CHAPTER IV.

REMARKS ON THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE JEWISH HISTORY; OBSERVATIONS ON THE PENTATEUCH; DATA AFFORDED WHICH PROVE IT NOT TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY MOSES.

HAVING in the preceding observations replied to the principal questions, taken seriatim, in the Remarks; and adduced additional evidence, principally however derived from Volney's further elucidations, contained in the New Researches, in acceptance of the challenge given to produce additional evidence on the subjects discussed, but which was asserted 1 to be unattainable, we have it is presumed, to a certain extent succeeded in disproving some, and the major part, of the assertions contained in the Remarks, as far as we have proceeded; and in the Critic's own words pointed

1

1 Hails.

out "the sophistry and inconclusive nature of his pretended arguments." This having formed his principal design with regard to Volney's illustrations; with what degree of success, is the subject of our investigation.

In attempting to adduce evidence and illustration of the incorrectness of the Jewish history, in the first instance, with regard to the dates of events, the reigns of the Jewish kings, &c. as recorded in the books of Kings, Chronicles, and others, we have principally to refer to the expositions of these subjects, as given in the New Researches;1 where the inaccuracy of the Jewish records, or of their compilers, is clearly pointed out; and we therefore return to the Remarks. At the conclusion of the third chapter, it is stated, "if there ever was a history which had a claim to the reverence and acceptance of mankind, it is the Pentateuch. It bears internal characters of truth not to be found in any other historical writings; and the few disguised fragments of true history which are found in other ancient writings that treat of those times, afford evidence of the correctness of Moses; and indeed seem to have been gathered from the sacred records, of which he was the penman." Our Critic then proceeds in the fourth chapter, to adduce "a few 2 Remarks, part 1.

1 Vol. 1.

C

of the internal evidences of the truth of the Mosaic history, and of the Divine authority of the Jewish institutions;" the whole of which may be considered to be completely refuted by Volney in the New Researches,' by proofs drawn from the writings themselves. In order to represent this in a clearer light however, the following quotations are necessarily given, by which the Pentateuch is proved not to have been written or composed by Moses; and the bases of the Jewish dogmas, to have been derived from extraneous sources. It is at first remarked in the New Researches, chapter fifth, "Of the times prior to Moses, and of the books attributed to that legislator," that" if the Jews could preserve no exact notions of the time elapsed between the highpriest Eli and Moses, nor of the time of their fathers' stay in Egypt, for nothing is clear on that head, how can they pretend to be better acquainted with earlier times, when their nation did not exist, and what is more, when no nation existed, that is to say, the epoch of the origin of the world, at which no witness was present, an account of which is still however given us in their Genesis, as if the writer had seen with his own eyes, the entire process of it? The Jews tell us it is a revelation made by God to their prophet: 1 Vol. 1, chapters v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x.

we answer that many other nations have made use of the same language. The Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and Persians have had, as well as the Jews, their histories of the creation equally revealed to their prophets Hermes, Zoroaster, &c. In our days the Hindoos have shewn our missionaries the Vedas and Pouranas, with pretensions to a much remoter antiquity than Genesis itself, and the other books attributed to Moses. It is true our learned Biblists reject, or at least contest, the authenticity of these books, but when in our converting zeal, we present to the Hindoos the Bible, what shall we reply, if the Brahmins retort on us our own European arguments? If for instance they say to us:

'You deny the authenticity and antiquity of certain Pouranas and Chartras, because they mention facts posterior to the presumed date of their composition; well! we in our turn deny the authenticity of the five books you attribute to Moses, for the very same reason, because we find in them a great many passages and citations incompatible with that legislator.'

The question then is to know, if this latter assertion is founded in fact; and it is a question to be discussed before all others; for the chronological system prior to Moses, deriving its chief authority from the supposition of its having been

written by that prophet, if this supposition is proved fallacious, the authority of the system will thereby be considerably weakened. Learned critics have already treated this subject; but because they were very far from exhausting it, and especially as they did not well perceive the consequences that flowed from the proofs, we shall take up the discussion from its foundations, and present a more complete view than any former one, of all the passages of the Pentateuch, which prove this work posthumous with respect to Moses, and which indicate the true epoch of its composition."

For further proofs however of the posthumous compilation of the Pentateuch, with respect to Moses, we must refer to the subsequent chapters in the New Researches. The sixth chapter containing " passages of the Pentateuch, tending to indicate at what time, and by whom this work was or was not composed;" and chapter seventh of the "epoch of the apparition of the Pentateuch," referring to Kings, book 2, c. 22. From the whole of which, data are afforded which prove the Pentateuch to have been written or published at first by the high-priest Hilkiah, in the reign of Josiah ; and by which it is demonstrated to be no other than the book of the law,

1 Anno 620 or 621, A. C.