Page images

III. The famous clause in this testimony of Jofephus concerring Chrift, This was Christ, or the Chriff, did not mean that this Jesus was the Christ of God, or the true Mefiah of the Jews, but that this Jesus was distinguished from all others of that name, of which there were not a few, as mentioned by Josephus himself, by the addition of the other name of Cbrift: or that this perion was no other than he whom all the world knew by the name of Jesus Christ, and his followers by the name of Christians. This I cfteem to be a clear case, and that from the arguments following:

(1) The Greeks and Romans, for whose use Jofephus wrote his Antiquities, could no otherwise understand these words The Jews indeed, and afterwards the Christians, who knew that a great Meflias, a person that was to be Christ, the Anointed of God and that was to perform the office of a king, a Pries, and a Prophet, to God's people, might readily so understand this expreflion; but losephus, as I have already noted, wrote here, not to Jews or Christians, but to Greeks and Romans, who knew nothing of this, but knew very well that an eminent person living in Judea, whose name was Hesus Cbril, or clurs the Christ, hath founded a new and numerous sect, which took the latter of those names, and ere every where from him called Chrestians, or Christians, in'u hich fenfe alone could they understand these words of Jofephus, and in which rente I believe he desired they fiould underitand them: Nor does Josephus ever use the Hebrew term Melab in any of his writings, nor the Greek term Christ in any such acceptation cisewhere.

(2.) !ofephus himself as good as explains his own meaning, and that by the latt clause of this very passage where he says the Christians were named from this Christ without a fyllable as though he really ineant he was the true Messiah, or Chrijl of God. He farther seems to me to explain this his meaning in that other place where alone he else. where mentions this name of Christ, that is, when upon occafion of the mention of James. when he was condemned by Ananus, he calls him the Brother of Jesus. not that was the true Melfiah, or ihe irrue Cbrijt, but only that was called Chrift.

(3.) It was quite beside the purpose of fosephus to declare himself here to be a Christian, or a believer in Jesus as the true Mefliah. Had he intended fo to do, he would surely have explained the meaning of the word Christ to his Greek and Roman readers; lie would surely have been a great deal fuller and larger in his accounts of Christ, and of the Christian religion : Nor would fuch a declaration at that time have recommended him, or his nation. or his writings, to either the Greeks or the Romans; of his reputation with both which people he is known to have been, in the writing of these Antiquities, very greatly solicitous.

( 4.) Josephus's ufual way of writing is historical and declarative of facts, and of the opinions of others and but rarely such as directly infornis us of his own opinion, unless we pridently gather it from what he fays luistorically, or as the opinions of others. This is very obferv. able in the writings of Iofephus, and in particular as to what he says of Jchn the Baptist, and of James the Juft; fo that this interpretation is most probable, as moft agreeable to Josephus's way of writing in parallel cases.

(5.). This seems to be the universal sense of all the ancients without exception. who cite this testimony from him; and though they almoft every where own this to be the true reading, yet do they every where fuppose lolephus to be still an unbelieving Jew, and not a believing Chrillian: Nay, Jerome appears so well ailured of this interpretation and that Jofephuts did not mean to declare any more by thele words than a common opinion, that, according to his wrual way of interpret; ing authors, not to the words bnt to the sense, (of which we have, I think, two more instances in his accounts out of Josephus, now before us) he renders this clause credebatur esse Christus, i. e. He was believed so be i brift. Nor is the parallel expression of Pilate to be otherwise understood. when he made that inscription upon the cross. This is Je. fus ebe king of the H2705" which is well explained by himfelf elsewhere, and corresponds to the import of the present clause, What shall I do with Jesus who is called Chrift+? And we may full as well prove from Pilate's inscription upon the cross that he hereby declared himself a believer in Chrift for the real King of the Yews as we can from these words of Josephus, that he thereby declared himself to be a real believer in him as the true Melliah.

