may be hence evidently and certainly concluded that Origen never read in Josephus that testimony to Jesus which we now have in his works. I have above mentioned no other Latin author but Tertullian, to whom Josephus was well known. But I might also have insisted upon the silence of the other Latin apologists for Christianity of the first three centuries, as Minucius Felix, Cyprian, Arnobius, nd Lactantius; to whom so extraordinary a testimony to our Saviour, in so celebrated a Jewish writer, would not have been unknown if it had been in him. Eusebius then, who flourished about the year of Christ 315, and afterwards, is the first Christian writer in whom this paragraph is found; and by him it is twice quoted at large. After him, as is well known, it is quoted by Jerom, Sozomen, and many other following writers. e C d But it is observable that this paragraph is never quoted by Chrysostom, whom I suspect to have had but little regard for Eusebius of Cæsarea. He several times refers to Josephus as a proper writer, from whom men might learn what miseries the Jewish people had undergone in their war with the Romans; he not being a believer, but a Jew, and zealous for the Jewish rites even after the rise of Christianity.' He refers likewise to what Josephus says of John the Baptist, though inaccurately, as must be acknowledged: but he never takes any notice of this testimony to Jesus; which surely he would not have omitted, in his many arguments with the Jews, if he had been acquainted with it, and had supposed it to be genuine. f Some have supposed that this testimony of Josephus was alleged by Macarius in the time of Dioclesian. But Fabricius has honestly and judiciously observed that there is no reason to take that passage of Macarius for genuine. 2. This paragraph was wanting in the copies of Josephus which were seen by Photius in the ninth century. I make a distinct article of this writer, because he read and revised the works of Josephus as a critic. He has in his Bibliotheque no less than three articles concerning Josephus, but takes no notice of this passage. Whence it may be concluded that it was wanting in his copies, or that he did not think it genuine: but the former is the more likely. He refers to the passage concerning John the Baptist in this manner: This Herod, tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa, son • of Herod the great, is he who put to death the great John the forerunner, because, as Josephus says, he would stir up the people to rebellion. For all men paid great regard to John upon account of his transcendent virtue. In his time also our Saviour suffered.' How fair an occasion had Photius here to refer also to the testimony given to Jesus, which we now have, if he had seen it? Upon this article of Photius the very learned Ittigius in his Prolegomena to Josephus has just remarks, invincibly asserting the absolute silence of this great critic concerning this paragraph of Josephus. And very observable is what Photius says in his article of Justus of Tiberias. This writer, labouring under the common prejudice of the Jews, and being himself a Jew, makes not any the least mention of the coming of Christ, or the things concerning him, or the miracles done by him.' This is very remarkable. This silence of Justus concerning our Saviour was not peculiar to him, but was common to other Jewish writers with him, very probably intending debere μμovina duaprηuari Origenis-Certe nullibi, a et qui istos aut probat aut revincit Judæus Josephus, antiquitatum Judaïcarum vernaculus vindex. Tert. Ap. c. 19, p. 19. H. E. 1. 1. c. xi. Dem. Ev. 1. 3. P. 124. c De V. I. c. 13. d Soz. f. 1. c. 1. p. 399. - και γαρ Ιεδαίος ην, και σφοδρα Ιεδαίος, και ζηλωτής, και των μετα την Χρισε παρεσίαν. In Matt. hom. 76. al. 77. T. 7. p. 732. Vid. et in Matt. hom. 75. al. 76. p. 727. et in Jo. hom. 64, al. 65. T. 8. p. 390. f In Jo. hom. 12. al. 13. T. 8. p. 73. A. Hoc Josephi loco non utuntur Justinus, Tertullianus, Chrysostomus, aliique complures, quando contra Judæos disputant. Non produxit Origenes, alia Josephi laudans in libris contra Celsum. Nec Photius quidem tanto junior esse. i Cod. 238. p. 973. Ap. Havercamp, p. 89. 1 ὡς δε τα Ιεδαίων νόσων, Ιεδαιος τε καί αυτος ὑπάρχων το γενος, της Χριςε παρεσίας, και των περὶ αυτον τελεσθέντων, και των ὑπ' αυτε τερατεργηθέντων, εδενος όλως μνημην εποιη σaro: Cod. 33. p. 20. Josephus. If Josephus hatt been an exception, he would not have been omitted, but would have been expressly mentioned. 