How could Gideon be a Priest who was of the Tribe of Manasseh Was it on account of the Ephod which Gideon made But where is there the least intimation that he wore it himself Nay when he is said to have placed it in his own City of Ephra it seems to imply that it was placed there for another's wearing And how comes it to pass that the Scripture should pass it over in silence that is so punctual in taking notice of Violations of the Priesthood in matters of lesser consequence in Jeroboam and others But how could Sanchoniathon have been guilty of such a mistake in so fresh a memory of Gideon in so near a Neighborhood of the Jews in a matter wherein then the meanest of them could have informed him so careful they were then to keep up the memory of their Tribes if he had been so diligent in procuring Information as is pretended Suppose he had been so negligent himself yet how could King Abibalus to whom he is said to have Dedicated his Book How could all his contemporary Enquirers after Truth from all whom he is pretended to have received commendations be yet all so mistaken in a thing of so easie Information Yet to make this fancy concerning Gideon's Priesthood look more likely the excellent Bochart conceives that the Baal Berith with whom the Israelites committed Idolatry after the death of Gideon must have been the God of Berytus Sanchoniathon's own City But it seems most likely that this Baal Berith was the God not the Goddess to whom Gideon's Ephod was Consecrated at his own City Ephra That Ephod is said to have been a snare to Him and his Family And accordingly this Baal Berith's Temple furnished the Sichemites with Arms in their Conspiracy with Abimelech which proved the ruine of the greatest part of Gideon's Family If so then there was no ground to make this Baal Berith the same with Jao to whom Philo Byblius would have us believe that Gideon was Priest However there is no probability that Berith if it must needs be the name of a place could be the same with Berytus This Berith where the Sichemites dwelt was in all likelyhood under the Dominion of the Israelites but Berytus was in Phoenicia and was in Sanchoniathon's time if we may believe Philo Byblius under a distinct King from Israel Besides the different ways of writing these words in the Hebrew gives little occasion for such a mistake The Phoenician Berytus was so called as Stephanus tells us rather from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is observable that Stephanus seems to have taken what he had concerning these Phoenician places from Philo Byblius himself as might have been shewn in several Instances and is on another occasion confessed by Bochart himself If this were taken from him also then it will at least follow that this affinity between the Names of Berith and Berytus could have been no occasion of mistake to Philo Byblius Which as to our present purpose is of much greater consequence than what that same Learned Person observes from Nonnus who takes Berytus for Beroe the Daughter of Venus and Adonis This therefore looks like one of those ill-meant Blunders which those Modern Greeks were ordinarily guilty of in the Jewish History who pretended no doubt from the like Records to give other accounts of them than their own writings had done of themselves only with a design to asperse their Nation Thus Moses is made a Woman called Moso by Alexander Polyhistor Moses and Joseph are joyned together as contemporaries in Chaeremon But Moses is the Son of Joseph in Trogus Pompeius Epitomiz'd by Justin Many more Instances might have been given if it had been necessary Nor will the Answer of Bochart serve to excuse him here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may indeed alone signifie a Prince as well as a Priest But when it is joyned with the God to whom he is said to have been Priest that were alone sufficient to determine the signification from any ambiguity of which it might otherwise have been capable But besides I shall hereafter have occasion to shew his design in making him a Priest for recommending what he was to deliver on his Testimony § XXII BUT possibly his pretended Memoires of Gideon might have given him the Title of Priest and Sanchoniathon a Stranger a likely occasion of such a mistake If they did so then this it self had been a sufficient Argument that they could not have been Gideon's And then what credit must that part of his History be of which relyes on so uncreditable Informations And indeed how unlikely is it that Gideon should have left such Memoires behind him In all likelyhood what had come from him would have been accounted Prophetical at least if it had been undoubted would have been made so by the attestation of the Sanhedrim who were by God himself established for the Authentical Judges of Prophets Which is the most defensible