accurate discourse on the same subject, in the second volume of his posthumous works. Serm. 183-187.' Isidore of Pelusium, who flourished about the year 412, in one of his epistles has these expressions: If you have a mind to know what punishment the wicked Jews underwent, who ⚫ill-treated the Christ, read the history of their destruction, written by Josephus, a Jew indeed, ⚫ but a lover of truth, that you may see the wonderful story, such as no time ever saw before since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall see. For that none might refuse to give credit to the history of their incredible and unparalleled sufferings, truth found out not a stranger, but a native, and a man fond of their institutions, to relate them in a doleful strain.' Eusebius often quotes Josephus, and, in his Ecclesiastical History, has transcribed from him several articles at large. Having rehearsed from the gospels divers of our Lord's predictions of the evils then coming upon Jerusalem, and the Jewish people, he adds: Whosoever shall com'pare these words of our Saviour with the history of the whole war, published by the above⚫ mentioned writer, must admire our Lord's great wisdom, and acknowledge that his foresight "was divine.' In his Chronicle, as we have it from Jerom in Latin, Eusebius says: In subduing Judea, ' and overthrowing Jerusalem, Titus slew six hundred thousand people: but Josephus writes, that eleven hundred thousand perished by famine and the sword, and that another hundred thousand were publicly sold and carried captives: and he says that the occasion of there being so great a multitude of people at Jerusalem was this, that it was the time of passover; for which reason the Jews, having come up from all parts to worship at the temple, were shut up in the city as in a prison. And indeed it was fit they should be slain at the same time in which they crucified our Saviour.' It is certainly very fit that Christians should attend to the fulfilment of our Lord's predictions relating to the Jewish people, which are so frequent, so solemn and affectionate. The testimony of Josephus is the most considerable of all: it is the most full, and particular, and exact of any we have, or have the knowledge of; and he was an eye-witness; and he was manifestly zealous for the honour of his country: he had a great respect for the temple, and its worship, and for all the peculiarities of the Mosaic law; and he continued to have the same to the last, as appears from his own life and his books against Apion. X. Josephus, in the preface to his own work, intimates that some histories of the war had been before written by others: but he represents them as partial and defective, and composed by men who were not well informed. Undoubtedly none of these remain now: they have been lost long since. Justus of Tiberias, contemporary with Josephus, between whom there were many differences, also wrote a history of the War. Josephus in his Life chargeth him with falsehood, and blames him for not publishing his work until after the death of Vespasian and Titus, and king Agrippa. Josephus owns that Justus was well skilled in Greek learning: and he plainly says that he wrote of the war. e I do not clearly perceive Eusebius to have known any thing of Justus but what he learned from the testimonies. of Josephus, above referred to by me. Justus is in Jerom's Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers. He seems to ascribe to him two books. a Lib. 4, ep. 75. vid. et ep. 74. bH. E. 1. 