3. This paragraph concerning Jesus interrupts the course of the narration; and therefore is not genuine, but is an interpolation. In the preceding paragraph Josephus gives an account of an attempt of Pilate to bring water from a distant place to Jerusalem with the sacred money; which occasioned a disturbance, in which many Jews were killed, and many others were wounded. a The paragraph next following this, about which we are now speaking, begins thus: And about the same time another sad calamity gave the Jews great uneasiness.' That calamity was no less than banishing the Jews from Rome by order of the emperor Tiberius: occasioned,' 'as he says, by the misconduct of some Jews in that city.' This paragraph therefore was not originally in Josephus. It does not come from him: but it is an interpolation inserted by somebody afterwards. This argument must be of great weight with all who are well acquainted with the writings of Josephus, who is a cool and sedate writer, very exact in connecting his narrations, and never failing to make transitions where they are proper or needful. I believe it is not easy to instance another writer who is so exact in all his pauses and transitions, or so punctual in the notice he gives, when he has done with one thing and goes on to another. That must make this argument the stronger. C Tillemont was sensible of this difficulty, though he thinks that the writers who maintain the genuineness of this passage have made good their point. It must be owned, however,' says he, that there is one thing embarrassing in this passage, which is, that it interrupts the course of the narration in Josephus. For that which immediately follows begins in these terms: "About the same time there happened another misfortune which disturbed the Jews." For those words, "another misfortune," have no connection with what was just said of Jesus Christ: which is not mentioned as an unhappiness. And, on the contrary, it has a very • natural reference to what precedes in that place: which is a sedition, in which many Jews were killed or wounded. Certainly it is not so easy to answer to this difficulty as to the others. I wish that Mr. Huet and Mr. Roie had stated this objection, and given satisfaction upon it. As for myself, I know not what to say to it; but that Josephus himself might insert this passage after his work was finished: and he did not then think of a more proper place for it than this, where he passed from what happened in Judea under Pilate to somewhat that was done at the same time at Rome; and he forgot to alter the transition, which he had made ' at first.' Undoubtedly the difficulty presses very hard, which will allow of no better solution. · 4. Let us now observe the paragraph itself, and consider whether it be suitable or unsuitable to the general character of Josephus. At the same time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works.' d But why should Josephus scruple to call Jesus a man?' Were not Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and other prophets, men? The wonderful works done by them were not done by their own power, but by the power of God, bearing testimony to their commission, or supporting them in the execution of it. Moreover, Moses himself, who is so highly extolled and magnified by Josephus, is often called by him a man. Why then should he scruple to say the same of Jesus? However, it should be owned that he has this expression concerning Moses: So that his legislation, which was from God, made this man to be thought superior to his own nature.* He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure.? * Και ύπο τες αυτές χρονος έτερον τι δεινον εθορυβε τας Iefales. L. 18. c. 3. sect. 4. * Και οἱ μεν δια κακιαν τεσσαρων ανδρων ελαύνοντο της woλews. sect. 5. fin. Ruine des Juifs. note xl. Hist. des Emp. Tom. i. d Sed quo judicio scriptum est quod sequitur: είχε ανδρα AUTOY XEYELV XFN. Quænam, quæso, ratio est ? Quia, inquit, wapadour eye worns ny. Itaque adeo, quando ita vult, dubitabitur in posterum a nobis, dii an homines appellandi sint Moses, Elias, Eliseus? Nam et illi fuerunt wapadowv ἔργων ποιηται. Deinde, cum ait εγε ανδρα αυτον λεγειν χρῇ, 6 : Very honourable to Jesus and his followers! But would Josephus say this of them? And would he