Doubts concerning the authenticity of this passage seem first to have been suggested by Gifanius and Osiander in the sixteenth century; others have since confidently rejected it. It has been objected to it that it is not cited by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, or Photius, even when some of these writers argue against the Jews; but we are to consider that some of these writers profess to derive their arguments only from Scripture, and the testimony itself was of less importance in early times than it may now be deemed+; it seems to be cited in a discourse (which some consider as genuine) addressed to Dioclesian by Macarius, who held an office of distinction in that emperor's court; it is quoted by Eusebius and St. Jerome, and in the most express manner; by Sozomen, Hegesippus, and others §.

It has, however, been farther urged, that

* Daubuz de Test. Joseph. ap Joseph. vol. ii. Edit. Haver. p. 203.

+ Cave, Hist. Literar. A. D. 67. Huet. Demons. Evang. prop. iii. sect. 13.

↑ Act. Sanct. Maii. tom. v. 149.

§ Isidor. Pelus. iv. Epist. 22. lib. iii. c. 2. sect. 13. vol. v. Sozom. Hist. lib. i. c. 1. and Hieron. Catal. Scrip. Eccles. c. 13. Fabricii, Bibl. Græc. lib. 416. Joseph. Testim. vol. iv. Ambrose vel Hegisip. de Excid, Urb. Hieros. lib. ii.

c. 12.

the passage speaks in such clear terms of Christ, and with such apparent acknowledgment of some of his claims, that if it were genuine the author must have been a believer in the Divine authority of the Gospel, since it seems to admit that Jesus was Christ or the Messiah, and attests his resurrection on the third day from the grave, in agreement with the predictions of the prophets. But in answer to this it may be observed, that nothing is asserted but what was generally known; nor considering how generally the copies of Josephus were dispersed, could the passage have been interpolated; that Josephus could not omit all mention of Christ, without convicting himself of a manifest suppression of facts, while he professes to have nothing so much at heart as not to omit any thing of consequence *; and that, regarding the passage as genuine, the historian may perhaps be understood to relate the account only as it was currently received, without intending to substantiate it, or allowing our Saviour to be the Messiah in the Christian construction of the word, but only to be the person known under that designation ‡.

Antiq. lib xiv. c. 1.

+ Whiston's Dissert. 1. on text of Josephus, § 3. 7. 8. Tacitus Annal, lib. xv. c. 44. Plin. lib. x. Epist. 97.

Jerome cites a passage as referring to him who was believed to be the Christ *. The expressions which have been critically examined have been found strictly to accord with the style of Josephus. Origen mentions a passage in Josephus, in which the historian spoke of Christ's discourse with the doctors in the Temple, but the passage is not to be found in the works which are extant . The Jews accused the Christians of interpolating, and the Christians reproached the Jews for erasing, testimonies to their cause. Suidas speaks of a passage in his History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, in which mention was made of Jesus. officiating in the Temple with the priests §, but the passage is not now to be found.

+

The character and authority attributed by Josephus to Herod Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus, accords with the accounts given of him by St. Luke, with relation to St. Peter. The statement also of his death, as related by the Evangelists ||, is confirmed by

* De Viris Illust.

+ Willes's 1st Discourse, p. 8.

Cont. Cels. lib. i. p. 33. lib. ii. p. 69. § Suidas in voce Jesus, p. 1228. 16-18.

See also Luke iv.

|| See Lardner, Part i. b. i. c. 2. p. 20. Acts xii. 20—23.

Josephus, who informs us, that he exhibited spectacles in honour of Cæsar on an appointed festival at Cesarea, formerly called Straton's Tower, at which great numbers of persons of distinction and rank were assembled. On the second day he put on a dress of a rich and curious texture, when the silver of the garment reflecting the beams of the sun, shone out with great splendour, so as to excite extraordinary admiration; and the Jews cried out that he was a god, exclaim ing "be thou merciful to us, for though we "have hitherto received thee as a man, yet "shall we henceforth own thee as superior

66

to mortal nature." Upon this be neither rebuked them, nor rejected their flattery *; but as he presently looked up he beheld an owl sitting on a cord over his head, and immediately understood that the bird foreboded some evil tidings, it having been predicted to him by a German, whom he saw when at Rome, that an owl which then appeared to him was an auspicious omen of a deliverance to him, and that when he should again see it he should die within five days. Agrippa fell into violent agonies, and bitterly reproached

• Compare Acts xii. 22, 23.

his attendants for their wicked flattery of a weak mortal. After suffering a few days he expired in dreadful torments *. It is supposed that he was subjected by Divine judgment to an ulcer which generated worms, as had been the case with his grandfather, and as had likewise happened to Antiochus Epiphanes, Sylla Felix, and Pheretima, the wife of Battus, spoken of by Herodotus †. The mention of the owl, which gives a ludicrous and improbable air to this story, is omitted by Eusebius, who evidently states nearly the same account, some fictitious additions excepted, with that which is related in the Acts +

Josephus informs us that Ananus the younger brought the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, before the Sanhedrim hastily and illegally convened, and upon an accusation which he had formed, delivered him to be stoned to death §. It appears from the complaint which in consequence was made to Albinus,

Antiq. lib. xix. c. 8.

+ 2 Maccab. c. ix. Plutarch, Sylla, v. iii. p. 95. Edit. Tonson. Herod. Lib. iv. c. 205.

↑ Acts xii. 23.

§ Antiq. lib. xx. c. 8. comp. with Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. c. 24.