Page images
PDF
EPUB

they were designed by the Sovereign. More than forty tailors were always employed in this service. In Turkey they do not attend so much to the richness as to the number of the dresses, giving more or fewer, according to the dignity of the persons to whom they are presented, or the marks of favour the Prince would confer on his guests. Thus in primeval times, Joseph gave to each of his brethren changes of raiment; but to his favourite Benjamin he gave three hundred pieces of silver, and five changes of raiment. (Gen. xlv. 22.) Among the honourable distinctions conferred by a Persian

Monarch on Mordecai, he ordered him to be clothed with his own royal apparel. (Esther vi. 8, 9; viii. 15.) The same honour was granted by the King of Babylon to Daniel, who for his excellent wisdom was commanded to be clothed in scarlet, and to have a chain of gold about his neck. (Dan. v. 29.) In modern times, when Charles the Twelfth was made prisoner by the Turks setting fire to his house at Bender, the dresses, tents, horse-caparisons richly ornamented with gold and jewels, and other valuable articles which had been given him in presents, amounted to fifty thousand pounds.-Ibid.

THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS RESPECTING CHRIST.
Translated from the Latin of C. G. Bretschneider,

BY EDWARD ROBINSON, D. D., OF ANDOVER, IN AMERICA.

Two passages are found in the writings of Josephus, in which he speaks of Jesus Christ; one of which, being of considerable length, is called by way of eminence, the testimony of Josephus respecting Christ, and has given rise to many disputes among learned men. The following are the passages in ques

tion:

"At this time lived Jesus, a wise man; if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he performed astonishing works, and was a teacher of such as delight in receiving the truth; and drew to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Gentiles. This is he who is [called] Christ. And when Pilate, at the instance of the chief men among us, had caused him to be crucified, still those who had once loved him did not cease to love him. For on the third day he appeared unto them alive; divine Prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things respecting him. And even to this day, that class of persons who are called from him CHRISTIANS have not become extinct.” (Antiq. xviii. 3. 3.)

"Ananus assembled a Council of Judges, and having brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, (whose own name was James,) and certain others, and

having accused them of violating the laws, he delivered them over to be stoned." (Antiq. xx. 9. 1.)

The great dispute has been whether the former of these passages be genuine or not. Many learned men have supposed, that some Christian transcriber, out of a pious regard for the interests of Christianity, and in order to afford an argument against the unbelieving Jews, inserted the whole passage; or that, at least, if Josephus did make any mention of Christ, much of the language, as it now stands, has been thus interpolated. Although it is not my intention to decide upon this controversy, nor to repeat all that has been urged on both sides of the question; yet I have thought that it might be neither uninteresting nor unuseful to suggest very briefly some things on this subject, which seem to me not to have received sufficient consideration. The passage in question may indeed well cause the reader to hesitate; but if all the circumstances be duly weighed, I do not apprehend that it can be considered either spurious, or as having suffered any change from the hands of Christian transcribers.

I. If we were to decide the question by the authority of manuscripts, there can be no doubt but that the passage was written by Josephus,

and has never been corrupted. All the manuscripts which are known exhibit the same words, in the same place and order; and they are also quoted, first by Eusebius, and afterwards by Jerome, Suidas, and others. But if all the manuscripts uniformly agree, and we have, besides, testimonies of great antiquity to the genuineness of the passage, it surely cannot justly be called in question, except upon the strength of very weighty arguments. They are drawn partly from the silence of certain writers, and partly from the character of the passage itself.

1. The most ancient Christian writers, it is said, and especially Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen, have never employed this passage against the Jews; which they certainly would have done, had it been then extant. But from the mere silence of a few writers, in a case of this kind, can we draw any certain conclusion which shall overturn the credit of all the manuscripts? No one will affirm this. But Origen has expressly said, "Josephus did not believe on Jesus as the Messiah;" (lib. i. contra Cels. ;) and again," he did not receive our Jesus as the Messiah." (Com. in Matt.) Origen, therefore, it is said, could not have known of the passage in question, in which Josephus certainly acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah; and hence it is manifest that the manuscripts of Josephus in the time of Origen (who died A. D. 254) could not have contained those words. On the other hand, others have very justly suggested, that Origen means only to affirm, that Josephus did not become a follower of Christ. But passing over this suggestion, we find that between the death of Origen and the time of Eusebius there was an interval of only fifty years. Is it possible that in so short a time all the manuscripts, or even many of them, should have been thus interpolated? Can we suppose that Eusebius was hurried on against the Jews by a zeal so blind, that, although he does not seek to conceal the doubts which were raised respecting the sacred books of the Scriptures, he should

yet publish this passage as genuine and true, though he knew it was wanting in many manuscripts, or was written only in the margin? Is it credible, moreover, that this interpolation, which was unknown to Origen, should have immediately crept into all the manuscripts; so that neither Jerome, nor Sozomen, nor Suidas, nor any other early writer, should have stumbled upon a manuscript in which it was not contained?