3, cap. 8. p. 81. D. • Titus Judæa captâ, et Jerosolymis subversis DC millia virorum interfecit. Josephus vero scribit undecies centena millia fame et gladio periisse, et alia centum millia capti vorum publice venumdata. Ut autem tanta multitudo Jerosolymis reperirentur, causam Azymorum fuisse refert; ob quam ex omni genere Judæi ad templum confluentes urbe quasi carcere sunt reclusi. Oportuit enim in iisdem diebus eos interfici, in quibus Salvatorem crucifixerant. Chron. p. 162. d which he calls a Chronicle. He says He also takes notice of Josephus's Of this city was Justus, who wrote 4 Και γαρ εδ' απειρός ην παιδειας της παρ' Έλλησιν, ἡ θαρρων επεχείρησεν και την ἱστορίαν των πραγμάτων τότων avaygapwv. x. λ. Joseph. Vit. sect. 9. Vid. et sect. 65. eH. E. 1. 3. cap. x. p. 86, B. 'Justus Tiberiensis, de provinciâ Galilæa, conatus est et ipse Judaïcarum rerum historiam texere, et quosdam commentariolos de Scripturis componere, &c. De V. I. cap. 14. * Ανεγνώσθη 1858 Τιβέρεως χρόνικον. κ. λ. Cod. 33. p. 20. * Εκ ταύτης ην 185ος, ό τον Ιεδαϊκον πόλεμον τον κατα Ουσ sofaσlave isopyoas. Steph. Byz. Diogenes Laertius,' in his Life of Socrates, quotes a passage from Justus of Tiberias, and seems to quote the same book that was read by Photius. Several learned moderns are of opinion that Justus, like Josephus, wrote two books, one of the Jewish War, another of the Jewish Antiquities. Menage, in his notes upon Diogenes Laertius, ascribes to Justus three books, that is, Memoirs, beside the two before mentioned. I rather think there was but one, and that what Justus wrote of the war was comprised in the Chronicle. Menage's argument from Suidas is of no value; for Suidas expresseth himself inaccurately: nor does he mention more than two works: the Memoirs, vлоμvata, are the same with Jerom's Commentarioli de Scripturis. Indeed Suidas only transcribes Jerom, or his interpreter Sophronius, and has done it inaccurately. с Some learned men lament the loss of this work. Others think it was of little value. I cannot but wish that the work, which was in being in the time of Photius, had also reached us. It must have been of some use. Perhaps the censure passed upon it by Josephus, who was in great credit, has been a prejudice to it. I have allowed myself to enlarge in my notice of this writer, who lived at the time, and was an actor in the Jewish war with the Romans. Though his work is not extant, he is a witness to that important transaction. Pausanias, who lived in the second century, and wrote after the year of our Lord 180, speaks of a monument of queen Helena at Jerusalem, which (city) an emperor of the Romans had destroyed to the foundation. Ꮒ Minucius Felix refers the heathen people not only to Josephus, but also to Antonius Julianus, a Roman author, from whom they might learn that the Jews had not been ruined nor 'abandoned of God till they had first abandoned him : and that their present low condition was ' owing to their wickedness and obstinacy therein, and that nothing had happened to them but • what had been foretold.' k Who that Julianus was cannot be said. There have been several of that name, one1 of whom was procurator of Judea, and was present with Titus at the siege of Jerusalem, as we know from Josephus. Tillemont says that possibly he wrote a history of the siege of Jerusalem. G. Vossius,' upon the ground of this passage of Minucius, puts Antonius Julianus among Latin historians who had written a history of the Jews. Minucius reckons Josephus among Roman writers. Dr. Davis suspects it to be an interpolation, and assigns not improbable reasons in his notes upon the place. m Suetonius has mentioned the occasion of the war, the appointment of Vespasian to be general, his and his son's triumph at Rome, and several other material things, which have been already observed, or will in time be observed by us from him. What Tacitus has written upon this subject, so far as it remains, may be taken notice of hereafter. Dion Cassius is another witness, whose testimony also may be taken more at large hereafter. • Φησιν 185ος ὁ Τιβερευς εν τω σεμματι. Diog. La. 1. 