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 com'mon 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 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 m 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

Ap. Havercamp. p. 89.

' ώς δε τα Ιεδαίων νόσων, Ιεδαίος τε και αυτος ὑπαρχων το γενος, της Χριςε παρεσίας, και των περι αυτον τελεσθέντων, και των υπ' αυτ8 τερατουργηθεντων, αδενος όλως μνημην εποιησατο. Cod. 33. p. 20.

Ο Και ύπο τους αυτους χρόνους έτερον τι δεινον εθορυβε τους Ιεδαιες. L. 18. c. 3. sect. 4. n oi Και οι μεν δια κακιαν τεσσαρων ανδρων

ελαυνοντο της πολεως. Sect. 5. fin.

*

6

That must make this argument the

goes on to another. 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 fol'lows 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? 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

• Ruine des Juifs, note xl. Hist. des Emp. Tom. i.

P Sed quo judicio scriptum est quod sequitur: ειγε ανδρα αυτον λεγειν χρι. Quænam, quæso, ratio est ? Quia, inquit, rapudośwv ɛpywv πoints Nv. Itaque adeo, quando ita vult, dubitabitur in posterum a nobis, dii an homines appellandi sint Moses, Elias, Elisæus? Nam et illi fuerunt Tapadožwv ɛpywv ποιηται. Deinde, cum ait είγε ανδρα αυτον λεγειν χρη, quid, quæso, aliud innuere vult, nisi Jesum Dominum esse Deum? In quo graviter errat hic pius impostor. Judæi enim ne suspicabantur quidem, Messiam seu Christum fore Deum, sed præstantissimum aliquem principem ex semine Davidis. Tan. Fab. ap. Havercamp. Joseph. p. 269.

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.'

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.'

t

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.

6

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 foretold 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

r

S

Antiq. 1. 3. c. xv. 1. 4. c. viii. et alibi.

Θαυματος δε της αρετης ὁ ανηρ, κ. λ.
avno, K. λ. Ant. 1. 3. c. xv. sect. 3.

Ούτως ή νομοθεσια το θες δοκεσα τον ανδρα πεποιηκε της αυτό φύσεως κρειττονα νομιζεσθαι. Ibid. Et credebatur esse Christus.

* Ο Χριςος ούτος ην.

See particularly Sozomen, 1. 1. cap. i. p. 399.

this day.' But Mr. W, who thinks this passage to be Josephus's, should not have rendered øvλov, tribe, because Quay 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.'

X

Here the word denotes sect. But aipeois, 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 Xpioτiavwv dvλov, here used, resembles the phrase χριστιανων εθνος, 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.

W

Therefore he tells a story of Eleazar's dispossessing a

- όπε και Παρθοι, το πολεμικωτατον φύλον. De B. J. 1. 2. c. 16. sect. llav vμwv To quλov. Ib. p. 191. et passim.

4. p. 189. Hav.

* Vid. De B. J. 1. 2. c. viii. Ant. Jud. 1. 13. c. v. sect. 9. c. x. sect. 5. 1. 14. c. i. et passim. y τῳ εθνει των χρισιανων ἑαυτες ovμμexoтas. Maximin. ap. Euseb. H. E. 1. 9. c. ix. p. 360. C.ad christianorum sectam se applicuisse cernerent. Vales.

συμμετχότας.

2 Vid. de. B. J. 1. 7. c. vi. Ant. 1 8. c. ii. sect. 5.

dæmon by virtue of some incantations, and the use of a certain root called Baanas.

b

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 providence 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.

с

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 doctrine 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.

Who was the first author of this interpolation cannot be said. Tanaquil Fabere suspected Eusebius. I do not charge it upon him; but I think it was first made about hist 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 genuine

Antiq. 1. 17. c. xiii. sect. 3-5. De B. Jud. 1. 2. c. vii.

b τοτε αμφι τας ψυχας αθανασιας εμφερες, και τε θεις προμηθεια τα ανθρωπινα παρειληφοτος τη αυτέ, καλως έχειν ενόμισα ειπειν. Ant. l. 17. xiii. 5. Vid. Noris. Cenotaph. Pis. Diss. 2. cap. xii. p. 238. et Le Clerc. Bib. Ch. T. iv. p. 60.

e

d De B. J. 1. 1. cap. iii. sect. 4, 5. Ant. 1. 13. cap. xi. sect. 2.

Itaque constet necesse est, id intra illud tempus admissum fuisse, quod ab Origene ad Eusebium fluxit. Mihi autem imprimis credibile fit, auctorem hujus rexvaoμaros esse Eusebium. Fabr. ap. Havercamp. p. 272.