Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

If it had been originally in the works of Josephus, it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles: but it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen; men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews: it might also have been fitly alleged against Gentiles. A testimony so favourable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after the time of our Saviour, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favours from Vespasian and Titus, could not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist.

If this passage had related only to some one of the first followers of Jesus, the omission had not been so remarkable; but it relates to Jesus himself: it declares his proper character, his miracles, his crucifixion, and resurrection; and that all this was agreeable to the predictions of the prophets.

This passage is not only not quoted by Origen, but we can perceive that he had it not; for in the words next following the notice taken of John the Baptist, as mentioned by Josephus, and before quoted by us, he adds: “ The same writer, though he did not believe Jesus to be the

Christ, inquiring into the cause of the overthrow of Jerusalem, and the demolition of the temple, when he ought to have said that their attempt upon Jesus was the cause of the ruin of " that people, forasmuch as they had put to death the Christ before prophesied of; he as it were • unwillingly, and not erring far from the truth, says: These things befel the Jews in vindication • of James called the just, who was the brother of Jesus called the Christ: forasmuch as they • killed him who was a most righteous man. That James is the same whom Paul, that genuine

disciple of Jesus, says he had seen, and calls the Lord's brother, [Gal. i. 19] not so much for • the sake of consanguinity, as their common education, and agreement in manners and doctrine. • If therefore he says the destruction of Jerusalem had befallen the Jews for the sake of James,

with how much more reason might he have said that this had happened for the sake of Jesus who • was the Christ, to whose divinity so many churches bear witness; who, being now recovered * from the pollutions of vice, have given up themselves to the Creator, and endeavour to please • him in all things ??

Afterwards, in his second book against Celsus, he argues our Saviour's knowledge of futurities from his predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, which had not been effected till the times of Vespasian and Titus. Which,' as Josephus writes, ' happened upon account • of James the Just, the brother of Jesus called the Christ; but in truth upon account of Jesus - the Christ, the Son of God.'

Origen speaks again to the like purpose in his commentary upon St. Matthew; and says that • this James, the same that is mentioned by Paul in his epistle to the Galatians, [i. 19] was so • respected by the people for his righteousness, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Jewish * Antiquities in twenty books, being desirous to assign the cause why that people suffered such • things, so that even their temple was demolished to the foundation, says that those things had • happened because of the anger of God against them, for what they had done to James the • brother of Jesus called the Christ. And it is wonderful that he who did not receive our Jesus as the Christ, should ascribe such righteousness to James. He says that the people also were of opinion that they suffered these things upon account of James.'

After Origen, the same saying of Josephus concerning James is also alleged by Eusebius and' Jerom; but without saying any more than Origen what work of Josephus, or what book of his works, it was in.

There is not now any thing of that kind in any of his works: nor is it easily conceivable that there ever was. But what I now allege these passages of Origen for, is to shew that it may be hence evidently and certainly concluded that Origen never read in Josephus that testimony to Jesus which we now have in his works.

• ο δ' αυτος, καιτοιγε απιςων τω Ιησε ως Χρισω, ζητων την « Comm. in Matt: Tom. X. sect. 17. p. 463. Bened. T. i. αιτιαν της των Ιεροσολύμων πτωσεως, και της το ναι καθαιρε- p. 223. Huet. σεως: δεον αυτον ειπείν, ότι η τε Ιησε επιβολη τοτων αιτια • H. E. 1. 2. cap. xxiii: p. 65. γεγονε τω λαω, επει απεκτειναν τον προφητευομενον Χριςον. Tradit idem Josephus, tantæ eum sanctitatis fuisse, et %.à. Contr. Cels. l. 1. c. 47. p. 35.

celebritatis in populo, ut propter ejus necem creditum sit, • Ειπερ δια Ιακωβον συμβεβηκεναι λεγει τοις Ιεδαιοις τα subversam. esse Hierosolymam. De V. I. cap. 2. vid. et κατα την ερημωσιν της Ιερεσαλήμ, κ. λ. ib.

-ως μεν Ιωσηπος γράφει, δια Ιακωβον τον δικαιον, τον και Quod vero attinet ad ista, ταυτα συμβεβηκεν Ιεδαιοις αδελφον Ιησε τα λεγομενα Χριςοως δε η αληθεια παριςησι, κατα εκδικησιν Ιακωβε το δικαιο. κ. λ. que, tamquam 3 812 Iyory Toy Xpısoy toy vior T8 8. Contr. Cels. 1. 2. sect. Josepho probata in Antiquitatum libris, affert Origines, et 13. p. 69.

ex eo, ut puto, Eusebius, aliique, verisimile est, ea referri

cap. 13.