call the Christian religion the truth?' He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles.' That is not true of the Lord Jesus, if intended of his own personal preaching, before his crucifixion. It was done indeed afterwards. But this manner of speaking is more suitable to a writer of the second or third century than to Josephus. This was the Christ.' Jerom in his article of Josephus, in his book of Illustrious Men, quoting this passage, puts it thus: And he was believed to be the Christ.' Which is a qualifying expression for which there is no ground. Nor did Sophronius, Jerom's Greek interpreter, follow that translation, but puts it as it is in Eusebius, and other Greek writers: This was the Christ.' But it cannot be supposed that Josephus either thought or said that Jesus was the Christ. c It follows: And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned 'him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him: for on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having fore'told these and many other wonderful things concerning him.' All must be sensible that this could not be said by any man but a professed Christian, which Josephus was not; therefore he could not write this. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists to this day.' Which Mr. Whiston translates in this manner: And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.' But Mr. W-, who thinks this passage to be Josephus's, should not have rendered v tribe; because Q is the word always used by Josephus for tribe; and Quλov, which we have here, always signifies nation in Josephus: nor were the Christians a nation or political society in the first three centuries. Here it is put for sect: it cannot signify any thing else in this place. Jesus is called a 'wise man,' and is said to have been a teacher of such as received the truth with pleasure.” And though he had been crucified, they who had before conceived an affection for him did not 'cease to adhere to him, because he appeared to them alive again." Here the word denotes sect. But paris heresy, is the word generally used by Josephus in speaking of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, the three prevailing sects, or different ways of philosophizing among the Jews. f. The phrase 512vwv Quo, here used, resembles the phrase xpisiva evos, which was in use in the time of Eusebius, at the beginning of the fourth century, and denotes the sect of the Christians.' Moreover, the expression subsists to this time,' or is not extinct at this day,' imports a considerable space of time since the crucifixion of Jesus; and does very reasonably lead us to think that the composer of this paragraph lived later than Josephus. These considerations, as seems to me, are sufficient to determine the point in question, and to satisfy all men that Josephus was not the author of this paragraph. However, I shall add one consideration more. 5. If Josephus were the author of this paragraph, it would be reasonable to expect in him frequent mention of Christ's miracles, whereas he is every where silent about them. Josephus was a Pharisee: he believed the miracles of Moses and the Jewish prophets: he believed a divine providence superintending human affairs, the immortality of the soul, and the rewards of a future state. And he is willing enough to relate extraordinary things, or such things as had an appearance of being so. Therefore he tells a story of Eleazar's dispossessing a dæmon by virtue of some incantations, and the use of a certain root called Baanas. h Therefore he relates a dream of Archelaus, and then another of Glaphyra, as very extraor dinary, as confirming the doctrine of the immortality of souls, and the belief of a divine provi dence concerning itself about human affairs. Those dreams are related by him both in the History of the Jewish War, and in his Antiquities: and yet that dream of Glaphyra is now con sidered by divers learned men as a mere fiction. I might refer to another silly story of the fulfilment of a prediction of Judas, an Essene: which is related by him also in both those works, the War and the Antiquities. Would any man please himself with such poor things as these, and relate them to the world as matters of importance, if he had any respect for the doctrines and miracles of Jesus Christ? No. He was either unacquainted with them, or resolutely silent