IV. Ihough Josephus did not design here to declare himself openly to be a Christian, yet could he not possibly believe all that he here arferts concerning lefus Chritt, unless he were so far a: Christian as the Jewish Nazarenes or Ebionites then were, who believed Jesus of Naz. areth to be the true Melliah without believing he was more than R man; who also believed the necellity of the observation of the ceremonial law of Moses in order to falvation for all imankind, which were the two main articles of those Jewish Christians' faith, though in opposition to all the thirteen apoftles of Jesus Christ in the first century, and in opposition to the whole Catholic Church of Christ in the following centuries also. Accordingly, I have elsewhere proved, that fofephus was no other in his own mind and conscience, than a Nazarene or Ebionite Jewish Christian ; and have observed that this entire testimony, and all that josephus lays of John the Baptist, and of ames, as well as his abfolute silence about ali the rest of the apostles and their companions, exactly agrees to him under that character, and no other. And indeed to me it is most astonishing, that all our learned men, who have of late considered there testimonies of jolephus, except the converted Jew Gelatinus, should miss such an obvious and natural observation. We all know this from St. !ames's own words, that so many ten thousands of the Jews as believed in Chrift, in the first century, were all zealous of the ceremonial law. or were no other than Nazarene or Ebionite Christians; and, by confequence, if there were any reason to think our Jofephus to be in any sense a believer, or a Christian, as from all these tellimonies there were very great ones, all those, and many other reasons, could not but conspire to allure us, he was no other than a Nazarene or Ebionite Chriftian: And this I take to be the plain and evident key of this whole matter.

V. Since therefore Jofephus appears to have been, in 'his own heart and conscience, no other chan a Nazarene or Ebionite Christian, and by consequence, with them rejected all our Greek gospels and Greek books of the New Testament, and received only the Hebrew gospel of the Nazarenes or Ebionites styled by them, The gospel according to the Hebrews; or according to the swelve apostles ; or even according to Mattbew, we ought always to have that Nazaréne or Ebionite gospel, with the other Nazarene or Ebionite fragments in view, when we conlider any pallages of ofephus relating to Chrift, or to Christianity. Thus, lince that gospel omitted all that is in the beginning of our St. Matthew's and St. Luke's gospels, and began with the ministry of John the Baptift; in which first parts of the gospel history are the accounts of the tughter of the infants, and of the inrollment or taxa tion under Auguftus Cæfar and Herod, it is no great wonder that jo. iephus has not taken care particularly and clearly to preserve those hiltories to us. Thus when we find that Jofephus calls james the brother of Christ, by the name of James the Jull, and describes him as a mol juft or righteous man, in an efpecial manner, we are to remember chat such is his nane and character in the gospel according to the He* Matth. xxvii 3.

+ Matth. xxvii, 17, 22.

brews, and the other Ebionite remains of Hegesippus, but no where else that I remember, in the earliest antiquity: Nor are we to suppose they herein referred to any other than that righteousness which was by tbt Jewish law, wherein St. Paul*, before he embraced Christianity, profelfed himself to have been blameless. Thus when Josephus, with other Jews, ascribed the miferies of that nation under Vefpafian and Titus, with the destruction of jerusalem, to the barbarous murder of Jamnes the Just, we must remember what we learn from the Ebionite fragments of Hegesippus, that these Ebionites interpreted a prophecy of Isaiah as foretelling this very murder, and those consequent miseries; Let us take away the just one for be is unprofitable to us; therefore sball obey eat the fruit of tbeir own wayst.. Thus when Jofephus says, as we have feen, that the moft equitable citizens of Jerusalem, and those that were most zealous of the law, were very uneasy at the condemnation of this James, and some of his friends or fellow Christians, by the high priest and Sanhedrim, about A. D. 62. and declares, that he himself was one of those lews who thought the terrible miseries of that nation effects of the vengeance of God for their murder of this James, about A. D. 68. we may easily see those opinions could only be the opinions of converted Jews or Ebionites. The high priest and Sanhedrim, who always prof. ecuted the Christians, and now condemned thefe Chriftians, and the body of these unbelieving Jews who are supposed to suffer for murdering this James, the head of the Nazarene or Ebionite Christians in Judea, could not, to be sure, be of that opinion : Nor could Josephus himself be of the same opinion, as he declares he was, without the ftrongest inclinations to the Christian religion, or without being secretly a Christian Jew, i. e. a Nazarene, or Ebionite ; which thing is, by the way, a very great additional argument that such he was, and no other. Thus, laffly, when Josephus is cited in Suidas as affirming that Jesus officiated with the priests in the temple, this account is by no means disagreeable to the pretensions of the Ebionites. Hegefippus affirms the very fame of James the just also.