way for asserting the Divinity of the Anonymous Authors of the Old Testament And if so what probability had there been of their miscarriage Nay supposing them only Humane and of no higher repute among the Jews yet who can think they would have neglected so precious a Monument of their Antiquity from so sure a hand as Gideon's But there is not the least Memory of such a work among the Jews not in their Canonical Histories not in the multitudes even of Counterfeits that were Antient or were ever received even among the Hellenists of which we have any account either in the Antient Stichometriae or in any Antient Quotations not so much as in any Quotation of those Canonical Writers that lived near those times and quote several extant then which have since miscarried as the Book of Jather of the Wars of the Lord c. Not even in the Book of Judges where his Testimony had been most useful for continuing the Jewish History from the death of Joshua to his own time Can we think they would thus generally have neglected him if they had known him or thought him Genuine Can we think the Phoenicians would have valued him if his own Country-men had so neglected him § XXIII Certainly if he ever had any such Memoires or made use of them any where it must have been most probably where he gives account of Jewish matters But his accounts concerning them are so full of mistakes of mistakes so inconsistent even with Jewish Interest as could not with any probability have been occasioned by any Jewish Testimonies much less by so grave and unexceptionable a Testimony as that of Gideon I have had occasion to mention one instance already that of his making Gideon a Priest And such generally are the rest of his accounts of Jewish affairs as far as we can judge of them by the few Fragments preserved to us by Porphyry He makes Abraham a Native Phoenician and the same with the Greek Saturn who bestowed Attica
p. 45. In Euseb Graec. p. 6. 1 De Isid Osirid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 375. F. 2 He quotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the marks of Apis probably out of those Two and Forty Mystical Books of Hermes which contained the Rituals of the Aegyptian Priests mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus unless possibly he did not mean a Book but a Tradition Fathered upon Hermes like those mentioned by Manetho * Vind. Ign. Poemand c. 3. 25. Ib. c. 3. 17. De Mund. Opif. p. 5. E Strom. vi p. 633. Ap. Euseb Pr. Ev. xv 20. Artap ap Eus Pr. Ev. ix 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Eus b. Pr. Ev. l. 10. p. 37. A. and from him Stephanus Nat. Hist v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Porphyr ap Euseb Pr. Ev. l. 9. p. 31. B. Pr. Ev. l. 10. p. 40. B. Pr. Ev. iv 16. p. 156. D. * Thus it appears from the abrupt beginnings of many of Philo's Works that they were designed to continue others though of different Titles So St. Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was his Gospel his Second is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written no doubt at the same time and intended to continue the same History where his Gospel left it So Josephus after his Antiquities immediately subjoyned his Life as has already been observed by the most Learned Dr. Isaac Vossius and after his Life his Books against Appion yet so as that his Life and his Two Books against Appion kept their distinct Titles none ever mentioning any more than Twenty Books of his Antiquities excepting Cassiodore who reckons Two and twenty Div. Lect. c. 17. No doubt the Two odd Books were those against Appion So that it seems his Life though added as an Appendix to his Twentieth Book yet did not encrease the Number So 〈◊〉 Antiochenus's Third Book Ad Autolye was not Antiently called the Third Book as it is now but by a proper Title Liber de Temporibus ad Autolyc as appears from Lactantius Div. Inst l. 23. and it plainly begins with a new address as if designing a new Argument So Clemens Alexandrinus's Protreptick Paedagogus and Stromat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carry on the same design So Eusebius's Book De Martyribus Palaestinae plainly connects with the end of the Eighth Book of his Ecclesiastical History yet so as not to disturb the account of his Ten Books of that whole work So the same Eusebius's Three Books against Marcellus Ancyranus and Two De Ecclesiasticâ Theologiâ belong plainly to the same work So the Seven Books of Lactantius of Divine Institutions have every one of them distinct Titles But the instance of the Books of Lucifer Calaritanus is most remarkable They were all designed as parts of the same work written continuedly and intended to be presented at the same time to the Emperour Constantius Yet no continuation of any one number of Books or Title There are Two in defence of