2. sect. 41. Unde colligo (ex Hieronymi Catalogo,) ut Josephus, ita et Justum, non modo de Antiquitatibus Judaïcis, sed seorsum etiam de Bello Judaïco scripsisse. Voss. de H. Gr. Vid. et Vales. Ann. in Euseb. 1. 3, cap. x. Tillem. Ruine de Juifs. art. 82. Scripsit ille Historiam Judaïcam, eodem tempore quo Josephus, a quo mendacii arguitur. Scripsit præterea ou para, quorum meminit Suidas. Scripsit et Chronicon Regum Judæorum, qui coronati fuere ; ut est apud Photium: quod opus signat hic Laërtius. Menag. in loc. p. 94. d Josephus, in Vitâ suâ, et alibi, quasi parum fido scriptori conviciatur. Sed, de inimico, non magis ei crediderim, quam Justo de Josepho crederem, si historia ejus exstaret, atque in eâ æmulo ab eo detractum viderem. Utinam vero, quæcumque fuerit, ad nos usque pervenisset. Cleric. H. E. A. C, C. cap. vii. e Tillem. as above, art. 80. ! See Tillem. L'Emp. Marc. Aurele, art. xxxii. 8 Εβραιος δε Ελενης γυναικός επιχωρίας τάφος εςιν εν πολεί Σολύμοις, ήν ες εδαφος κατεβαλεν ὁ Ρωμαίων βασιλευς. Pausan. 1. 8, cap. 16, p. 633. h Scripta eorum relege. Vel si Romanis magis gaudes, ut transeamus veteres, Flavii Josephi, vel Antonii Juliani, de Judæis require. Jam scies, nequitiâ suâ hanc eos meruisse fortunam nec quidquam accidisse, quod non sit his, si in contumaciâ perseverarcut, ante prædictum, Ita prius eos deseruisse comprehendes, quam esse desertos; nec, ut impie loqueris, cum Deo suo esse captos, sed a Deo, ut disciplinæ transfugas, deditos. Minuc. c. 33. Conf. c. 10. 1 Και Μαρκος Αντώνιος, ὁ της Ιεδαίας επίτροπος. Jos. de B. J. 1. 6. cap. iv. 3. Ruine des Juifs, art. 72. a Philostratus says that when Titus had taken Jerusalem, and filled all about it with dead bodies, and the neighbouring nations offered him crowns, he said he was not worthy of such an 'honour, nor had he himself, he said, done that great work. He had only lent his hand in the service of God, when he was pleased to shew his displeasure.' Philostratus says that Apollonius was much pleased with that token of wisdom and humanity. He likewise says that Apollonius 6 wrote a letter to Titus, and sent it by Damis, to this purpose: Apollonius sendeth greeting to Titus emperor of the Romans. Since you refuse to be applauded for bloodshed and victory in war, I send you the crown of moderation. You know for what things crowns are due.' Hence divers learned men have argued that Titus refused to be crowned for his victory over the Jews. Basnage, and other learned men, on the contrary, are of opinion that we may rely upon the authority of Josephus, who tells us that he went from Antioch to Zeugma, whither came to him messengers from Vologesus, king of Parthia, and brought him a crown of gold upon the victory obtained by him over the Jews; which he accepted of, and feasted the king's. messengers, and then returned to Antioch.' Moreover he accepted of a triumph for his victory over the Jews, and all other honours customary upon the like occasion. Nevertheless Olearius, in his notes upon the place, argues that Philostratus needs not to be understood to say that Titus refused the crowns offered him, but only said that he was unworthy of that honour, he having been only an instrument in the hand of God for displaying his just vengeance against guilty men. с And it must be owned that Olearius expresseth himself with great judgment and moderation.. Either way those learned men are to be reckoned mistaken, who have maintained that Titusrefused to be crowned for his victory over the Jews. However, we are still to reckon Philostratus, at the beginning of the third century, a good witness to the overthrow of Jerusalem by Titus. These are early heathen authors who have related the destruction of Jerusalem, and thereby bore testimony to the accomplishment of our Lord's predictions concerning it. Nor can any forget the triumphal