about them; and never can be supposed author of the honourable testimony here borne to Jesus as the Christ. Supposing these arguments to be of great weight some may ask how this paragraph came to be in the works of Josephus? In that case I should answer, that probably some learned Christian, who had read the works of Josephus, thinking it strange that this Jewish historian should say nothing of Jesus Christ, wrote this paragraph in the margin of his copy, and thence it came to be afterwards inserted into many copies of the works of Josephus: but for a good while it was not in all: and therefore Photius did not see it in that copy which he made use of. d c Who was the first author of this interpolation cannot be said. Tanaquil Faber suspected Eusebius. I do not charge it upon him; but I think it was first made about his time; for, if I am not mistaken, we have seen sufficient reason to believe that this paragraph was not quoted by Origen, nor by any ancient Christian writer before Eusebius, that we have any knowledge of. Though many learned men have maintained the genuineness of this paragraph, others have rejected it. And for avoiding the charge of singularity, and for giving satisfaction to some scrupulous persons, I shall, beside the authors before referred to, transcribe at the bottom of the page the observations of Vitringa. And I add the judgment of Dr. Warburton, now bishop of Gloucester, who has expressed himself upon the subject in very clear and strong terms. a Jew,' says his Lordship, owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the passage where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, in as strong • terms as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one too.' If III. There is yet one passage more in the works of Josephus, which ought to be here taken notice of: it is in the twentieth book of his Antiquities, and to this purpose. h The emperor having been informed of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be præfect in Judea. And the king [meaning Agrippa the younger] took away the high-priesthood from Joseph, and bestowed that dignity upon the son of Ananus, who also was named AnanusThis younger Ananus, who, as we said just now, was made high-priest, was " haughty in his behaviour, and very enterprising: and moreover he was of the sect of the Sadducees, who, as we have also observed before, are above all other Jews severe in their judicial sentences. This then being the temper of Ananus, and he thinking he had a fit opportunity because Festus was dead, and Albinus was yet upon the road, calls a council of judges: and, bringing before them James the brother of him who is called Christ, and some others, he accused them as transgressors of the laws, and had them stoned to death. But the most moderate men of the city, who also were reckoned most skilful in the laws, were offended at this proceeding. They therefore sent privately to the king, [Agrippa before mentioned,] entreating him to send orders i de cohærentiâ horum verborum Josephi, quibus Christo tes- ' aliud etiam Judæos turbavit incommodum, &c.' Quæ tamen See Divine Legation of Moses, B. 2. Sect. 6, p. 295, Η θρασυς ην τον τροπον, και τολμητης διαφερόντως. i καθίζει συνέδριον κριτων και παραγαγων εις αυτό τον αδελφον Ιησε το λεγόμενο Χρισε, Ιακωβος όνομα αυτώ, και παρεΐωκε λευσθήσομενες. τινας ἕτερος, ὡς παρανομησαντων κατηγορίαν ποιησάμενος, to Ananus no more to attempt such things: and some went away to meet Albinus, who was 'coming from Alexandria, and put him in mind that Ananus had no right to call a council ⚫ without his leave. Albinus approving of what they said, wrote to Ananus in much anger, threatening to punish him for what he had done: and king Agrippa took away from him the high-priesthood, after he had enjoyed it three months, and put in Jesus the son of Damnæus.” This passage is cited from Josephus by Eusebius, and from the twentieth book of his Antiquities. It is also quoted by Jerom, but very inaccurately. We perceive likewise that it was in the copies of Josephus in the time of Photius. b a d c Nevertheless there are learned men, of good judgment, who think that the words which we now have in Josephus, concerning James, are an interpolation. They were in Josephus in the time of Eusebius, and afterwards; but it does not follow they were always there: indeed, there is a good deal of reason to