Athanasius one De Regibus Apostaticis another De non conveniendo cum Haereticis another De non â—arcendo in Deum delinquentibus and lastly one De eo quòd moriendum set pro Dei filio I have been the more particular in these instances because as the Observations are useful so I have not found them commonly taken notice of Joseph c. Appion L. 1. p. 1042. B. 1043. F. apud Eus Pr. Ev. X. 13. From whom Theophilus Antiochenus's account of that same Number from the same Authority is to be corrected L. iii. ad Autolyc cxliii for cxxxiv. And Lactantius who usually followed Theophilus in his Chronology has cxl neglecting the smaller number Div. Inst iv 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Porph. ap Eus Pr. Ev. l. 9. p. 31. D. Appian Punic init Chron. L. ii Num. Euseb 971. Menander Laetus ap Cl. Alex. Strom. 1. p. 326. Jamblich de vit Pythagor Porphyr vit Pythag Plutarch Solon de Isid Osirid Clem. Al. Strom. 1. p. 303. In Tim. init Ap. Euseb Chr. Gr. p. 6. Cont. Appion L. 1. p. 1036. Antiq. xvi 11. p. 563. E. cont Appion L. 1. p. 1038. A. Theodoret. Therap ii Bibliothec. L. ii Chaeremâ—n ap Joseph C. Appion L. 1. p. 1057. B. Osarsiph ap Maneth Jos C. Appion L. 1. p. 1054. A Tisithen ap Chaeremon Joseph ib. p. 1057. B. Joachim Melchi after his Assumption into Heaven Clem. Alexandr Strom. 1. p. 343. C. Lysimach ap Joseph cont Appion L. 1. p. 1058. G. So Eupolemus derives Hierosolyma quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Eus Pr. Ev. ix Vid. Selden de Diis Syr. Syntagm 1. c. 2. Buxtorf St. Matth. xxiv 51. Ap. Hesiod Theogon In Euseb Gr. p 6. In Euseb Gr. p. 6. de Pr. Ev. II. P. 44. C. Voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Myst Aegypt Chald. * Joseph c. Appion L. 1. 1046. E. Lucian de laps in salut S. Hieronym adv Rufin Plutarch de Fort. Alexand. L. 1. p. 328. A. Porphyr vit Pythag. p. 208. Claudian Mam de Stat. Anim. L. 11. C. 3. * Laert. L. 111. Platon p. 78. B. The same Athenaeus sayes concerning Gorgias and Phaedon Deipnos L. xi c. 15. p. 505. 2. 507. B. * Clem. Al. Str. 1. p. 304. D. * Eupolem ap Eus Pr. Ev. L. ix Fragm ap Stob. Eclog Phys Lactant. Div. Inst ii 15 16. 1 Expresly owned by Cicero Ep. ad Varron ante Quaest Academ Macrob. Saturnal L. 1. C. 1. Artapan apud Euseb Pr. Ev. ix 27. p. 432. D. Joseph Ant. ii 5. Joseph Ant. xii 15. xiii 6. xx 8. Bell. Jud. vii 30. Vid. Selden de Success in Pontif. Hebr. L. ii c. 8. Ap. Euseb Pr. Ev. i. 10. p. 39. C. Ib. p 40. B. Philo Bybl ap Eus Pr. Ev. l. 9. Ap. Euseb Pr. Ev. L. 10. p. 39. C. Vid. Porphyr de Antr. Nymphar Philo ap Euseh Pr. Ev. l. 9. De Allegor Homer Plutarch de Audiend Poet. de ls Osirid p. 355. 358. Procl Theol. Plat. Lib. 1. c. 4. Macrob. Somn. Scip. L. 1. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Euseb Ib. p. 38. B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. 1 Aristotle Anonym ap Phot. Cod. ccxlix 2 Agatharchides Diodor Sicul. Bibl. L. 1. Theoph Simocatta ap Phot. Cod. LXV 3 Ap. Plutarch de Plac. Philos L. iv c. 1. 4 Diodor. Sic. Bib. L. 1 5 Diodor. Sic. Bib. L. 1 6 Senec. Nat. Quaest iv 2. 7 Senec. Nat. Quaest iv 2. 8 Senec. Nat. Quaest iv 2. 9 Senec. Nat. Quaest iv 2. 10 Lucret. L. vi 11 Mela. l. 9. Diodor. Sic. Bibl. L. 1. Solon Plutarch in Solon de Isid Osirid Pythagoras Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. Diodor. Sic Bibl. L. iii. ap Euseb Pr. Ev. L. ii Plutarch Solon p. 92. 96. Aelian de Animal XV. 2. Herodot Melpom. Mela. 14. 8. Plin. N. Hist v. 18. Aelian Anim vii 2. Eupolemus ap Eus Pr. Ev. L. ix §. 40. Ap. Joseph Ant. xii 2. Ant. xi 8. Cont. Appion L. 1. p. 1036. F.
true Sanchoniathon Nor will any supposable mistakes of Philo in Translating him serve to bring him off in so gross and designed instances concerning his Neighbours and the Famous Persons now mentioned For they concern Things not Words and Expressions Things very notorious not only of Probable or Conjectural Evidence § XXIX I cannot therefore but think this Author Counterfeited purposely with a design of confronting the Antiquity of the Scripture But who was the Impostor whether Philo Byblius or Porphyry that I confess I cannot easily determine I confess I should rather charge it on Porphyry the abusing of the Name of Philo as well as that of Sanchoniathon were it not for that only Testimony of Athenaeus and I have given my reasons why I should otherwise have thought it improbable that Philo was the Author of that Translation But because I cannot tell what to say to that express Quotation of Athenaeus before the time of Porphyry I doubt Philo will not easily be discharged of it For by his Exceptions against the Testimony of Hecataeus for what he had Written in favour of the Jews That either his work must have been counterfeited or if genuine that he himself must have been carried away by the plausibility of the Jewish pretences It appears