« PreviousContinue »
which he calls a Chronicle. He says it began with Moses and ended at the death of Agrippa. He also takes notice of Josephus’s censures both of the author himself and his work. Stephanus Byzantinus, in his article of Tiberias, says: “Of" this city was Justus, who wrote of the Jewish war in ‘the time of Vespasian.” Diogenes Laertius,” in his Life of Socrates, quotes a passage from Justus of Tiberias, and seems to quote the same book that was read by Photius. Several learned moderns P are of opinion that Justus, like Josephus, wrote two books, one of the Jewish War, another of the Jewish Antiquities. Menage," in his notes upon Diogenes Laertius, ascribes to Justus three books, that is, Memoirs, beside the two before mentioned. I rather think there was but one, and that what Justus wrote of the war was comprised in the Chronicle. Menage’s argument from Suidas is of no value; for Suidas expresseth himself inaccurately; nor does he mention more than two works: the Memoirs, win opiumpata, are the same with Jerom's Commentarioli de Scripturis. Indeed Suidas only transcribes Jerom, or his interpreter Sophronius, and has done it inaccurately. Some learned men lament the loss of this work. Others think it was of little value. I cannot but wish that the work, which was in being in the time of Photius, had also reached us. It must have been of some use. Perhaps the censure passed upon it by Josephus, who was in great credit, has been a prejudice to it. I have allowed myself to enlarge in my notice of this writer, who lived at the time, and was an actor in the Jewish war with the Romans. Though his work is not extant, he is a witness to that important transaction.
* Ek ravrng my Isorog, à row Isèaikov IIoMepov rov kara Ovsotraguava isopmoag. Steph. Byz. ° pmotv Iagog 6 Tiffspsvg ev rp seppart, Diog. La. l. 2. Sect. 41.
P. Unde colligo, sex Hieronymi Catalogo,) ut Josephus, ita et Justum, non modo de Antiquitatibus Judaicis, sed seorsumetiam de Bello Judaico scripsisse. Voss. de H. Gr. Vid. et Wales. Ann. in Euseb. l. 3. cap. x. Tillem. Ruine de Juifs. art. 82. 4 Scripsit ille Historiam Judaicam, eodem tempore quo Josephus, a quo mendacii arguitur. Scripsit praeterea intopovnpara, quorum meminit Suidas. Scripsit et Chronicon Regum Judaeorum, qui coronati fuere; ut est apud Photium: quod opus signathic Laërtius. Menag. in loc. p. 94. * Josephus, in Vitā suâ, et alibi, quasi parum fido scriptori conviciatur. Sed, de inimico, non magis ei crediderim, quam Justo de Josepho crederem, si historia ejus exstaret, atque in ea aemulo abeo detractum viderem. Utinam vero, quaecumque fuerit, ad nos usque pervenisset. Cleric. H. E. A. C. C. cap. vii.
* Tillem, as above, art. 80.
Pausanias, who lived in the second century, and wrote after the year of our Lord 180, speaks" of a monument of queen Helena at Jerusalem, which (city) an emperor of the Romans had destroyed to the foundation. ‘Minucius Felix refers " the heathen people not only to ‘Josephus, but also to Antonius Julianus, a Roman author, ‘ from whom they might learn that the Jews had not been ‘ ruined nor abandoned of God till they had first abandoned ‘ him: and that their present low condition was owing to their ‘ wickedness and obstinacy therein, and that nothing had ‘ happened to them but what had been foretold.’ Who that Julianus was cannot be said. There have been several of that name, one " of whom was procurator of Judea, and was present with Titus at the siege of Jerusalem, as we know from Josephus. Tillemont says that * possibly he wrote a history of the siege of Jerusalem. G. Wossius, y upon the ground of this passage of Minucius, puts Antonius Julianus among Latin historians who had written a history of the Jews. Minucius reckons Josephus among Roman writers. Dr. Davis suspects it to be an interpolation, and assigns not improbable reasons in his notes upon the place. Suetonius” has mentioned the occasion of the war, the appointment of Vespasian to be general, his and his son's triumph ato Rome, and several other material things, which have been already observed, or will in time be observed by us from him. What" Tacitus has written upon this subject, so far as it remains, may be taken notice of hereafter. Dion Cassius" is another witness, whose testimony also may be taken more at large hereafter.
* See Tillem, L'Emp. Marc. Aurele. art. xxxii.
" ‘ESpatoc 6s ‘EAévng Yvvatkog struyaptaç rapog estv sv troMet Xoxvuouc, iv sc séapog karsga\ev Ó ‘Papuatov 3agiNovg. Pausan. l. 8. cap. 16. p. 633.
* Scripta eorum relege. Vel si Romanis magis gaudes, ut transeamus veteres, Flavii Josephi, vel Antonii Juliani, de Judaeis require. Jam scies, nequitiã Suá hanceos meruisse fortunam : nec quidquam accidisse, quod non sit his, si in contumacià perseverarent, ante praedictum. Ita prius eos deseruisse comprehendes, quain esse desertos; nec, ut impie loqueris, cum Deo suo esse captos, sed a Deo, ut disciplinae transfugas, deditos. Minuc. c. 33. Conf. c. 10. " Kat Mapkoç Avrovioc, 6 rmg Isèatag strirporoc. Jos. de B. J. l. 6. cap. iv. 3. * Ruine des Juifs, art. 72.
3 Antonius Julianus Judaicam videtur Historiam consignässe, &c. De Hist. Lat. l. 3. De Historicis incertae aetatis.
* Sueton. Vespas. c. 4, 5.
