Part 14

Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the (death)[420] of Artaxerxes,[421] who succeeded Xerxes as King of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for (the conduct of) human life.

From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.

Jewish Veneration of their Scriptures

We have given practical proof of the spirit in which we treat[422] our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees[423] of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them. Time and again ere now the sight has been witnessed of prisoners enduring tortures and death in every form in the theatres, rather than utter a single word against the laws and the allied documents.—_c. Ap._ I. 6-8 (29-43).

Footnote 412:

_i. e._ Egyptians, Babylonians, Chaldæans and Phœnicians, as opposed to the Greeks, who neglected to keep records of antiquity

Footnote 413:

Reading ἀρχείων. MSS “from the ancients” (ἀρχαίων).

Footnote 414:

Or “college of priests.”

Footnote 415:

Or, perhaps, “from the archives” (ἀρχείων).

Footnote 416:

Unlike the Greeks.

Footnote 417:

Lit. “tens of thousands.”

Footnote 418:

Eusebius reads, “which are justly believed to be divine.”

Footnote 419:

See on this and the following paragraph Appendix, Note VII.

Footnote 420:

The earlier editions insert ἀρχῆς (“till the reign of ...”), not found in Niese’s MS. Perhaps we should read simply “until Artaxerxes” (μέχρις for μέχρι τῆς).

Footnote 421:

In Jos. Artaxerxes = Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther (_Ant._ XI. 6. 1 (184)); Xerxes = Artaxerxes of Ezra-Nehemiah.

Footnote 422:

Gr. (as quoted by Eusebius) “approach.” The MSS of Jos. read “we have trusted.”

Footnote 423:

Or “doctrines.”

(64) Universal Imitation of our Laws the sincerest flattery

Now, since Time is reckoned in all cases the surest test of worth,[424] I would call Time to witness to the excellence of our lawgiver and of the doctrine which he has delivered to us concerning God. An infinity of time has passed (since Moses) by comparison with the ages in which other lawgivers lived; yet it will be found that throughout the whole of that period not merely have our laws stood the test of our own use, but they have to an ever-increasing extent instilled an emulation of them into the world at large.[425]

Our earliest imitators were the Greek philosophers, who, though ostensibly observing the laws of their own countries, yet in their conduct[426] and philosophy were Moses’ disciples, holding similar views about God, and inculcating simplicity of life and participation[427] between man and man. But-that is not all. The masses have long since shown a keen desire to adopt our religious observances, and there is not one city, Greek [or barbarian, nor a single nation,][428] to which our custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread, and where the fasts and the lighting of lamps and many of our prohibitions in the matter of food are not observed. Moreover, they attempt to imitate our harmonious relations with each other, the charitable distribution of our possessions, our devoted labour in the crafts, our endurance under persecution on behalf of our laws. The greatest miracle of all is that our Law holds out no seductive bait of sensual pleasure, but has exercised this influence through its own inherent merits; and, as God has permeated the universe, so the Law has found its way among all mankind. Let each man reflect for himself on his own country and his own household, and he will not discredit what I say. It follows, then, that either we must convict the whole world of deliberate depravity in their eager desire to adopt the bad laws of a foreign country in preference to the good laws of their own, or else our accusers must give up their grudge against us. In honouring our own legislator and putting our trust in his prophetical utterances concerning God, we do not make any arrogant claim justifying such odium. Indeed, were we not ourselves aware of the excellence of our laws, assuredly[429] we should have been impelled to pride ourselves upon them by the multitude of their admirers.—_c. Ap._ II. 38 f. (279-286).

Footnote 424:

Or “the surest of all tests” (lit. “assayers”).

Footnote 425:

The text of this sentence is uncertain. I adopt Niese’s conjecture.

Footnote 426:

Perhaps we should read “their writings” (Niese).

Footnote 427:

Or “friendly communion.”

Footnote 428:

Niese reads “nor a single barbarian race.”

Footnote 429:

Reading πάντως (with Niese).

(65) The Oath “Corban”

Cf. Mark vii. 11.