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, and 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.

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.

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 6 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 k 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 urnuovixw audpanuati Origenis -Certe nullibi,

-Certe nullibi, libris contra Celsum. Nec Photius quidem tanto junior quod sciam, haberi potuerunt in Antiquitatibus, ut quæ non meminit, in cujus Bibl. Antiquitates Josephi bis recensentur. agant de Hierosolymorum excidio. Hudson. annot. ad Jos. cod. 76, et 238. Ante Eusebium tamen allegaverat Antiq. I. 20. c. ix. sect. 1. p. 976. ed. Hav. Vid. et Cleric. illum Macarius quidam, cubiculi imperatorii præfectus, si. Ars Crit. p. 3. c. xiv. sect. 8, 9, 10.

quidem genuinus sit hujus ad Diocletianum sermo, qui refera -et qui istos aut probat aut revincit Judæus Josephus, tur in Actis Sanctorum Macarii, a Cl. viro W. E. Tenselio, antiquitatum Judaïcarum vernaculus vindex. Tert. Ap. c. primum in Dialogis menstruis Germanice editis, A. 1697. p. 19, p. 19.

556. Sed merito existimandum, hæc Acta martyris Maca6 H. E. 1. 1. c. xi. Dem. Ev. 1. 3.

po
124.

riani, si non longe post Diocletianum plane conficta, saltem c. De V. I. c. 13. d Soz. I. 1. c. 1. p. 399.

interpolata, atque locum Josephi insertum a recentiore manu -και γαρ Ιεδαιος ην, και σφοδρα Ιεδαιος, και ζηλωτης, Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. 3. p. 237. mai TWY META TYY Xp158 naporlay. In Matt. hom. 7ð. al. 77. 1 Cod. 48, 76, et 238. T. 7. p. 732. Vid. er in Matt. hom. 75. al. 76. p. 727. et in

e

i Cod. 238. p. 973. * Ap. Havercamp, p. 89. Jo. hom. 64, al. 65. T. 8. p. 390.

1 ως δε τα Ιεδαιων νοσων, Ιέδαιος τε και αυτος υπαρχων το In Jo, hom. 12. al. 13. T. 8.

P.
73. A.

γενος, της Χριςο παράσιας, και των περι αυτον τελεσθεντων, • Hoc Josephi loco non utuntur Justinus, Tertullianus, και των υπ' αυτο τερατεργηθεντων, αδενος όλως μνημην εποιηChrysostomus, aliique complures, quando contra Judæos dis- gato. Cod. 33. p. 20. putant. Non produxit Origenes, alia Josephi laudans in

esse.

Josephus. If Josephus had 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.

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, bas 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.

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.'

But why should Josephus scruple to call Jesus ' a man? Were not Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and other prophets, men 2 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 υπο τες αυτες χρονες έτερον τι δεινον εθορυβε τες quid, queso, aliud innuere vult, nisi Jesum Dominum esse la12185. L. 18. c. 3. sect. 4.

Deum ? In quo graviter errat hic pius impostor. Judæi enim 6 Και οι μεν δια κακιαν τεσσαρων ανδρων ελαυνοντο της ne suspicabantur quidem, Messiam sen Christum fore Deum, Wonews. sect. 5. fin.

sed præstantissimum aliquem principem ex semine Davidis. • Ruine des Juifs. note xl. Hist. des Emp. Tom. i.

Tan. Fab. ap. Havercamp. Joseph. p. 269. Sed quo judicio scriptum est quod sequitur: erye avopa • Antiq. I. 3. c. xv. l. 4. c. viii. et alibi. AUTOY deyelv xrm. Quænam, qureso, ratio est ? Quia, inquit, Θαυμασος δε της αρετης και ανηρ. κ. λ. Αnt. 1. 3. c. Υν, mapedotwy stywe WOLYTYS TV. Itaque adeo, quando ita vult, dubitabitur in posterum a nobis, dii an homines appellandi * Ουτως η νομοθεσια τα Θεα δοκισα τον ανδρα πεποιηκε της sint Moses, Elias, Elisæus ? Nam et illi fuerunt aapadowy αυτ8 φυσεως κρειττονα νομιζεσθαι. Ιbid. εργων ποιηται. Deinde, cum ait ευγε ανδρα αυτον λεγειν χρη,

f

sect. 3.

