book of the Law lain probably long concealed till the days of Josiah, in Solomon’s temple. And had not this last temple been sack’d and burnt by Titus, when Josephus was there; and the former being repaired by Josiah, when Hilkiah was there; ’tis possible to be supposed that neither of these inestimable treasures had been recovered by us.

Thus the prophet Esdras [4 Esdr. i.39,40], not long after the days of Nehemiah, added, in the fourth place, the prophecy of Malachi to the ancienter sacred catalogue: and thereby compleated the Hebrew canon of Jerusalem: at least if we include the prophet Esdras’s own Book or Books. Of which see the Appendix to the fourth volume of Primitive Christianity Reviv’d, and the Authentick Records, pag. 46–161.

Thus there was in the fifth place, about a century later, an addition made to the Book of Esdras the Scribe; though now inserted into the Book of Nehemiah; reaching as low as the days of Jaddua the High Priest, in or near the days of Alexander the Great, already intimated. This was probably done by those who made that collection which the Septuagint interpreters followed, in the days of Ptolemy Lagi, and Ptolemy Philadelphus; in which edition we find that insertion. About, or perhaps before this time, it seems to me, in the sixth place, the Samaritan Pentateuch obtained its present form; as being much of kin to, and greatly supported by the Septuagint Greek copy of that Pentateuch, though it be a more full, and a much better copy than the other. Whether it came to the first Christians from the Samaritans themselves, or from the proper Jews, I cannot certainly say, for want of historical memoirs concerning it. Though it reaching no farther than the Pentateuch, looks more like a derivation from the Samaritans, who owned no more than that Pentateuch; than from the proper Jews, who owned all the other Books. The reason of the difficulty is this; that, as I have elsewhere proved, not the Samaritan Bible only, but the Jewish also, was all written in no other than the Samaritan character, till the days of Barchocab. See Essay on the Old Testament, pag. 149–171. But then, in the seventh plcae, the most entire collection of the sacred Books of the Jews, preserved in any language, which may be called the Hellenistical, as the former the Hebrew Canon; seems to have been reserved for Ptolemy Philadelphus, and for the enriching of his famous Alexandrian Library. The remains of which Hellenistical Canon we have chiefly in the Synopsis sacræ scripturæ, and in the Septuagint Bible; including now some Books written a little after that version was made. Which Hellenistical Canon is attested to by the known Books of the New Testament; by the Apostolical Constitutions; and by all the other apostolical and most primitive Christian writers; who always quote the Books of the Old Testament according to that version. Thus we know, in the eighth place, that Judas Maccabeus [2 Maccab. 2:14] made a collection of the holy Books at Jerusalem, after the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, which seems to have been the last publick Hebrew collection that was made, till in the ninth and last place, the Jews fixed upon us their later collection or edition (called by me the Masorete copy), when they set up their spurious Messiah Barchocab, in the former part of the second century of Christianity. Of whose imperfections I have largely treated in my Essay on the Old Testament.