that he was engaged in that Dispute concerning the Antiquity of the Jews and engaged against the Jews and therefore was a Person sufficiently interessed to set on such a disingenuous design as far as his Principles would give him leave And I have already shewn how far Platonical Principles did so If I may venture to guess in a matter that affords no better Arguments than guesses I should suspect that Josephus's Books against Appion were the occasion of engaging Philo on this Subject What Josephus had there produced in defence of the Antiquity of the Jews was very probably the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluded to by Philo. I cannot think any other was meant because Josephus seems to have been the first that engaged in that Dispute he does not intimate in the least that any had engaged in it before him and because the time was so short between Josephus and Philo that there could hardly be any new occasion for any one else to undertake that cause that Josephus had so very lately and so accurately defended For Josephus wrote his Books against Appion immediately after his Antiquities and his Life in the Thirteenth year of Domitian because he Dedicated these also to the same Epaphroditus who was put to Death in the year following and Philo seems to have written under Hadrian Besides the fame of Josephus with all well-wishers to Learning and the Eminent capacities he served in both among his own Country-men and in the Courts of the Vespasians added no doubt a greater Authority to what came from him and recommended it to the Reading of all curious Persons not now to mention the attestations of the Emperours and of King Agrippa and of other Learned Men Heathens as well as others among whom himself reckons Julius Archelaus and Herod And this very Testimony of Hecataeus which it seems so gravelled Philo had been produced and insisted on in this very work by Josephus Which will therefore make it very probable that this Work of Philo Byblius against the Jews was designed in answer to Josephus against Appion § XXX WHICH being supposed I consider further that Josephus in that same Work had principally insisted on the Testimonies of Phoenicians and Aegyptians for proving the Antiquity of his own Nation as of those who had best reason to know them but the Phoenicians most of all as being nearest Accordingly he Appeals not only to their Writers that were extant but their Written Records their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were preserved to that very time This could not choose but particularly move Philo Byblius as being himself a Phoenician and who might very well have known Josephus himself if he were Threescore and Eighteen years old at the Two hundred and Twentieth Olympiad as has been observed out of Suidas though possibly the odd number of the Olympiad above Two hundred and twenty which is requisite to make him live to Write concerning the Empire of Hadrian is wanting I mention not Scaliger's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which tells us more particularly not the Olympiad only but also the very year wherein he conceives him to have Written because it is of no Authority But there was another thing that added further to the reputation of the Jews about that time Their Essenes had been in great reputation with as many as had occasion to hear of them as a very Philosophical sort of Persons Pliny the Elder had mentioned them with great respect as afterwards Porphyry did also But this concerned only their Philosophy of living There was also among them others who had written Books of Philosophy not only Aristobulus the Peripatetick in the time of Ptolomaes Philometor not only many others intimated though not named by Philo the Jew and Josephus if he ever lived to finish that work of the Sentiments of the Jews so often promised by him as I doubt he did not These by Mysticizing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Moses to a sense not very distant from that received among the wisest Philosophers and in a most elegant rapturous modish style such was that of Philo particularly They gained so much further on the good opinion of the wise ones of that Age as to have their Nation which had formerly been despised as Barbarous now to pass among the Nations which were Famous for Wisdom And the rather because this way of Mysticizing the Poets for the Greeks into a Systeme of Philosophy was already taken up by the Stoicks and the other Dogmatical Philosophers who were concerned for the defence of the received Religions against the Atheists and Epicureans and Scepticks who had taken great advantage from those Fables for exposing them Who had withall been herein imitated by the Aegyptians who had Allegorized Isis and Ostris and all their own most Antient Histories From whom the Alexandrian Jews seem