In ancient times various cities were acquainted with the existence of our nation, and to some of these many of our customs have now found their way and here and there been thought worthy of imitation. This is apparent from a passage in the work of Theophrastus on _Laws_, where he says that the laws of the Tyrians prohibit the use of foreign oaths, in enumerating which he includes among others the oath called “Corban.” Now this oath will be found in no other nation except the Jews, and, translated from the Hebrew, one may interpret it as meaning “God’s gift.”[430]—_c. Ap._ I. 22 (166 f.).

Footnote 430:

Elsewhere (_Ant._ IV. 4. 4 [73]) Jos., like Mark, renders simply, and correctly, “a gift.”

APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL NOTES

I. Note on § (24). QUIRINIUS

P. Sulpicius Quirinius, a native of Lanuvium, was consul in 12 B.C.; some years later was sent on an expedition against the Homonadenses, a mountain tribe in Cilicia, and was awarded a triumph for his successes; accompanied Gaius Cæsar, grandson of Augustus, to the East in A.D. 2 as his tutor; and in A.D. 6 was appointed Governor of Syria as legatus of the Emperor, and in that capacity took over Judæa on the deposition of Archelaus, and made the valuation of the newly-annexed district here described by Josephus. Towards the end of his life he caused some scandal at Rome by the divorce of his wife Lepida, whom he accused of attempting to poison him. He remained in favour with Tiberius, who, on his death about A.D. 21, secured him a public funeral. A mutilated inscription found near Tivoli (Tibur) seems to prove that he was _twice_ governor of Syria. (Tacitus _Ann._ III. 48 and 22; Suet. _Tib._ 49 ; art. in _Encycl. Bibl._).

This is not the place to discuss the formidable difficulties arising from St. Luke’s reference (ii. 1 ff.) to “the decree from Cæsar Augustus” and “the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” These are set out in full in Schürer’s _Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ_, i. 2, pp. 105-143; on the other side should be read Sir W. M. Ramsay’s _Was Christ born at Bethlehem?_ (1898). It has been held that St. Luke is guilty of an anachronism in making the birth of Christ contemporary with the well-known enrolment under Quirinius (Acts v. 37), which took place ten years after the death of Herod, and that other features in his account, which lacks external support, render the whole narrative incredible. Those who argue that the Evangelist is guilty of such gross error must at least admit that he had not read the last books of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus (see Note IV below). But it is difficult to believe that a historian generally so careful has erred in this way. Since Schürer’s indictment was written, Ramsay has adduced important new evidence from the papyri, proving that in Egypt from the time of Augustus a periodic census or “enrolment by household” took place every fourteen years; he has further given reason for thinking that this system applied to other provinces and dependencies of the Roman Empire, and that Judæa under Herod was not exempt, although a concession was made to local prejudice in the manner of the enrolment; he concludes that the “first” enrolment under Quirinius and the birth of Christ fell in the year 6 B.C. He has not quite removed all difficulties. In particular, it seems impossible to find room within the lifetime of Herod for the first governorship of Quirinius, unless the ἡγεμονία mentioned by St. Luke refers to his appointment as a _special_ lieutenant of Augustus to conduct the war against the Homonadenses, while Quintilius Varus administered the ordinary affairs of Syria. But why in that case does St. Luke connect the census with the military commander Quirinius, rather than with Varus?

II. Note on § (26). THE ALLEGED WITNESS TO JESUS CHRIST

Recent literature:—

(_a_) For the authenticity of the whole section.

F. C. Burkitt; in _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, Leiden, 1913, pp. 135 ff.

A. Harnack in _Internat. Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und Technik_, 1913, pp. 1037 ff. (I have, unfortunately, been unable to see this, and only know it through Norden’s rejoinder, which seems conclusive.)

(_b_) For partial interpolation.

Th. Reinach in _Revue des Études Juives_, tom. xxxv, 1897, pp. 1 ff.

P. Corrsen in _Zeitschrift für die N.T. Wissenschaft_, 1914, pp. 114 ff., _Die Zeugnisse des Tacitus u. Pseudo-Josephus über Christus_ (thinks the interpolation has probably replaced a genuine statement of Josephus about Christ).

(_c_) Against the authenticity of the whole section.

E. Norden in _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_, vol. xxxi, 1913, pp. 637 ff., _Josephus u. Tacitus über Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetie_.

