'209 



which the}^ held correct, of its meaning, and design would be 

 urged and brought as evidence against its authenticity and 

 its truth. — -I shall in the sequel, assign the probable causes of 

 their exposition of the text. 



4. This is a very remarkable instance of an author beino- 

 brought as evidence against the truth of a record, wl.ich his 

 testimony, on the very shewing of the person alledging it, 

 goes to establish and confirm. The authority of Josephus, 

 can, by the last eflbrt of human ingenuity, be considered 

 but in t,wo modes — either he intended (sis the 1-carned au-, 

 thor has supposed) to refer to the text in question; and then 

 he becomes an advocate the more an defence of its authen- 

 ticity ; or he did not, in which case his testimony is quite in- 

 different to the decision. On the first alternative, it is evident 

 to the simplest understanding, that he did find a number and 

 interval in the text, since he has assigned one; and of course 

 that the arguments laid down with so much emphasis and de- 

 cision by the learned author, to prove that the part of the verse 

 in which the period is delivered, is spurious and interpolated, 

 are equally inaccurate and indefensible ; that in a word it wj's 

 read in the history, previously to ihe redaction of the canonical 

 books by the doctors of the Tiberiade, and consequently was 

 not inserted by thein, or depending on their traditions ; so that 

 the only question that could arise, would be between the com- 

 parative accuracy of the Versions and MSS. of Josephus, and ■ 

 those of the Hebrew text; in the decision of which, (more par- 



2 E 2 ticularlv 



