CHAP. IV. 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. b a I. ABOUT this time,' says Josephus, there happened a difference between Aretas king of 'Petræa 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 motherHere 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 should 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.' c d But,' says Josephus, some of the Jews were of opinion 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, exèrcising 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.' The genuineness of this passage is generally admitted by learned men; though Blondell hesitated about it. Tanaquil Faber received it very readily. The genuineness of this paragraph may be argued in the following manner. Antiq. 1. 18. cap. v. sect. 1. * Our evangelists call him Philip, Matt. xiv. 3, and elsewhere. That difficulty was considered formerly. Josephus and the evangelists mean the same person, though they call him by different names. See Vol. i. p. 212, &c. • Ο δε αρχήν εχθρας ταυτην ποιησαμενος, περί τε όρων εν τη γη τη Γαμαλίτιδί, και δυναμεως ἑκατέρῳ συλλεγείσης, εις πόλεμον καθίσανται και μάχης γενομένης, διεφθαρη πας ὁ Howds sparos. x. λ. ib. sect. 1. α Τισι δε των Ιεδαίων εδοκει, ολωλεναι τον Ηρωδε σρατον ὑπο το Θεό, και μαλα δικαίως τιννύμενα κατα ποινην Ιωάννα τε επικαλεμένο Βαπτις8. Κτείνει γαρ τετον Ήρωδης, αγαθον ανδρα, και τες Ιεδαίας κελεύοντα, αρετην επασκώντας, και τη προς άλληλες δικαιοσυνη και προς τον Θεόν ευσέβεια χρωμένες, βαπτισμῳ συνιέναι· έτω γαρ την βαπτισιν αποδέκτην αυτῷ φανείσθαι, μη επι τίνων ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων, • Besides,'' says that αλλ' εφ' άγνεια το σώματος, άτε δη και της ψυχης δικαιοσυνη προεκκεκαθαρμένης. Και των άλλων συςρεφομένων και γαρ ήρθησαν επί πλείσον τη ακροάσει των λόγων· δείσας Ηρώδης το επι τοσονδε πιθανον αυτε τοις ανθρωποις μη επί αποφάσει τον φέροι, παντα γαρ εκεσαν συμβολη τη εκείνο πράξοντες· πολυ κρειττον ἡγεῖται, πριν τι νεώτερον εξ αυτο γενεσθαι, προλαβων αναιρειν, η, μεταβολής γενομένης, εις τα πράγματα εμπεσων μετανοειν. Και ὁ μεν ύποψιᾳ τῇ Ηρωδε δεσμίος εις τον Μαχαι ρεντα πεμφθείς, το προειρημένον φρόριον, ταύτῃ κτιννύται. Τοις δε Ιεδαίος δόξαν, επι τιμήρια τη εκείνα τον ολεθρον επί τω τρατεύματι γενεσθαι, το Θεό κακως Ἡρώδη θελοντος. Ib. sect. 2. e Des Sibylles. 1. 1, c. vii. p. 28, 29. 8 Εβαλόμην δ' αν Κελσῳ, προσωποιησαντι τον Ιεδαίον παρα δεξαμενον πως Ιωαννην ὡς βαπτισην, βαπτίζοντα τον Ιησεν, 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 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.' 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. a This passage of Josephus is distinctly and largely quoted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. Jerom also must be allowed to refer to the same in his book of Illustrious Men, though he does it very inaccurately. c This passage was read in Josephus by 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 Macharus 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 πατρι αυτης υποτελή. But it is also there said to be in the borders of the government of Aretas and Herod: μεθοριον δε εςι της τε Αρετα και Ηρωδε αρχης. The history in that very section does not lead us to think that Machærus 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 Macharus, 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 But hence, I think, it may be collected that Machærus 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 one of the last places that were taken by the Romans after the siege of Jerusalem was over. Obj. 3. According to our evangelists, 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? ειππειν· ότι το Ιωαννην γεγονέναι βαπτισην, εις άφεσιν ἁμαρτη μάτων βαπτίζοντα, ανέγραψε τις των μετ' ε πολυ τε Ιωάννε και το Ιησε γεγενημενων. Εν γαρ τῷ οκτωκαιδεκατῳ της Ιεδαϊκής αρχαιολογίας ὁ Ιώσηπος μαρτυρεί τῳ Ιωάννη ὡς βαπτιση γεγενομένῳ, και καθάρσιον τοις βαπτισάμενοις επαγ YEAλope. Contr. Cels. I. 1. sect. 47, p. 35. H. E. 1. 1. cap. xi. 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. Cod. 238, p. 972. d Vid. De B. J. 1. 7, cap. vi. a b To which I answer, first, that Herod the tetrarch may have kept his birthday and made that entertainment at Machærus; 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 Macharus, 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 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 counsel 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 circumstances. 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 righteousness 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 • Μεσον δε το περίβολο βασίλειον ῳκοδομησατο, μεγέθει τε και κάλλει των οικήσεων πολυτελες. κ. λ. De B. J. 1. 