E. Schürer, _Hist. of Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ_, 1898, I. 2, pp. 143 ff. (where the older literature is quoted).

(_d_) For the passages in the Slavonic version of the _B.J._

A. Berendts in _Texte und Untersuchungen_, N. F., Bd. XIV, 1906.

In this much debated passage Josephus appears to speak of Jesus Christ as one of more than mortal nature, as a wonder-worker and a teacher of men who receive “the truth” with pleasure, and as gaining many adherents among Jews and Greeks. Then comes the explicit statement, “This was the Christ.” The writer proceeds to mention His crucifixion by Pilate “on the indictment of our principal men,” His resurrection and appearance to His followers on the third day, and the survival at the time of writing of “the tribe” of Christians who took their name from Him.

The passage largely accounts for the high esteem in which Josephus was held by Patristic writers. Since the revival of learning the question of its authenticity has been the subject of keen controversy. Until recently few scholars of weight have ventured to maintain that the paragraph _as it stands_ can have been penned by the Jewish historian; the point on which opinions have diverged has been whether the whole is an interpolation or whether a genuine brief statement of Josephus about Christ has been expanded and emended by a Christian hand. In recent years the question has been reopened in two ways, by the conversion of two authorities of the first rank to the rejected view and by the discovery of new materials. Professor Burkitt in this country and (following him with a little hesitation) Harnack in Germany have pronounced in favour of the genuineness of the passage. The existence has also been brought to light of other passages in the Slavonic version of the _Jewish War_ relating to John the Baptist, Christ and the early Christians. The Slavonic matter may be treated independently; it has no attestation in the Greek MSS, and, whatever its origin, lacks the authority with which the present passage comes before us. Harnack has been answered in a masterly article by one of his own countrymen (Norden), and, notwithstanding the weight attaching to the names of its recent supporters, the arguments against the authenticity of the passage (at least in its present form) appear overwhelming. The really decisive factors in the problem must be sought rather in the relevance of the passage to its context and in the style than in any subjective considerations as to what Josephus could or could not have written.

External evidence

The passage, it is true, stands in all our MSS, but this tells us little, since the oldest of them (Niese’s P) is not earlier than the ninth or tenth century. Eusebius quotes it (_H.E._ i. 11, cf. _Dem. Ev._ iii. 3. 105 f.), thus attesting its existence in the fourth century. On the other hand, it is practically certain that Origen in the preceding century did not find it in his text. He knows the allusions to John the Baptist in the same book of the _Antiquities_ (§ 29) and to James the Lord’s brother in the twentieth book (§ 37), but of any mention of Christ he has no word. Nor are we confined to this _argumentum e silentio_; his language makes it impossible to suppose that he found the statement “This was the Christ.” “The wonder is,” he writes, “that, though he (Josephus) _did not admit our Jesus to be Christ_, he none the less gave his witness to so much righteousness in James” (_Comm. in Matt._ x. 17); and again (writing on John the Baptist) “although he (Josephus) _disbelieved in Jesus as Christ_” (_c. Cels._ i. 47). The passage about James as cited by Origen differs, indeed, from the normal text; according to Origen, Josephus regarded the destruction of the Temple as a punishment for the murder. Prof. Burkitt thinks that Origen may have “mixed up in his commonplace book the account of Ananus’ murder of James and the remarks of Josephus on Ananus’ own murder” (§ 45); but it is difficult to believe, as the Professor appears to suggest, that his familiarity with the _Antiquities_ was so slight that he could have missed the statement in XVIII. 63 f. and written as he did if it stood in his text. The real importance of Origen’s evidence is that it seems to supply the date when our passage was interpolated by a Christian reader, viz. towards the end of the third century, between the age of Origen and that of Eusebius.

Internal evidence

(1) _Context._—The latest advocates of the authenticity of the statement have judged it on its merits, apart from its context, from which it cannot be isolated. As Norden has convincingly shown, it breaks the thread of the narrative, the framework of which at this point consists of a series of “tumults” or “disturbances” (θόρυβοι). This framework seems to have been taken over from an older authority, and so mechanically that disturbances which occurred at different dates are treated as contemporaneous. We have:—

First θόρυβος (XVIII. 55-59).—Pilate introduces the Emperor’s busts into Jerusalem and threatens the Jewish petitioners with death “if they did not desist from turbulence” (θορυβεῖν 58).