§ 30. N.B. The result of my long and laborious enquiries about the genuine copied, editions, and readings of the sacred Books of the Old Testament is plainly this; that although the modern Jews, and almost all the modern Christians, who, by an unhappy fatality, have been deluded by them, are very positive for a kind of perfection, in our Masorete Hebrew copy; and it has been a long while accordingly styled, The Hebrew Verity; yet is the truth of the case for certain far otherwise: that, on the contrary, those Books have come down to us in a very imperfect and disordered condition, even in all our copies: That even Nehemiah’s own copy, as given us by Josephus, though by far the oldest and best of them all, was by no means perfect; I mean as to the oldest Books: though, without doubt, the latest were much more perfect and uncorrupt: especially those that were written under or after the Babylonian captivity: I mean Daniel, Haggai, Zacchariah, Esdras, Nehemiah and Esther: that the copy which we call the Samarian, being that which has alone preserv’d the original Hebrew character, ever used by the Jews till the days of Barchocab, [See Essay on the Old Testament, pag. 149–164.] has been preserved in the next degree of perfection, and, had it not been confined to the Pentateuch alone, would have been a treasure still more inestimable: that the copy used by the Septuagint interpreters, was still more imperfect: that Judas Maccabeus’s copy or collection, being not now extant, we cannot tell what perfection it had; only so far, that it contained some ancient histories or sacred Books which none of the remaining copies have preserved to us: 2 Maccab. i. ii. That, for certain, the present Masorete copy is the most imperfect and corrupt of them all. But that still, upon the view of the whole, any judicious and imperfect enquirer will not only be satisfied of the general nature of the laws, the general truth of the histories, the general purport of the prophecies, and the general wisdom of the moral instructions all along: (the very worst copy no way appearing to have been altered so much as one tenth, perhaps not one twentieth of the whole:) but will commonly be able, upon the comparison of them all together, and of the ancient citations made from them in different ages, to distinguish the true genuine readings and the true genuine order from the mistakes and disorders of our present copies: nay that he will soon discover, that almost all our present difficulties and seeming contradictions in those sacred Books, as compared together, had no place in the original writings themselves; but have still arisen sometimes from the bare mistakes of modern rabbins and commentatorsr; but much oftener from the mistakes of our modern copies and versions. Nor does it appear to me, that Josephus, in his use of the temple or Nehemiah’s copy, was ever sensible of more than one text in that copy which so much as seemingly contradicted any other. I mean Gen. xv.13. [Antiq. I.10.3 and II.9.2 with II.15.2.] as compared with Exod. xii.40, 41. How numerous and difficult soever those seeming conradictions do now appear in our present copies, and are noted by every commentator at this day: which thinig highly deserves the most serious consideration.

§ 31. N.B. If we could suppose that Josephus meant all the 22 volumes of the Jews Hebrew Bible, by that Law of the Jews which he assures us was carried in triumph at Tome by Titus, [De Bell. VII.5.5.] we might suppose that the box, or somewhat like it, now supporting the candlestick upon Titus’s triumphal arch, [Vid. Reland de Spoliis Templi, pag. 6.] either was or included the very receptacle of those 22 volumes; and that this receptable was the very book-case of Nehemiah’s Library, then taken out of the Jewish temple. However, since Josephus rather means the Pentateuch by the Law of the Jews on other occasions; and since he assures us [De Vitâ suâ, § 76], that he himself lived in Vespasian’s own house, which he had before he was emperor, and by consequence there used the temple copy of the sacred Books given him by Titus,, ’tis not imopssible that library of Nehemiah may be still remaining among the ruins of Rome; though I doubt, if it should be dug up, and known, the letters must long ago, by length of time, have become illegible: we having no manuscript, now remaining legible, so old as Josephus, much less so old as Nehemiah. Otherwise, if such Book-case, with its library, were once discovered, and the letters were legible, I venture to say, that it would deserve to be esteemed a much greater treasure than all the other treasures of antiquity in that famous city put together.

§ 32. N.B. Since it appears to me very evident, that when Josephus wrote his Antiquities, and therein gave us the remarkable testimonies already recited concerning John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and his brother James the Just, he was, in his own conscience, a Nazarene, or Ebionite Christian; it may not be amiss to enquire at what time of his life and writings he became such. Now this time must, I think, be determined to be after the finishing his seven Books of the Jewish Wars, about A.D. 75., but long before his finishing his twenty Books of the Jewish Antiquities, A.D. 93. My reasons are these:

(1) That though all the facts which concerned Monobazus or Abgarus and Helena, and their conversion to Josephus’s Judaism, i.e. to Nazarene or Ebionite Christianity, produced in the Authentick Records, p. 954—961. and all that concerned John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James his brother, already produced in these papers, were within the compass of the seven Books of the Wars of the Jews; yet have we not a word of any of them there; but only in the Antiquities. Which looks very like such a concern for Christianity, when he wrote the Jewish Antiquities, as he had not when he wrote the Jewish Wars. Nor do I remember the least passage in those Books of the Wars relating at all to Christianity. Which silence Photius observes, as we have noted already, p. xxv. priùs, to have been usual when unbelieving Jews wrote any histories of that age.