VI. The first citation of the famous testimony concerning our Sa. viour from Tacitus, almost all that was true of the Jews is directly taken by him out of Josephus, as will be demonstrated under the third Differtation hereafter.

VII. The second author I have alleged for it is Justin Martyr, one fo nearly coeval with Josephus, that he might be born about the time when he wrote his Antiquities, appeals to the fame Antiquities by that very name ; and though he does not here directly quote them, yet does he seem to me to allude to this very testiinony in them concerning our Saviour, when he affirms in this place to Trypho the Jew, That bis na. tion originally knew that Jcfus was risen from the dead, and ascended in-, to heaven, as the prophecies did foretel was to happen. Since there neither now is, nor probably in the days of Justin was, any other Jewith te! timony extant which is so agreeable to what Justin here affirms of those Jews, as is this of Josephus the Jew before us : Nor indeed does he feem to me to have had any thing else particular in his view here, but this very testimony, where Josephus says, “That Jefus appeared to his followers alive the third day after his crucifixion, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."

VIII. The third author I have quoted for Jofephus's teftimonies of John the Baptiit, of Jefus of Nazareth, and of James the Juft, is Ori Ben, who is indeed allowed on all hands to have quoted him for the excellent characters of John the Baptist, and of James the Just, but whose supposed entire silence about this testimony concerning Christ is ufually Alleged as the principal argument against its being genuine, and par. * Pbilip iii. 4: 51 §

+ Isaiah jit. 10.

ticularly as to the clause, This was the Christ, and that, as we have seen, because he wice assures us, that in his opinion, Josephus did not himself acknowledge Jefus for the Cbriß. Now as to this latter clause, I have already shewed, that Josephus did not here, in writing to Greeks and Romans, mean any such thing by those words as Jews and Christians naturally understand by them: I have also observed, that all the an. cients allow ftill, with Origen, that Josephus did not in the Jewis and Christian sense, acknowledge Jefus for the true Messiah, or the true Christ of God, notwithstanding their

express quotation of that claufe in Josephus as genuine ; so that unless we suppose Origen to have had a different notion of these words from all the other ancients, we cannot conclude from this assertion of Origen's, that he had not these words in his copy, not to say, that it is, after all, much more likely that his copy a little differed from the other copies in this clause, or indeed omitted it entirely, than that he, on its account must be supposed not to have had the rest of this testimony thercin, though indeed I see no necessity of making any such suppo al at all. However, it seems to me, that Origen affords us four several indications that the main parts, at least, of this testimony itself were in his copy.

(1.) When Origen introduces Josephus's testimony concerning James the luft, that he thought the miseries of the Jews were an in itance of the divine vengeance on that nation, for putting James to death instead of Jesus, he uses an expression no way necessary to his purpose, nor occafioned by any words of Josephus there, that they had slain that Cbrift which was foretold in the prophecies. Whence could this expression come here into Origen's mind, when he was quoting a testimony of Josephus's concerning the brother of

Christ, but from his remembrance of a clause in the testimony of the same Jofephus concerning Christ himself, that the prophets bad foretold his death and resurrection and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him?

(2.) How came Origen to be so surprized at Jofephus's ascribing the destruction of Jerusalem to the Jews murdering of James the Just, and not to their murdering of Jesus, as we have seen he was, if he had not known that Josephus had spoken of Jesus and his death before, and that he had a very good opinion of Jesus, which yet he could learn no way fo authentically as from this testimony? Nor do the words he here ufes, that Josephus was not remote from the truth, perhaps allude to any thing else but to this very testimony before us.