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 bis 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.

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 nained from • him, are not extinct at this day. But Mr. W -, who thinks this passage to be Josephus's, should not have rendered Ounov tribe; because Quin is the word always used by Josephus for tribe; and Dudov, 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 signity 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 dipecis 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.

The phrase CP:512VW Qudov, here used, resembles the phrase xpıçtavwv kovos, 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.

Therefore he relates a dream of Archelaus, and then another of Glaphyra, as very extraordinary, as 'confirming the doctrine of the immortality of souls, and the belief of a divine provia Et credebatur esse Christus.

τω εθνει των Χρισιανων εαυτος συμμεμιχοτας: , b 'O.Xpisos STOs qui

Maximin. ap. Euseb. H. E. I. 9. c. ix. p. 360. C.

ad " See particularly Sozomen, 1. 1. cap. i.

P. 399.

Christianorum sectam se applicuisse cernerent. Vales. -όπε και. Παρθου, το πολεμικωτατον φυλον. De B. J. 8 Vid de B. J. I. 7. c. vi. Ant. 1. 8. c. ii. sect. 5. 1. 2. c. 16. sect. 4. p. 189. Hav. llar upwe to quaoy. Jb. "Antiq. I. 17. c. xiii. sect. 3, 4, 5. De B. Jud. I. 2. c. viii 191. et passim.

τετε αμφι τας ψυχας αθανασιας εμφερες, και τα e Vid. De B. J. I. 2. c. visi. Ant. Jud. I. 13. c. v. sect. 9. θεια προμηθεια τα ανθρωπινα παρειληφότος τη αυτ8, καλως εχειν». C. X. sect. 5. d. 14, c, i. Et passim.

EYQULOA EITEIX. Ant. I. 17. xvii. 5.

[ocr errors]

d

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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 considered * 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 anthor 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.

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 o 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.

• If 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 s terms as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one too.'

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.

• 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 Ănanus, who also was named Ananus• This 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

• Vid. Noris. Cenotaph. Pis. Diss. 2. cap. xii. p. 238. et le de cohærentiâ horum verborum Josephi, quibus Christo tesClerc. Bib, Ch, T. iv.

p.
60.

timonium perhibet cum sequentibus: Circa eadem tempora 6 De B. J. I. 1. cap. iii. sect. 4, 5. Ant. I. 13. cap. xi.

aliud etiain Judæos turbavit incommodum, &c.' Quæ tamen sect. 2.

verba, si testimonium de Christo e contextu Josephi sustuleris, Itaque constet necesse est, id intra illud tempus admis- egregie cum præcedentibus conspirabunt. Ad quam difficulsum fuisse, quod ab Origene ad Eusebium fluxit. Mihi autem tatem removendam puper nihil aliud a doctissimo Tillemontio imprimis credibile fit, auctorem bujus texragatos esse produci potuit, quam verba Josephi, quæ de Christo agunt, Eusebium. Faber ap. Havercalup. p. 272.

contextui παρενθετικως inserta esse. In quo tamen dubito, an d See p. 537, note e

docti acquieturi sint. Vitring. Observ. Sacr. l. 4. cap. 7. sect. • Sed vehementer dubito, post doctissimas etiam Huetii xi. p. 971. curas, an non hic fetus Josepho sit suppositus, et ab alienâ See Divine Legation of Moses, B. 2. Sect. 6, p. 295, manu in textum intrusus. Utique pro certo et indubio habeo, Vol. i.

8 L. 20, cap. viii. sect. 1. totum locum, ut nunc apud Josephum habetur, e calamo Η θρασυς ην τον τροπον, και τολμητης διαφεροντως. Josephi non effluxisse: sed, si omnino Josephus Christi Jesu καθιζει συνεδριον κριτων και παραγαγων εις αυτο τον hoc in contextu meminerit, locum a manu Christiana esse in. αδελφον Ιησε τα λεγομενα Χρισ8, Ιακωβος όνομα αυτά, και terpolatum mutatumque. Quod jam si dicamus, ne sic τινας έτερες, ως παρανομησαντων κατηγοριαν ποιησαμενος, quidem omnis sublata erit difficultas: sed restat longe maxima tapedwxe nevoir o queY85.

i

« VorigeDoorgaan »