(2) The great progress the gospel had made after Josephus had written his Books of the Jewish Wars, and long before he finished his Books of Antiquities, and this particularly as to the Greeks and Romans, among whom he then lived, might very naturally excite in him a great curiosity to make an exact enquiry into it, and into the miracles that supported it. The effect of which would naturally be his conviction of their truth, and his conversion to Christianity.

(3) The great disappointments Josephus had met with in the deaths of Vespasian and his son Titus, to both whom he had foretold their coming to the Roman Empire, and from both whom he must naturally have had great expectations to the advantage of his people the Jews, together with the continued deplorable estate that people were under ever since the destruction of Jerusalem, must naturally make him cast his eyes elsewhere. And since any deliverance from the Romans could now be only hoped for from the Jews Messiah, Josephus’s circumstances and notions directly led him to consider whether that Messiah was not already come, and so directly prepared him for the examination and belief of Christianity. Which therefore most probably commenced soon after the death of Vespasian, A.D. 79. or however of Titus, A.D. 81.

(4) The nature of his Books of Antiquities, which frequently brought before him the Scripture Prophecies, and particularly those that gave characters of the Jews Messiah would naturally make him inquisitive into their completion. The effect of which would also naturally be his conviction that Jesus was to be acknowledged by those characters to be the true Messias. Which effect those prophecies frequently had in that age in other Jews conversion to Christianity also. But especially

(5) The nature of those his Books of Antiquities brought before him the Prophecies of Daniel, concerning the four Monarchies; and concerning the Messias’s fifth monarchy or Kingdom to succeed them; concerning the death of the Messiah, after 70 weeks of years from the days of Nehemiah; concerning the destruction of Jerusalem by the fourth or Roman monarchy, which destruction he saw; and concerning the Messiah’s future overthrow of that monarchy, all which predictions he seems to me to have rightly and Christianly applied. So that he could not well avoid seeing, that, by Daniel’s prophecies, Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah. And very remarkable it is, that the prophecies in this Book of Daniel, which have the strongest and clearest proofs for the Jewish and Christian religion of all others, appear to have affected Josephus far more tha any or all the other prophecies in the sacred writings. His accounts of these alone being in those his Antiquities far larger than the like accounts therein of all the other scripture prophecies put together. Nor can I do other than suspect that it was his through consideration of these prophecies of Daniel, when in the course of his narration he came naturally to treat of them, and with which he appears so greatly affected, that principally contributed to his conversion to Christianity. Nor are we to forget that Josephus seems ever, in his Wars of the Jews, to apply Daniel’s prediction of time, times and a half, Dan. vii.25. and xii.7. to the prophanation by Antiochus, as if it had lasted three years and a half, De Bell. Prœm. 7. L. I.1.1. V.9.4. while he does as often leave off that application in his Antiquities X.11.7. XII.7.6. bis. and honestly own, with the original authors of the two Books of the Maccabees, that such prophanation continued but three years only: which last is also, I think, a remarkable application of one of Daniel’s prophecies, I mean that of the 1100 evenings and 1100 mornings, 2200 in all Dan. vii.14. which seems to have been the number in Josephus’s copy, as Jerom says some would have it in his time; instead of those 2300 in our Masorete Hebrew, in Clem. Alex. in Africanus, in the MS. Alex. and those 2400 in our Vatican copy. So that, upon the whole, it is most probable, that when Josephus wrote his seven Books of the Jewish Wars, about A.D. 75. he was an unbelieving Jew; but that when he was writing the tenth Book of his Antiquities, about A.D. 84. he became a Christian. Nor is there, I think, any more indication in the former nine Books of Antiquities that he was so at that time, than in the seven Books of the Jewish Wars: though afterward we have frequent indications of it in the eleven following Books of those Antiquities.