that God had suffered Herod's army to be destroyed as a just punishment on him for the death of John, called the Baptist. For Herod had killed him, who was a just man, and had called upon the Jews to be baptized, and to practise virtue, exercising both justice toward men and piety toward God. For so would baptism be acceptable to God, if they made use of it, not for the expiation of their sins, but for the purity of the body, the mind being first purified by righteousness. And many coming to him, (for they were wonderfully taken with his discourses,) Herod was seized with apprehensions, lest by his authority they should be led into sedition against him; for they seemed capable of undertaking any thing by his direction. Herod therefore thought it better to take him off before any disturbance happened, than to run the risk of a change of affairs, and of repenting when it should be too late to remedy disorders. Being taken up upon this suspicion of Herod, and being sent bound to the castle of Machærus, just mentioned, he was slain there. The Jews were of opinion that the destruction of Herod's army was a punishment upon him for that action, God being displeased with him.'

e

The genuineness of this passage is generally admitted by learned men though Blondell hesitated about it. Tanaquil Faber f received it very readily.

The genuineness of this paragraph may be argued in the following manner :

6

It is quoted or referred to by Origen in his books against Celsus. Besides,' says that ancient writer, I would have Celsus, who personates a Jew, who after a sort admits 'John the Baptist, and that he baptized Jesus, to consider that an author, who wrote not long after the time of John and Jesus, says that John was a baptist, and that he baptized

και γαρ ήρθησαν επι πλειςον τη ακροάσει των λογων, δεισας Ηρώδης το επι τοσυνδε πιθανον αυτε τοις ανθρωποις μη επι αποφάσει τινι φεροι, παντα γαρ εφκεσαν συμβελη τη εκεινε πράξοντες πολυ κρειττον ἡγεῖται, πριν τι νεωτερον εξ αυτε γενεσθαι, προλαβων αναιρειν, η, μεταβολής γενομένης, εις τα πραγματα εμπεσων μετανοειν. Και ο μεν ὑποψια της Ηρωδε δεσμιος εις τον Μαχαιροντα πεμφθεις, το προειρημένον φρέριον, ταυτῇ κτιννυται· Τοις δε Ιεδαίος δόξαν, επι τιμωρία τη εκεινε τον ολεθρον επι τῳ σρατευματι γενεσθαι, τε θες κακως Ηρωδη θέλοντος. Ib. sect. 2.

ό

e Des. Sibylles, 1. 1. c. vii. p. 28, 29.

f Fab. ap. Haverc. p. 269, 270.

* Εβελόμην δ' αν Κελσῳ, προσωποιησαντι τον Ιεδαίον παραδεξαμενον πως Ιωαννην ὡς βαπτιςην, βαπτιζοντα τον Ιησεν, ειπειν ότι το Ιωαννην γεγονεναι βαπτισην, εις αφεσιν ἁμαρτηματων βαπτίζοντα, ανεγραψε τις των μετ' 8 πολυ το Ιωαννς και το Ιησε γεγενημενων. Εν γαρ τῳ οκτωκαιδεκατῳ της ισδαϊκής αρχαιολογίας ὁ Ιωσηπος μαρτυρεί τῳ Ιωαννῃ ὡς βαπτιση γεγενομένῳ, και καθαρ Owν тоis Baжтiσаμεvoiç εñaɣуελoper. Contr. Cels. 1. 1. sect. 47. p. 35.

VOL. VI.

2 1

'for the remission of sins. For in the eighteenth book of his Jewish Antiquities Josephus bears witness to John that 'he was a baptist, and promised purification to those who ' were baptized.'

6

Here it may be objected that Origen supposes Josephus to say, that John promised purification, or forgiveness of sins, to those who were baptized: whereas Josephus says of John, that he taught the people to make use of baptism, not for the expiation of their sins, but for the purity of the body.'

But I do not think that a sufficient reason why we should hesitate to allow that Origen refers to the passage which we now have in Josephus. Certainly Origen did not design to say, or intimate, that John promised to men the forgiveness of their sins barely upon their being baptized: but only upon the condition that they repented, or, as the phrase is in the gospels, that they "brought forth fruits meet for repentance:" or, as in Josephus, the mind being first purified by righteousness.' I therefore proceed.

This passage of Josephus is distinctly and largely quoted by h Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History.

i

Jerom also must be allowed to refer to the same in his book of Illustrious Men, though he does it very inaccurately.

This passage was read in Josephus by k Photius, as is apparent.

I do not think it needful for me to refer to any more ancient authors: but I shall consider some difficulties.

Obj. 1. In the first place, it has been said that this passage interrupts the course of the narration.

In answer to which I must say that I do not perceive it : the connexion is very good in my opinion.

Obj. 2. Secondly, it is objected that in the preceding section Machærus is spoken of as subject to Aretas; therefore John the Baptist could not be sent prisoner thither by Herod the tetrarch.

To which I answer: it is there said to be subject to Aretas, father of Herod's wife: TOTE TаTP avτηs vπoтeλN. πατρι αυτης υποτελή. But it is also there said to be in the borders of the government of Aretas and Herod : μεθοριον δε εστι της τε Αρετα και Ηρωδε αρχης.

h H. E. 1. 1. cap. xi.

i Hic in decimo octavo Antiquitatum libro manifestissime confitetur, propter magnitudinem signorum Christum a pharisæis interfectum; et Johannem Baptistam vere prophetam fuisse. De V. I. cap. xiii.

k Cod. 238. p. 972.