willing to differ as little as was possible Accordingly Laertius who wrote not long after takes them into that Number and endeavoured ashe was able to give some account of them though on the ill Informations of Clearchus the Peripatetick So also Numenius before him § XXXI BUT there were also other things that contributed hereunto about the time of which I am speaking One was the attestation of some Oracles received among the Heathens themselves which also commended them for that very cause wherein they differed from the rest of Mankind Such was that produced by St. Justin Martyr not long after the time of Philo as given by a Heathen Deity to a Heathen Enquirer So he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God might possibly in this Case make the Devil speak against his own
dividing we understand the dividing the whole for the Parties to pass through or the dividing the back whence the Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostle to look into the Entrails or the dividing the Fat to Gods part to be burnt not reserving it to themselves of which the famous Story of Prometheus among the Heathens which is supposed most properly to belong to the Case of Cain § XL. It was also further usual in those Precedents whom our pretended Author seems to emulate in Forging this work to begin their Antiquities with a Philosophical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So had Moses whose Translation by the LXXII very probably first set the rest upon it So had Berosus as appears by what we have from Alexander Polyhistor out of his First Book So Manetho's in his Book Sothis the same it should seem with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which was contained his Theologia another name of the Mystical accounts of those First Originals and it may be the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Suidas and seems to have been also the beginning of his History Thus therefore Philo also thought it convenient to begin his Sanchoniathon with a Philosophical but Mystical account of the beginning of the World And here also the Aegyptian Notions had generally obtained I have shewn how Berosus and the Phoenicians came to pretend to them I have also shewn how the Doctrine even of Moses came to be taken into them But it seems to have been the custom of the Aegyptians to father all their Arts and Monuments and Sacred Constitutions on Hermes Thence so many thousand Books ascribed to him in Jamblichus Nor was it only taken up by them It was usual in those times to father the Monuments of a Sect on the first Author of it Thus the Golden Verses and other works among the Pythagoreans ascribed to Pythagoras who yet is said to have written nothing and that with a design that his Disciples might not read but live according to his Injunctions Thus Plato's Discourses fathered on Socrates who yet disowned his being the Author of many things there attributed to him Thus Zoroastres's works kept secret among the Disciples of Prodicus a shrewd suspicion of their being Forged by them And this modish way of those times was in all likelyhood the occasion of so many Supposititious works Forged by the Primitive Hereticks under the name of the Apostles So also Enoch being owned by the Babylonians for the Author of Judicial Astrology and other Arts and Sciences being pretended to have been revealed to his Son Mathuselah by an Angel was in all likelyhood the occasion of Forging the Prophecy of Enoch and those Discoveries pretended in it by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it also appears that the Books of Mercury favoured the same accounts of the fall of those Angels because the Babylonians and Aegyptians both pretended to the same Traditions at Heliopolis But in no sort of Writing was this more frequent than in their Dialogues which was the Form generally observed in these pretended works of Mercury And I cannot tell but these same Traditions of the Heliopolitanes were so far countenanced by the Jews themselves as their own Revealed Religion would give leave The account of Moses's Expedition into Aethiopia and several other things much for his advantage was taken by Artapanus from the Heliopolitanes and greedily followed by Josephus which shews no ill understanding among them So also does the Jews choosing that place above all others to build their Aegyptian Temple of Onias I mean at the Heliopolitane Leontopolis in contradistinction to Leontopolis that was the head of a distinct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor is there any heed to be taken of the Rabbins who place it in Alexandria though I believe by Alexandria they mean the whole Aegyptian Colony of Jews in opposition to their Colonies in other Countries XLI THIS Aegyptian Philosophy therefore being that which was ingredient in most of the