7, c. vi. sect. 2. S. Jean Battiste, art. viii. p. 101. Mem. Ec. T. i. 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. a Origen was well acquainted with the Jewish sentiments, having often conversed with their learned men. And in his answer to Celsus, he puts him in mind that the Jews always make a difference between John and Jesus, and between the death of each of them.' Indeed both were for a while in great repute with the Jewish people. But Jesus had greatly disappointed them in not assuming the character of a temporal prince, as they expected the Messiah should have done. And John was put to death by a prince not much beloved: but Jesus was crucified at the importunate demand of the Jewish rulers and people in general. b Josippon, in the ninth or tenth century, though he says nothing of Jesus Christ, or James, the Lord's brother, mentions the death of John the Baptist, and more agreeably to the evangelists than this passage of Josephus which we are considering. He represents the tetrarch Herod as a very wicked prince. He says, that he took to himself, to be his own wife, the wife of his brother Philip, though his brother was still living, and she had children by him. He killed many wise men in Israel: and he killed that great pricst John, the baptizer, because he had said to him," it is unlawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." Many Jews, as it seems, have respected John the Baptist as an eminently good man, without allowing him to have any connexions with Jesus Christ. II. In the same eighteenth book of Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, but in a chapter preceding that in which is the account of John the Baptist, just considered, is this paragraph. • At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many ⚫ wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He ' drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the Christ. This was the Christ. 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. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists to < this time.' d This passage is received by many learned men as genuine; by others it is rejected as an interpolation. It is allowed on all hands that it is in all the copies of Josephus's works, now extant, both printed and manuscript: nevertheless, it may be for several reasons called in question. They are such as these. 1. This paragraph is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writers before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century and afterwards. -αναγκαιον αυτῳ παραςησαι, ότι και τετο ουκ οικείως τῳ Ιεδαϊκῳ προσωπῳ περιέθηκεν. Ουδε γαρ συνάπτεσι τον Ιωαννην οἱ Ιεδαίοι τῳ Ιησῳ, και την Ιωάννα τη τε Ιησε κολάσει. Contr. Cels. 1. i. cap. 48. P. 38. b Ipse accepit uxorem Philippi fratris sui adhuc viventis in uxorem, licet illa haberet filios ex fratre ejus: eam, inquam, accepit sibi in uxorem. Occidit autem multos sapientes Israël. Occidit etiam Jochanan Sacerdotem magnum, ob id quod dixerat ei: Non licet tibi accipere uxorem fratris tui Philippi in uxorem. Occidit ergo Jochananem Baptistam. Josipp. 1. 6. cap. 63. p. 274. Γίνεται δε κατα τ8τον τον χρονον Ιησες, σοφος ανηρ, είχε άνδρα αυτόν λεγειν χρη. Ην γαρ παραδόξων έργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ανθρωπων των ήδονη τ' αληθη δεχομένων. Και πολλές μεν Ιεδαίες, πολλές δε και το Ελληνικό επηγάγετο. VOL. III. Ὁ Χρισος έτος ην. Και αυτον ενδείξει των πρώτων ανδρων παρ' ήμιν, σαυρῳ επιτετιμηκοτος Πιλάτε, εκ επαυσαντο οίγε πρωτον αυτόν αγαπήσαντες. Εφανη γαρ αυτοις τρίτην έχων ήμεραν παλιν ζων, των θείων προφητων ταύτα τε και άλλα μύρια θαυμασια περι αυτό ειρηκότων. Εις ετι νυν των Χρισιανων απο τεδε ωνομασμένων οὐκ επέλιπε το φύλον. Antig. Jud. 1. 18. cap. iii. sect. 3. Cav. H. L. in Josepho. Huet. Dem. Ev. Prop. iii. p. 32, &c. Fab. Bib. Gr. 1. 4. cap. vi. Tom. 3. Whiston in his first dissertation. Spanhem. Opp. T. i. p. 531. Tillem. Ruine des Juifs, art. 81, and note xl. H. E. Tom. i. e J. Ittigii Prolegom. ap. Havercamp. p. 89. Blondel des Sibylles. p. 18. Tan. Fabr. ap. Havercamp. p. 267, &c. Cleric. H. E. An. 25. n. iv. et Ars Crit. p. 3. cap. xiv. 3 z 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?' c Afterwards, in his second book against Celsus, he argues our Saviour's knowledge of futu rities 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.' d 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.' e 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 · |