* —ac triumphum utriusque judaicum, equo albo comitatus est.
Domit. c. 2.
* Vid. Tac. Hist. Lib. v. - * Dio. l. 66. Sub. in.
Philostratus says that “when "Titus had taken Jerusalem, ‘ and filled all about it with dead bodies, and the neigh‘bouring nations offered him crowns, he said he was not “worthy of such an honour, nor had he himself, he said, done “ that great work. He had only lent his hand in the service ‘ of God, when he was pleased to show his displeasure.” Philostratus says that Apollonius was much pleased with that token of wisdom and humanity. He likewise says that Apollonius wrote a letter to Titus, and sent it by Damis, to this purpose: “Apollonius sendeth greeting to Titus ‘emperor of the Romans. Since you refuse to be applaud‘ed for bloodshed and victory in war, I send you the “crown of moderation. You know for what things crowns ‘ are due.”
Hence divers learned men have argued that Titus refused to be crowned for his victory over the Jews. Basnage,” and other learned men, on the contrary, are of opinion that we may rely upon the authority of Josephus, who tells us that ‘ he went from Antioch to the Zeugma, whither came to him messengers from Vologesus, king of Parthia, and brought him a crown of gold upon the victory obtained by him over the Jews; which he accepted of, and feasted the king's messengers, and then returned to Antioch.” Moreover he accepted of a triumph for his victory over the Jews, and all other honours customary upon the like occasions. Nevertheless, Olearius, in his notes upon the place, argues that' Philostratus needs not be understood to say that Titus refused the crowns offered him, but only said that he was unworthy of that honour, he having been only an instrument in the hand of God for displaying his just vengeance against guilty men.
And it must be owned that Olearius expresseth himself with great judgment and moderation. Either way those learned men are to be reckoned mistaken, who have main
* Eirst 68 Turoc ipmket ra Soxvua, kat verpov TXsa my travra ra ögopa re eóvn ess pavev avrov. 'O 6s 8k máis Šavrov rers' un Yap avrov ravra sipyacóat, esq àe opymv pyvavri strečeówksval rac Šavra xetpac, K. A. Philos. de Vit. Apol. l. 6. cap. 29.
* Modestiam Titi laudibus effert Baronius, quod, “ oblatá sibi coroná aurea “a provinciis, moluit coronari, testatus se prorsus indignum." Usserius, aliique eruditi, illud et ipsum tradunt, freti auctoritate Philostrati...—Basnag. ann. 70, n. xvi. f Quem tamen Josephi locum immerito Philostrato opponi putem.—Negue enim Philostratus “repudiasse coronam.' Titum ait, atque ea non acceptā legatos dimisisse, quod viro docto interpretes persuasere, sed hoc tantum, quodeo honorese indignum dixerit; justitiae Dei vindicatricis instrumentum, cujus nullae fuerintin istis patrandis propriae vires, sese exstitisse agnoscens, &c. Olear. in loc.
tained that Titus refused to be crowned for his victory over the Jews. However, we are still to reckon Philostratus, at the beginning of the third century, a good witness to the overthrow of Jerusalem by Titus. These are early heathen authors who have related the destruction of Jerusalem, and thereby bore testimony to the accomplishment of our Lord's predictions concerning it. Nor can any forget the triumphal arch of Titus, still standing at Rome, of which we before took notice. “There 5 is also an ancient inscription to the honour of Titus, who, by his father's directions and counsels, had subdued the Jewish nation, and destroyed Jerusalem, which had never been destroyed by any princes or people before.” Which has occasioned some learned men to say that even inscriptions are not free from flattery. But then it must be owned that" the genuineness and antiquity of this inscription has been called in question: and there are some reasons to doubt whether this comes from the senate of Rome itself, as is pretended.
5 Imp. Tito. Caesari. Divi, Vespasiani. F. Vespasiano. Aug. Pontifici. Maximo. Trib. Pot. x. Imp. xvii. Cos. viii. P. P. Principi. suo. S. P. Q. R. Quod. Praeceptis. Patris. Consiliisque. et Auspiciis. Gentem. Judaeorum. Domuit. Et Urbem. Hierosolymam. Omnibus. Ante. Se Ducibus. Regibus. Gentibusque, aut. Frustra Petitam. aut. omnino. Intentatam. Delevit. Ap. Gruter. p. 244. * Ubi steterit, ignoratur. Scaliger vult ab Onufrio fictum. Ap. Gruter. Ib
THREE PARAGRAPHS IN THE WORKS OF JOSEPHUS CONCERNING JOHN THE BAPTIST, OUR SAVIOUR, AND JAMES, THE LORD's BROTHER ; AND OBSERVATIONS UPON THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS.
I. Of John the Baptist. II. Concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. III. Concerning James, the Lord's Brother. IV. Concluding observations upon the writings and testimony of Josephus.
1. ‘ABOUT this time,’ says * Josephus, “there happened a difference between Aretas king of Petraea and Herod upon this occasion. Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas, and lived a considerable time with her. But, in a journey he took to Rome, he made a visit to " Herod his brother, though not by the same mother Here falling in love with Herodias, wife of the same Herod, daughter of their brother Aristobulus, and sister of Agrippa the great, he ventured to make to her proposals of marriage. She not disliking them, they agreed together at that time, that when he was returned from Rome she would go and live with him. And it was one part of the contract, that Aretas's daughter should be put away. This “ was the beginning of the difference; and there being also some disputes about the limits of their territories, a war arose between Aretas and Herod. And in a battle fought by them Herod's whole army was defeated.” “But,’ says." Josephus, ‘some of the Jews were of opinion