Page:Essays ethnological and linguistic.djvu/208

196 unsparing in their censures of it; and even Bayle could not repress his indignation that one professing himself a Jew could bring himself to contradict so explicitly as he does the books of Moses and the other sacred writings of his nation. But the 11th book is not only inconsistent with the Scriptual history, but also with itself, for it gives two different accounts of the return of the Israelites from captivity, such as we can scarcely imagine how any person of common discernment could have repeated in one and the same book. Yet Josephus was certainly no ordinary character; and as this charge may be so distinctly alleged against him, we can only charitably account for it by surmising, that the work has been falsified, and is not handed down to us correctly as he wrote it.

In the beginning of this 11th book, Josephus agrees with the sacred narrative given by Ezra as to the return of the Israelites from captivity under Cyrus, but immediately after states that this event took place under Darius, under quite different circumstances. These he then details in almost the same manner as is done in the Apocryphal Esdras, representing that the restoration took place under the favour of the latter monarch, and yet consecutively he returns to the canonical history, in opposition to what he had just stated. He says that the people, having proceeded to rebuild the temple, the rulers of Syria and Phœnicia wrote to Darius, telling him of what was doing in Jerusalem, and, as declared by the "chief doers," by virtue of the decree of Cyrus, not of Darius; that these rulers of Syria and Phœnicia thereupon asked for a search to be made among the records of king Cyrus, and if it were found, that the king should signify his pleasure respecting it. He goes on to say, that king Darius accordingly ordered the search to be made; and having found the decree of Cyrus, he confirmed it, and the building was completed. Now this account, as agreeing with that in the book of Ezra, is not only true, but clear on the face of it as referring to the permission of a former monarch. But if the permission had been given by Darius himself to Zerubbabel, as immediately before detailed, what occasion could there have been for any search among the records of Cyrus, when nothing more was necessary than to refer to the permission of Darius, the reigning monarch, which would have been much more conclusive than the decree of his predecessor? Other inconsistencies and self-contradictions might also be pointed out, but these will suffice to show what little reliance can be placed on the authority of this 11th book of the 'Jewish Antiquities.' Yet it is in this same book, which