believe that they were not originally in Josephus. I have elsewhere carefully examined the most ancient accounts of the death of James, called the just, and the brother of Jesus: those disquisitions will be of use here. The persons of whom Josephus speaks, who were tried and condemned by the Jewish council at the instigation of Ananus, were put to death by stoning, and probably without the city. But, according to the history of the death of James, given by Hegesippus, a learned Jewish believer and writer in the second century, the death of James was effected in a tumultuous manner: the disturbance began at the temple, and he died there, or near it. Some flung him down and threw stones at him: but his death was completed by a blow on the head with a long pole, such as fullers make use of in beating wet clothes. This is said by Clement of Alexandria in his Institutions, as cited by Eusebius, and by Hegesippus, as cited also by him. That therefore is the true and ancient account of the death of James, the Lord's brother: and the Christians of the second century knew nothing of that account of his death which we now have in Josephus: therefore, probably there was then nothing in him about it; for if there had, they would not have been ignorant of it. go Moreover, it is very observable that, according to the long and particular history of the death and martyrdom of James, which we have in Hegesippus, that apostle suffered alone: there was no attempt made upon any others, as the passage now in Josephus intimates. And it is inconsistent with the whole narrative that any others should be joined with him. And that James suffered martyrdom, not by order of council, as now in Josephus, but in a tumultuous manner at the temple, or near it, and by a blow on the head with a fuller's pole, appears to have been the general and prevailing opinion of Christians in the fourth century, as well as before: for it is mentioned by Jerom, and Epiphanius, very agreeably to Hegesippus. In this place therefore Josephus gave an account of some who were accused by Ananus, and condemned by his council as transgressors of the Jewish laws: and what Ananus did was upon H. E. 1. 2. cap. 23, p. 65, 66. De V. I. cap. ii. De Jacobo fratre Domini. -- • αυθεντισας καθίζει συνέδριον, και Ιακωβον τον αδελφον το κύριο, συν ἑτέροις, παρανομίαν αιτιασάμενος, λίθοις αναίρε Orval napaσnevals. x. λ. Phot. cod. 238, p. 977. d Facile quidem crediderim, Jerosolymitanos proceres graviter tulisse, quod synedrium suâ auctoritate instituisset, cum dudum jus gladii a Romanis esset Judæis ademtum; quod iterum inconsulto Cæsare ab Anano usurpatum timebant, ne genti suæ gravi fortasse pœnâ luendum esset. Sed quæ de Jacobo, Jesu, qui Christus dicebatur, fratre, habentur, merum adsumentum male feriati Christiani esse videntur. Cleric. H. E. ann. 62, n. ii. p. 415. Sunt quoque rationes sat graves, quæ persuadeant hæc fuisse interpolata, et scripsisse duntaxat Josephum: xai mapaγαγων εις αυτό τινας, και ὡς παρανομησάντων κατηγορίαν TOINTαμEVOS. X. λ. Statutosque coram eo nonnullos, et accusatos perfractæ legis, tradidit lapidibus obruendos. Id. Ars Crit. P. 3, cap. 14, sect. 12. Vol. 2, p. 289. Illa de Jacobo, Jesu, qui Christus dicebatur, fratre, (licet agnita ab Eusebio, aliisque eum sequutis, disertimque a Photio,) pro mero adsumento male feriati Christiani habentur a nonnullis; quam recte, xpITIxwTεpwy esto judicium. Hudson. annot. ad Antiq. 1. 20, c. ix. sect. 1. e See this Vol. Ch. xvi. Sect. iii. v. vi. * Δυο δε γεγονασιν Ιακωβοι· εἰς ὁ δικαιος, ὁ κατὰ τὰ πτερο για βληθείς, και ὑπὸ κναφεως ξυλῳ πληγεις εις θανατον. Clem. A. ap. Euseb. H.E. 1. 2. c. i. p. 38. D. Conf. ib. cap. 23. p. 63. C. et 65. C. And see in this work, the present Vol. ch. xvi. num. iii. 8 Και λαβων τις απ' αυτών, είς των γναφέων, το ξύλον εν ώ απεπιεζε τα ἱματια, ήνεγκε κατα της κεφαλής το δίκαιο. Και STWS EμаρTUPYσεV. Hegesipp. ap. Euseb. H. E. 1. 2, cap. 23, p. 65. B. Qui cum præcipitatus de pinnâ templi, confractis cru-ribus, adhuc semivivus -fullonis fuste quo uda vestimenta extorqueri solent, in cerebro percussus interiit- -et juxta templum, ubi et præcipitatus fuerat, sepultus est. Hier. de V. I. cap. 2. Qui et ipse postea de Templo a Judæis præcipitatus successorem habuit Simonem, quem et ipsum tradunt_pro Domino crucifixum. Id. Comm. in ep. ad Gal. cap. i. T. 4, p. 237. Hær. 78. num. xiv. p. 1046. |