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 Machærus, 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 hin which should come after him; that is, on Christ Jesus.” These men had received John's baptism as * Μεσον δε το περιβολο βασιλείον ᾠκοδόμησατο, 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. 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 priest 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. с • 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. 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 e 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. a αναγκαίον αυτῳ παραςησαι, ότι και τετο ουκ οικείως τῳ Ιεδαϊκῳ προσωπῳ περιέθηκεν. Ουδε γαρ συνάπτεσι τον Ιωαννην οἱ Ιεδαίοι τῳ Ιησῷ, και την Ιωάνν8 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 ανήρ, είχε ανδρα αυτον λεγειν χρη. Ην γαρ παραδόξων έργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ανθρωπων των ήδονη τ' αληθη δεχομένων. Και πολλές μεν Ιεδαίας, πολλές δε και το Ελληνικό επηγάγετο. VOL. III. Ο Χριςος έτος ην. Και αυτον ενδείξει των πρώτων ανδρων παρ' ήμιν, σαυρῳ επιτετιμηκοτος Πιλατε, εκ επαύσαντο οίγε πρώτον αυτόν αγαπήσαντες. Εφανη γαρ αυτοις τρίτην εχων ήμεραν παλιν ζων, των θείων προφητων ταυτα τε και άλλα μύρια θαυμασια περι αυτό ειρηκότων. Εις ετι νυν των Χρισιανών από τεδε ωνομασμένων ουκ επέλιπε το φύλον. Antig. Jud. l. 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. J. Ittigii Prolegom. ap. Havercamp. p. 89. Blondel des Sibylles. p. 18. Tan. Fabr. ap. Havercamp. p. 267, &c. Cleric. Η. E. An. 25. n. iv. et Ars Crit. p. 3. cap. xiv. 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. a 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?' Afterwards, in his second book against Celsus, he argues our Saviour's knowledge of futurities 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.' 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 may be hence evidently and certainly concluded that Origen never read in Josephus that testimony to Jesus which we now have in his works. a I have above mentioned no other Latin author but Tertullian, to whom Josephus was well known. But I might also have insisted upon the silence of the other Latin apologists for Christianity of the first three centuries, as Minucius Felix, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius; to whom so extraordinary a testimony to our Saviour, in so celebrated a Jewish writer, would not have been unknown if it had been in him. b Eusebius then, who flourished about the year of Christ 315, and afterwards, is the first Christian writer in whom this paragraph is found; and by him it is twice quoted at large. After him, as is well known, it is quoted by Jerom, Sozomen, and many other following writers. с с d But it is observable that this paragraph is never quoted by Chrysostom, whom I suspect to have had but little regard for Eusebius of Cæsarea. He several times refers to Josephus as a proper writer, from whom men might learn what miseries the Jewish people had undergone in their war with the Romans; he not being a believer, but a Jew, and zealous for the Jewish ⚫rites even after the rise of Christianity.' He refers likewise to what Josephus says of John the Baptist, though inaccurately, as must be acknowledged: but he never takes any notice of this testimony to Jesus; which surely he would not have omitted, in his many arguments with the Jews, if he had been acquainted with it, and had supposed it to be genuine. f Some have supposed that this testimony of Josephus was alleged by Macarius in the time of Dioclesian. But Fabricius has honestly and judiciously observed that there is no reason to take that passage of Macarius for genuine. 2. This paragraph was wanting in the copies of Josephus which were seen by Photius in the ninth century. i I make a distinct article of this writer, because he read and revised the works of Josephus as a critic. He has in his Bibliotheque no less than three articles concerning Josephus, but takes no notice of this passage. Whence it may be concluded that it was wanting in his copies, or that he did not think it genuine: but the former is the more likely. He refers to the passage concerning John the Baptist in this manner: This Herod, tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa, son ⚫ of Herod the great, is he who put to death the great John the forerunner, because, as Josephus says, he would stir up the people to rebellion. For all men paid great regard to John upon account of his transcendent virtue. In his time also our Saviour suffered.' How fair an occasion had Photius here to refer also to the testimony given to Jesus, which we now have, if he had seen it? Upon this article 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 common 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 debere μoving duaрrηuari Origenis Certe nullibi, a -et qui istos aut probat aut revincit Judæus Josephus, antiquitatum Judaïcarum vernaculus vindex. Tert. Ap. c. 19, p. 19. bH. E. 1. 1. c. xi. Dem. Ev. 1. 3. P. 124. c. De V. I. c. 13. e - και γαρ Ιεδαίος ην, και σφοδρα Ιεδαίος, και ζηλωτής, και των μετα την Χρισε παρεσίαν. In Matt. hom. 76. al. 77. T. 7. p. 732. Vid. et in Matt. hom. 75. al. 76. p. 727. et in Jo. hom. 64, al. 65. T. 8. p. 390. f In Jo. hom. 12. al. 13. T. 8. p. 73. A. Hoc Josephi loco non utuntur Justinus, Tertullianus, Chrysostomus, aliique complures, quando contra Judæos disputant. Non produxit Origenes, alia Josephi laudans in --- libris contra Celsum. Nec Photius quidem tanto junior esse. i Cod. 238. p. 973. Ap. Havercamp, p. 89. 1 ως δε τα Ιεδαίων νόσων, Ιέδαιος τε καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων το γενος, της Χριςε παρεσίας, και των περί αυτόν τελεσθέντων, και των ὑπ' αυτο τερατεργηθέντων, αδενος όλως μνήμην εποίη caro. Cod. 33. p. 20. 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 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.' b 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. 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 goes on to another. That must make this argument the stronger. he, 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 '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 follows 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.' d 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 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.' f • Και ύπο τες αυτές χρονος έτερον τι δεινον εθορυβε τις ladales. L. 18. c. 3. sect. 4. • Και οἱ μεν δια κακιαν τεσσάρων ανδρων ελαύνοντο της woλews. sect. 5. fin. Ruine des Juifs. note xl. Hist. des Emp. Tom. i. Sed quo judicio scriptum est quod sequitur: aye avôpa AUTOY REVELY XEN. Quænam, quæso, ratio est ? Quia, inquit, παραδόξων εργων ποιητης ην. Itaque adeo, quando ita vult, dubitabitur in posterum a nobis, dii an homines appellandi sint Moses, Elias, Elisaus? Nam et illi fuerunt wapadowv έργων ποιηται. Deinde, cum ait ειγε ανδρα αυτον λεγειν χρή, |