(3.) How can the fame Origen, upon another flight occasion, when he had just fet down that testimony of Jofephus concerning James the Just, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, to say, That “it may be questioned whether the Jews thought Jesus to be a man, or whether they did not suppose him to be a being of a diviner kind ?” This looks so very like to the fifth and fixth clauses of this testimony in Jofephus, that Jesus was a wife man if it be lawful 10 call him a man, that it is highly probable Origen thereby alluded to them : And this is the more to be depended on, because all the unbelieving Jews, and all the rest of the Nazarene Jews, esteemed Jesus with one consent as a mere man, the fon of Joseph and Mary ; and it is not, I think, poslible to produce any one Jew but Josephus, who in a sort of compliance with the Romans and the Catholichristians, who thought him

a God, would fay any thing like his being a God,

(4.) viow came Origen to aftirin twice, fo expressly, that Jofephus did not himself own, in the jewish and Christian fense, that Jesus was Christ, notwithstanding his quotations of such eminent testimonies out of him for John the Baptist his forerunner, and for James the Just his brother, and one of his principal disciples : There is no paílage in all Jofephus so likely to persuade Origen of this as is the famous testimony before us, wherein, as he and all the ancients understood it, he was generally called Christ indeed, but not any otherwise than as the common name whence the sect of Christians was derived, and where he alt along speaks of those Christians as a feet then in being, whose author was a wonderful person, and his followers great lovers of him, and of the truth, yet as juch a sect as he had not joined himself to. Which expofition, as it is a very natural one, so was it, I doubt, but too true of our Josephus at that time : Nor can I devise any other reason but this, and the parallel language of Josephus elsewhere, when he speaks of James as the brother not of Yesus who was Christ, but of Jesus who was called Christ, that could lo naturally induce Origen and others to be of that opinion.


1x. There are two remarkable passages in Suidas and Theophylact, already set down, as citing Josephus; the former that Jesus oficiated with the priests in the temple, and the latter that the destruction of Je. rusalem, and miseries of the lews, were owing to their putting Jesus is death, which are in none of our present copies, nor cited thence by any ancienter authors, nor indeed do they seemn altogether conlistent with the other more authentic testimonies.' However, since Suidas cites his paffage from a treatise of Josephus's called Memoirs of the Jews captivity, a book never heard of elsewhere and since both citations are not at all disagreable to Tosephus's character as a Nazarene or Ebionite. I dare not positively conclude they are spurious, but must leave them in suspence for the farther consideration of the learned.

X. As to that great critic Photius, in the ninth century, who is fupposed not to have had this testimony in his copy of Josephus, or else to have esteemed it fpurious because in his

extracts out of Jofephus's an. tiquities, it is not expres ly mentioned. This is a strange thing indeed! That a section, which had been cited out of losephus's copies all along before the days of Photius, as well as it has been all along cited out of them since his days. Thould be fupposed not to be in his copy, because it does not direaly mention it in certain short, and imperfect extracts, no way particularly relating to such matters. Those who lay a stress on this litence of Phorius seem little to have attended to the nature and brevity of those extracts. They contain little or nothing, as he in ef. feet profefles at their entrance, but what concerns Antipater. Herod the Great, and his brethren, and family, with their exploits till the days of Agrippa jun. and Cumanns. the governor of Judea, fifteen years after the death of our Saviour, without one word of Pilate, or what happened under his government which yet was the only proper place in which his teftimony could come to be mentioned. However, fince Photius feens, therefore, as we have seen, to suspect the treatise afcribed by some to Polephus of the Universe. becaule it speaks very high things of the eternal gederation and divinity of Chritt this looks very Tike h's knowledge and belief of somewhat really in the farle Josephus, which Ipake in a lower manner of him, which could be hardly any other passage than this testimony before us. And fince, as we have al fo teen, vhen he speaks of the Jewith history of Justus of Tiberias, as infected with the prejudices of the Jews, in taking no notice of the advent, of the acts, and of the miracles of Jesus Christ, while yet he never {peaks lo of Josephus himlelf, this naturally implies also, that there was not the like occafion here as there. but that Jofephus had net wholly omitted that advent, those acts, or miracles which yet he has done every where else, in the bouks seen by Photius, as well as Juftus of Tiberias, but in this famous testimony before us, fo that it is most probable, Photius not only had this testimony in his copy, but believed it to be genuine allo.

XI. As to the filence of Clement of Alexandria, who cites the ans tiquities of Josephus, but never cites any of the testimonies now before us, it is no li range thing at all, since he never cites Josephus but once. and that for a point of chronology only, to determine how many years had passed from the days of Moles to the days of Josephus, so that has

« PreviousContinue »