The history in that very section does not lead us to think that Macharus was in the possession of Aretas, but of Herod, It is thus: Herod's wife, daughter of Aretas, having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias to come and live with him; and having discovered it before he had notice of her knowledge of the design, she desired him to send her to Machærus, a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of her intentions. Accordingly, Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived any thing of the affair.'

By that means she got to her father. But hence, I think, it may be collected that Macharus was not then a part of her father's dominions: for if it had, her request to be sent thither would have occasioned suspicions in Herod's mind. Moreover, it may be argued, from many things in Josephus, that Machærus was now in the possession of Herod the tetrarch. It belonged to his father, Herod the Great, who had both adorned it and fortified it and it was in the hands of the Jewish people during the time of the war, and was 1 one of the last places that were taken by the Romans after the siege of Jerusalem was over.

:

Obj. 3. According to our evangelist, the daughter of Herodias obtained the promise of John the Baptist's head at the time of a public entertainment: and it was delivered to her presently. But how could that be done if John was imprisoned at Machærus, at a great distance from Herod's court?

ก

m

To which I answer, first, that Herod the tetrarch may have kept his birthday and made that entertainment at Macharus; for his father, Herod the Great, had built a palace there, with large and beautiful apartments. Says Tillemont: 'We learn from Josephus that he was beheaded at Machærus, where it is easily supposed that Herod made his feast: [Mald. in Matt. p. 304, a.] for it was a palace as well as a 'citadel.' Secondly, supposing the entertainment to have been made at the capital city of Galilee, the promise might be made at the time of the entertainment, but the execution might be deferred till the next day, or till several days after.

Obj. 4. Still it may be said that this paragraph contradicts our evangelists: for, according to them, it was at the solicitation of Herodias and her daughter that John was

1 Vid. De B. J.1. 7. cap. vi.

τι Μεσον δε το περιβολε βασιλειον ᾠκοδομήσατο, μεγέθει τε και καλλει των OIKNOEWY TOAUTEλEG, K. λ. De B. J. 1. 7. c. vi. sect. 2.

S. Jean Battiste, art. viii. p. 101. Mem. Ec. T. i.

beheaded. But here it is said that Herod put John to death, because he feared he might be the cause of a sedition.

But there is no inconsistence in these things; for Herod might, as is said in this paragraph, have apprehensions from John's popularity, and be disposed, upon that account, to take him off. Lesser differences there may be in several historians, who write of the same matter with different views: and some circumstances may be mentioned by one writer which are omitted by others.

I shall give an instance from the writings of the New Testament: Acts ix. 22-25, “But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took council to kill him ; but their lying in wait was known to Saul and they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket." So says St. Luke. Let us now observe St. Paul himself. 2 Cor. xi. 31-33, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king, guarded the city of the Damascenes, desirous to apprehend me; and through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped him." St. Luke and St. Paul write of the same thing, as is apparent, and is allowed by all commentators and ecclesiastical historians: nevertheless, here is a very considerable difference of circumstance. St. Paul

:

says nothing of the Jews, and St. Luke says nothing of the governor of Damascus. But we can conclude from St. Paul that the Jews had engaged the governor in their interest, who, with the soldiers, kept strict guard at all the gates of the city but there was a window or opening in some part of the wall, to which his friends had access; and through that they let him down by the side of the wall, in a basket held by a rope, and he escaped. The danger was very pressing, and the apostle was much affected with it.

So far from contradicting the evangelists, this account in the paragraph greatly confirms them. In the preceding paragraph Josephus assures us of the unlawful contract made by Herod, that Herodias should leave her first husband and come and live with him. In this paragraph he gives an account of John's doctrine, very agreeable to that in the gospels that he earnestly recommended the practice of righte ousness toward men, and piety toward God; that he taught

men not to rely on baptism, or any other external rites, for the forgiveness of their sins, unless their minds were also purified by righteousness: and he assures us that John was in great esteem with the Jewish people. The same is also

said by our evangelists, who tell us that "all men held John for a prophet." He likewise says that John, called the Baptist, was imprisoned by Herod, and afterwards put to death by his order.

We may be the more induced to admit the genuineness of this paragraph, because there is nothing in it out of character. Josephus did not receive our Jesus as the Christ: nor is there here any mention made of that part of John's character, that he was the forerunner of the Christ, or referred men to him.

There may have been many Jews who had a great regard for John, and yet did not believe in Jesus as the Christ. St. Paul met with twelve Jews of that sort at Ephesus, about the year of our Lord 53, as appears from a history at the beginning of Acts xix, "He said unto them: Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? They said unto him: We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them: Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said: Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul: John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him; that is, on Christ Jesus." These men had received John's baptism as the baptism of repentance, but they had not attended to that other part of his preaching, that "they should believe on him who came after him," till they were reminded of it by St. Paul; and then they were presently satisfied, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." And what follows.

Possibly those men, or most of them, had seen and heard John, and been baptized by him; and left Judea before Jesus had begun his public ministry and being at a distance from the land of Judea, had never had any distinct account of the transactions there: but now being informed of them, and being open to conviction, they became disciples of Jesus, and believed in him as the Christ.

But many other Jews, not so well disposed, might stand out. They might retain a great respect for John, as we suppose Josephus to have done, as an holy man of an austere character, who had recommended the practice of virtue, and had been put to death by the tetrarch of Galilee, without believing in Jesus as the Christ.