Second θόρυβος (60-62).—Pilate appropriates the Corban money for building purposes. His soldiers overpower the insurgents (τοὺς θορυβοῦντας 62), “and so the sedition (στάσις) was quelled.” (See § 25 of the translation for these two θόρυβοι).

[Here (63-64) comes the passage about Christ.]

Third θόρυβος (65-84).—Two scandalous events at Rome leading respectively to the crucifixion of the priests of Isis and to the banishment of the Jews (for the second of these see § 27). These paragraphs open with the words “Now about the same time another calamity disturbed (ἐθορύβει) the Jews.”

Fourth θόρυβος (85-87) in Samaria, introduced by the words “The Samaritan race also was not exempt from disturbance” (θόρυβος), while the next paragraph begins “When the disturbance (θορύβου) was put down.”

It will be seen that this scheme is interrupted by the Christian περικοπή. The opening of 65 connects the third “disturbance” directly with the second (62). The mention of Pilate naturally led the interpolator to insert his statement at this point; but the structure of the original narrative leaves no room for it.

(2) _Style._—Notwithstanding its brevity (it comprises only three sentences in Niese’s text) the paragraph is long enough to betray in its language the hand of the forger. The style is not quite so “neutral” as Harnack suggests.

Here, again, regard must be had to the immediate surroundings. The style of Josephus is variable, now easy and flowing, now extraordinarily difficult. The testimony to Christ is imbedded in a portion of the _Antiquities_ (XVII. 1-XIX. 275) which contains some of the hardest Greek in our author. The language throughout this group of nearly three books is distinguished by some well-marked characteristics, _e.g._ a large use of periphrastic expressions. The simple verb is replaced by the combination of the _nomen actoris_ in -τῆς with καθίστασθαι, γίγνεσθαι, εἶναι or the like (thus κριτὴς εἶ αι = κρίνειν XIX. 217); μὴ ἀπηλλαγμένος with inf. (_ibid._ “not incapable,” “competent”) is a similar mannerism of constant occurrence in these books and is based on Thuc. I. 138. Χρῆσθαι is used with extraordinary frequency in periphrases. Other peculiarities are the use of the neuter participle with article as an abstract noun (Thucydidean), of οὐδὲν (μηδὲν) εἰς ἀναβολὰς for “quickly” (after Thuc. VII. 15), and of ὁπόσος (100 examples in these books) for ῞ὅσος in other parts of Josephus. The departure from the author’s normal practice extends to the spelling; the double σ (of Thucydides) in words like πράσσειν in these books replaces as a rule the so-called “Attic” ττ employed elsewhere in the _Antiquities_. Imitation of Thucydides, found sporadically in other parts, here reaches its climax. This practice largely accounts for the cumbrous phrases and involved periods prevalent in these books. The style is artificial and imitative and does not lend itself readily to imitation by another, The sources of this portion of the work are mainly, if not entirely, Roman, notably the narrative of the accession and (at quite disproportionate length) the death (XIX. I. 275) of Caligula; and I can only account for the phenomena by supposing that the author here handed over entirely to one of his literary _collaborateurs_ or συνεργοί (cp. _Ap._ I. 50), who had hitherto rendered only occasional aid, the task of translating his Latin authorities. On the accession of Claudius, when the centre of interest shifts from Rome to Palestine, the normal style is resumed (at XIX. 276).

Now, the mannerisms of _Ant._ XVII-XIX. 275 recur with wearisome iteration; it is rare to find a sentence which does not contain one or more of them. Thus in the paragraphs immediately preceding the passage about Christ we find three examples of periphrasis with χρῆσθαι (58, 60, 62); in the paragraph which follows two examples of οὐκ ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι (65, 68). But the passage itself contains none of the really distinctive features; one phrase alone (ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι) gives us pause. The following details may be noticed.

“A doer of wonderful works.” In compiling a Greek index to _Ant._ XVI.-XX. I have not noticed another instance of παράδοξος.