received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least being pretended and conceived to be so how different soever the accounts were which were pretended from that same Original therefore Philo Byblius also thought it fit to take it into his pretended Sanchoniathon And because he had found it Fathered on Authors who so little agreed concerning the Particulars of it where it was to be had and who must therefore some of them be certainly mistaken it was therefore necessary to pretend to some very certain means of Information Accordingly he also pretends to the Writings not the Pillars of Taautus or Mercury Which by the way makes it suspicious that he took his Informations from the Books as Published from the Heliopolitane Pillars seeing he does not himself so much as pretend to the Original Pillars themselves and yet to secure his credit from being only at the Second hand he pretends that Mercury caused them to be written Originally not in Pillars but in Books But because so many before him who had pretended to those same Writings had yet mistaken in Interpreting them he therefore contrives a likely account how they might have a likely occasion of such mistakes and yet himself be free from the suspicion of the like Errors He pretends therefore that the first Writings of Mercury had extricated the Philosophical accounts of the first Originals of things fnom the Mythological Arts of concealment wherein Antiquity had involved them and that it was some while after but yet before any communication with the Greeks that the Priests had again involved them Which yet being done before Orpheus's time by whose means they came to the Greeks was a plain occasion how the Greek Writers who followed those latter accounts darkened purposely by the Priests might be mistaken Because they had nothing to inform them but these designedly obscure Allegories which were both capable of many senses in themselves and if any certain sense had been preserved yet it had not been easily discoverable by the Greeks without the Priests who as I said were not forward to communicate any thing of that nature to Strangers § XLII AND by the same means he had also provided an account how the Aegyptians themselves might be mistaken concerning their own Philosophy For those Priests who first involved them are said to have delivered them down thus obscured both to their own Successors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to such as were initiated in their Mysteries as I believe Vigerus has rightly rendred it It seems then that they must not have been supposed to have cleared them even to such as were initiated which sure they would have done if themselves had preserved any certain Tradition concerning them Accordingly they are supposed to have continued under this obscurity till after many Generations from Taautus Surmubelus and Thuro are said to have again unriddled them So I understand those words of Philo Byblius 〈◊〉
be desired more for the Conviction of it at this distance of time and loss of Original Monuments § XLVIII NOR can I see that this discovery will in the least injure the Cause for which those Pious as well as Learned Persons have been concerned who have hitherto made use of this Author for expounding or confirming some Historical or Philosophical passages of Scripture If there were any of these Heathen Antiquities that could either pretend to the Age of the Scriptures or to that even Domestick Evidence of being genuine there might then be some pretence for reconciling or confirming some passages of the Scriptures by them for their use who did not grant the advantage of the Sacred Writers above their own in regard of their Divine Inspiration But we never hear of any of those Heathen accounts of things mentioned in the Scriptures before the Translation of the LXXII put them into an Emulation Then it was that Berosus and Manetho and Menander and Laetus first made and published their Enquiries No mention of the Chaldaean Xisuthrus nor of the Aegyptian Hyesi nor of Abraham nor Moses nor the general Deluge in Ctesias or Xenophon or Herodotus or any of those more Antient certainly-genuine Writers When they did publish them the very Records pretended for them make them suspicious of Forgery They were pretended only from Sacred Pillarâ— extant in Adyta and these very Pillarâ— challenged in several places yet not accessible by any who had been desirous to convict them But the Scriptures were only then Translated The Originals were extant long before in Books accessible and intelligible by any who had the curiosity to learn their Tongue I do not insist on the Translation pretended to have been in Plato's time because I find no better Arguments for it than guesses that Plato had some things from the Sacred Writings which I believe he had not besides that such a Supposition