arch of Titus, still standing at Rome, of which we before took notice. d There is also an ancient inscription to the honour of Titus, who, by his father's directions and counsels, had subdued the Jewish nation, and destroyed Jerusalem, which had never been 'destroyed by any princes or people before.' e Which has occasioned some learned men to say that even inscriptions are not free from: flattery. But then it must be owned that the genuineness and antiquity of this inscription has been called in question: and there are some reasons to doubt whether this comes from the senateof Rome itself, as is pretended.. cujus nullæ fuerint in istis patrandis propriæ vires, sese exsti.. Imp. Tito. Cæsari. Divi. Vespasiani. F. Trib. Pot. x. Imp. xvii. Cos. viii. P. P. Quod. Præceptis. Patris. Cousiliisque. et Ap. Gruter. p. 244.. e Ubi steterit, ignoratur. Scaliger vult ab Onufrio fictum. Ap. Gruter. Ib. 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. 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 mother-Here 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.' с 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, 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.' 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. It is quoted or referred to by Origen in his books against Celsus. • Besides,' says that 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 αρχην εχθρας ταυτην ποιησαμενος, περί τε ἔρων εν τῇ γη τη Γαμαλιτιδί, και δυναμεως ἑκατέρῳ συλλεγείσης, εις πολεμον καθισανται και μάχης γενομένης, διεφθάρη πας ὁ Ηρωδε σρατος. κ. λ. ib. sect. 1. α Τισι δε των Ιεδαίων εδοκεί, ολωλεναι τον Ηρωδε σρατον ύπο το Θε8, και μαλα δικαίως τιννύμενα κατα ποινην Ιωανν8 τ8 επικαλεμένο Βαπτις8. Κτείνει γαρ τέτον Ηρώδης, αγαθον ανδρα, και τες Ιεδαίας κελευοντα, αρετήν επασκοντας, και τη προς άλληλες δικαιοσυνη και προς τον Θεόν ευσεβεια χρωμένες, βαπτισμῳ συνιέναι· έτω γαρ την βαπτισιν αποδεκτήν αυτῷ φανεισθαι, μη επι τινων ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων, αλλ' εφ' άγνεια τα σώματος, άτε δη και της ψυχής δικαιοσυνη προεκκεκαθαρμενης. Και των άλλων συςρεφομένων και γαρ κέθησαν επι πλεισαν τη ακροάσει των λόγων δείσας Ηρώδης το επι τοσονδε πιθανον αυτε τοις ανθρωποις μη επί αποφάσει την φέροι, παντα γαρ εμκεσαν συμβολη τη εκείνο πράξοντες· πολυ κρείττον ἡγεῖται, πριν τι νεωτερον εξ αυτό γενεσθαι, προλαβων αναιρειν, η, μεταβολής γενομένης, εις τα πράγματα εμπεσων μετανοειν. Και ὁ μεν υποψια τη Ἡρωδε δεσμιος εις τον Μαχαι ρεντα πεμφθεις, το προειρημένον φρέριον, ταυτη κτίννυται. Τοις δε Ιεδαιος δοξαν, επι τιμωρία τη εκεινε τον ολέθρον επί τῷ σρατεύματι γενεσθαι, το Θεό κακως Ηρωδη θελόντος. Ib. sect. 2. Des Sibylles. 1. 1, c. vii. p. 28, 29. f Fab. ap. Haverc. p. 269, 270. * Εξελόμην δ' αν Κελσῳ, προσωποιησαντι τον Ιεδαίον παραδεξαμενον 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. b Jerom also must be allowed to refer to the same in his book of Illustrious Men, though he does it very inaccurately. с 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 Kaтρi auтys UTOTEλy. But it is also there said to be in the borders of the government of Aretas and Herod: μεθόριον δε εςι της τε Αρετα και Ηρωδε αρχής. πατρι αυτης υποτελή. 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 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. d 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? ειπσειν· ότι το Ιωαννην γεγονεναι βαπτισην, εις άφεσιν ἁμαρτη ματων βαπτίζοντα, ανέγραψε τις των μετ' 8 πολυ τα Ιωάννα και το Ιησε γεγενημενων. Εν γαρ τῷ οκτωκαιδεκατῳ της Ιεδαϊκης αρχαιολογίας ὁ Ιώσηπος μαρτυρεί τῳ Ιωαννῃ ὡς βαπτιση γεγενομένῳ, και καθαρσιον τοις βαπτισαμένοις επαγ Yeλλouer. Contr. Cels. 1. 1. sect. 47, p. 35, H. E. 1. 1. cap. xi. b 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. c Cod. 238, p. 972. Vid. De B. J. 1. 7, cap. vi. |