“Men who receive the truth with pleasure.” “The truth” (τἀληθῆ). The crasis is in the style of Jos., but the phrase is again unexampled, at least in this portion. On the other hand, “to receive with pleasure” (ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι) recurs in XVIII. 6, 59, 70, 236, 333; XIX. 127, 185 and similar phrases (ἡδονῇ φέρειν, χαρᾷ φέρειν or δέχεσθαι) elsewhere in this portion of the work. I account for this, with Norden, by supposing that “the interpolator knew his author.” He knew him just well enough to employ the crasis in τἀληθῇ and a phrase which he found twice in the immediate context (59, 70).

“The Greeks” (τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ). The neut. may be paralleled by _B.J._ II. 268, but is not uncommon outside Josephus.

“Our principal men.” Norden notes that, whereas “the first” or “principal men” (οἱ πρῶτοι) is frequent in _Ant._ XX. (2, 6, 53, 119, 123, 135, etc.), it never has the personal note (“our”) attached to it.

“Those who first loved (him).” Ἀγαπᾶν in Jos., never, according to Norden, has the Christian meaning of “love,” but only its classical sense of “be content”; an instance occurs in the previous paragraph (60, cp. 242).

“On the third day.” The phrase (τρίτην ἡμέραν ἔχων) is again unexampled in Jos.; the N.T. yields the nearest parallel (Lk. xxiv. 21, τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει).

“Alive again” (πάλιν ζῶν). Jos. writes elsewhere of a future life ἀναβιοῦν (_Ant._ XVIII. 14) and γενέσθαι τε πάλιν καὶ βίον ἀμείνω λαβεῖν (_Ap._ II. 218); he does not use ζῆν or ζωή in this connexion.

“And to this very day” (εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν). The phrase is foreign to Jos., who commonly writes ἔτι καὶ νῦν, occasionally καὶ μεχρὶ τοῦ νῦν and the like, never εἰς ἔτι (Norden).

Jos. is scrupulous in avoiding a harsh hiatus—the juxtaposition of unelided vowels at the end of one word and the beginning of the next. The interpolator writes τἀληθῆ correctly, but, as Norden notes, he has in these few lines introduced three glaring examples of hiatus: Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο, σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος, Πιλάτου οὐκ.

(3) _Contents._—Our decision must rest primarily upon the arguments already adduced from context and style. But the whole tone of the passage suggests a Christian hand. It is the eulogy of a devotee masquerading under the mantle of the Jewish historian, rather than what we should expect, the bare chronicle, if not the bitter invective, of the priestly historian himself. “If one should call him a man”; “this was the Christ.” Could Josephus have so written? Even Jerome found this last phrase incomprehensible on such lips and altered it in his translation to “_credebatur_ esse Christus” (_De vir. ill._ 13). Prof. Burkitt ventures to uphold the authenticity even of these words. The passage, he argues, was penned at a time when Christianity had not yet become a formidable foe to Judaism, and was intended as an answer to Jewish expostulations on the subject of the coming of Messiah. This is how he paraphrases it: “Yes, the Christ was to come and indeed did come. That very estimable person who met with his death some time ago was the Christ. As in the case of so many other personages in our divinely chosen nation, there were some wonders and prodigies told about him. Even now there are some who revere him. They are good harmless folk like their master. But they are quite unimportant and no danger to the State; when you hear of ‘Christ’ it is no future Hannibal or Spartacus, but a good man who is dead and gone” (_loc. cit._ p. 140 f.). The reader must be left to estimate the value of this interpretation of the historian’s character and language in the light of the other evidence.

The theory of _partial_ interpolation, held by those who reject the obviously Christian phrases but believe that Josephus made some statement about Christ, is unsatisfactory. In so far as it is supported by any solid arguments, it is based partly on the few phrases for which parallels can be found in his writings, partly on the assumption that the other mention of “Jesus who was called Christ” (_Ant._ XX. 200) implies a fuller statement elsewhere. But the elimination of all that is suggestive of Christian origin leaves practically nothing behind. We may well follow Norden in declining to discuss what he calls the “transcendental” question whether the interpolation may have ousted a genuine statement of the historian about Christ, now lost beyond recovery; merely adding that the argument that the paragraph interrupts the sequence of the narrative is an argument for its spuriousness as a whole.

* * * * *