is directly contrary to the much better attested Story of Aristaeus concerning the Translation performed by the command of Ptolomy Philadelphus I rather choose those more Antient instances of Theopompus the Historian and Theodectes the Poet who had seen and understood these Books of the Jews before the Translation of Philadelphus as we are assured by Demetrius Phalereus in Aristaeus besides that even the Book of Daniel one of the latest of them was yet shewn to Alexander the Great if we may believe Josephus So that even from the Greeks we have as early Evidence of their being known as we have of their being enquired after or of their being in a capacity to understand them and there can be no reason to expect earlier Besides the repugnancy of those other Nations to each other and of the different Authors even of the same Nation were certain Arguments that they did not write from the same uniform and true Records as the Jews who all agreed in the same Books as Josephus observes And for the Pentateuch that of the Samaritanes must in all likelyhood have been received from them before the time of the LXXII both because the Samaritanes were before that so exasperated by the Jews as that it is not likely they would receive any such thing from them and because it should seem the Prophets were not then collected by the Jews that they might have been delivered to them and because they still preserve it in the Old Hebrew Character not in that which was afterwards introduced by Esdras Upon all these accounts it cannot be thought reasonable either to oppose these Heathen accounts to the Scriptures or to think that any thing can be made more creditable in the Scriptures because it is confirmed by the consent of so exceptionable Authorities I have rather shewn that the occasion of their agreeing in Philosophical matters was rather their imitating and allowing the Authority of Moses and making him the Standard of their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which may indeed be of use for shewing Historically how that part of Moses was actually understood from those times wherein these Heathen accounts were first produced but can be of no farther use for shewing either the sense of Moses or how the antient first Deliverers of his Doctrine did actually understand him than as these things may be inferred or presumed from the actual sense of those later times wherein these Heathen Antiquities first appeared ERRATA PAg. 4. Marg. l. 4. init Marg. l. 17. Can. P. 28. l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 32. l. 15. Asclepius P. 43. l. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a u but a Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the first tayl cut off P. 47. l. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 48. l. 27. Jasher P. 57. Marg. l. 3. lon 1. 12. P. 58. l. 27. disposal P. 59. l. 15. Diphyes P. 60. Marg. l. 5. Sozo P. 61. l. 5. V. C. P. 65. l. 25. were P. 78. l. 10. in Ptolomy P. 91. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Daleth for Resh P. 98. l. penult they P. 112 l. 7. fictitious P. 116. l. 13. Hycsi FINIS N. IX * So Theodoret. Therap II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And so his Translator But I had rather correct him from Eusebius whom he Transcribes who in two places where he has occasion to cite this same passage agrees with himself and yet differs from Theodoret. So therefore he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and opposing Sanchoniathon's writing in the Phoenician to the Greek Translation of him by Philo Byblius and referring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to what follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to Sanchoniathon mentioned before Pr. Eu. l. 10. X. 9. And then there will appear no footsteps of any Etymology of his Name Yet Bochart gives a likely Etymology for that purpose which if it hold will shew at least a design of Philo Byblius in giving him that particular Name * Eusio Pr. Ev. l. 10. 31. A. X. 9. 485. Theodoret Therap II. XI o Hirami Ant. VIII 2. p. 259. Ed. Gene. XII o c. App. l. 1. p. 1043. Vid. Joseph Ant. VIII 2. Cont. Appion L. 1. Theoph. Antioch L. 111. ad Autolyc Pr. Eu. l. 9. p. 31. B. Chron. L. 11 in it Tertul. de Pal c. 2. ubi Salmas à Cerda Eus Pr. Ev. x. 9. p. 485. 486. Macrob in somn Scip. 11. 19. Oros L. 1. Chron. Con. Aegypt Sec. XVII p. 522. Edit Lips Eus Chron. Herodot L. 1. c. Appian Praef. Diox Halicarn L. 1. Philo ap Steph. Baâ—â— Philo Byblius ap Eus Pr. Ev. l. 9. 31. D. Athen. Deipnos L. 3. For the Pythagoraeans see Tim. Locr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Platonists Plato himself de Rep. L. 3. v. S. Hieronym adv Ruff. L. 1. See the words of Porphyry in Eus Pr. Ev. l. 9. X. 9. Theodoret Therap 11. * §. 36. a Therap 11. 111. from Eus Pr. Ev. x. 9. b Cont.