2. It is objected further, that by this testimony respecting Jesus the order of the narrative is interrupted; but if this be taken away, the proper order will be restored. The circumstances are just these: In chap. iii., sect. 1, Josephus relates that Pilate introduced images of Cæsar into Jerusalem; but that when a tumult had been excited on account of them, he ordered them to be removed. In sect. 2, Pilate attempted to bring water into Jerusalem, at the expense of the temple, &c.; and in a tumult which arises he puts to death many of the Jews. In sect. 3, he crucifies Jesus who is called Christ, a wise and holy man. In sect. 4, it is narrated that another evil (repov deîvov) occasioned trouble to the Jews; viz., a flagitious_crime committed in the temple of Isis at Rome; as connected with which, sect. 5 relates that all the Jews were banished by Tiberius from Rome. The writer then goes on, in chap. 4, to describe the sedition of the Samaritans, and the suppression of it by Pilate. Now can any one justly affirm that the history of Josephus is in any way interrupted by the passage in question? Can any one show what connexion would be restored, if this were omitted? Most evidently Josephus has narrated the events in the order in which they occurred, and intended to give them no other connexion than that of succession of time. If, therefore, it was his purpose to make any mention of the fate of Jesus, he could have done it with propriety in no other place.

3. Another, and a most plausible objection is, that it is impossible to suppose that Josephus would speak

of Jesus in this manner, and acknowledge him as the Messiah, and yet not have embraced his religion, and become a Christian. But this objection seems to be grounded on a misapprehension of the language of Josephus; for Xporós is here not a doctrinal appellation, but merely a proper name, and is to be translated, not the Christ; that is, the Messiah, but simply, Christ as it is read in the other passage, "This was he who is known by the name of Christ, and whose followers are still called from him, Christians." It is likewise to be remembered, that Josephus was writing not to Jews, but to Greeks, who were unacquainted with the doctrinal meaning of 8 Xplorós among the former people. He therefore undoubtedly wrote the words &Xparòs BUTOS, to signify to the Greeks, that the Jesus of whom he was speaking was the same person of whom they had heard so much, under the name of Christ; and that the name of Christians, which was then well known to the Greeks, was derived from the surname of the same Jesus. And because he would assign a reason why the disciples of Jesus adhered to him so strongly after his crucifixion, he states that Jesus, after his death, appeared again to his followers alive, and that many prophecies were accomplished in him. Josephus therefore does not say this, as expressing his own belief, for he had never known Jesus; but he describes in these words the belief of the Christians, the credibility of which he either did not wish, or was unable, to impugn. It should, moreover, be borne in mind, that Josephus appears not to have adopted the notions respecting the Messiah, which were current among the Jews; nor yet to have exhibited any higher views or hopes respecting any Saviour. If then he did actually esteem Jesus as a σopòs àvhp, a wise man, as he calls him, whose deeds and fate were remarkable and unusual, he would yet, merely in this view, have no reason for changing his religion.

All the arguments, then, which are urged against the passage under consideration, even if we allow their

fullest force, are yet uncertain; and surely they are not of sufficient weight to weaken the credit of all the manuscripts, and so many of the early Fathers; much less to destroy it.

Nor indeed does the opinion, that the passage was inserted by some Christian transcriber, in itself considered, carry with it much appearance of truth. A transcriber of this sort would hardly have been contented with the language as it now stands. He would have introduced more facts respecting the life of Jesus; he would have dwelt with more prolixity on all the circumstances; and would have noted more particularly his innocence, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension into heaven. We have but to glance at the spurious narratives which were manufactured in the second and third centuries, to rest satisfied that a writer of this sort would not have restrained himself to expressions so moderate as, "a wise man, if it be proper to call him a man; a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of men." What unheard-of moderation in a writer, desirous of palming upon the world a pious fraud ! moment suppose that such a writer would merely have said, "This was he who is [called] Christ?" Or, that he would not have more accurately described "those chief men among the Jews?" or "those who loved him from the first?"

Can we for a

II. It was manifestly the object of Josephus to comprise in his narrative all that was memorable in the history of his nation. Is it then probable that he should not have said a word respecting the origin of the order of Christians, who at that time had become numerous even among the Greeks? Why, I ask, should he adopt such a course? Perhaps through hatred of the Christians, like the rest of his countrymen. This, however, no one will believe, who has read the writings of Josephus; he will not even suspect it. Or perhaps it was through fear of the Jews, lest by narrating the truth, he should give them offence, and excite their hatred. If such had been his fear, he ought not to

have written at all; much less to have depicted, as he has done, the perverse obstinacy and depravity of his countrymen. How then can we suppose it possible, that a writer like Josephus, of real diligence, who had treated with considerable copiousness of the life and death of John the Baptist, (Antiq. xviii. 5. 3,) should pass over in entire silence a person so remarkable as Jesus, and not bestow a single word on the origin of the sect called Christians, a name which already had become common and well known? Yet unless this passage be genuine, there is no place in the writings of Josephus, where he speaks of the life and character of Christ; and this affords a ground of persuasion in favour of its genuine

ness.

III. This persuasion is confirmed by another passage quoted at the head of this article, where mention is made of the death of the brother of Jesus, "called Christ." In this latter passage, I cannot help believing that Josephus refers to what he had before related respecting this same Jesus. For when he wishes to explain who this James was, who was unknown to Greek readers, he does

not call him by his proper name, but gives him the title of "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ." Josephus has therefore made use of that which was common and well known, in order to explain and describe what was unknown. Suppose now that he had not previously spoken of that Jesus, but had passed over his life and fortunes in silence, how then could he now simply say, “Jesus who is called Christ?" I can see no reason to doubt that Josephus took it for granted that his readers knew and remembered, from what he had already said, who this Jesus was, that was surnamed Christ; for who would suppose that a writer like Josephus would narrate the circumstances of the death of James, a person of far less celebrity, and yet be silent in respect to Jesus? Or who would not deem it a mark of weakness in a writer, that in order more definitely to describe an unknown man, he should introduce the name of another person, whom, although possessed of the highest claims to notice, he had every where else passed over without the slightest mention ?— American Biblical Repository.

SPIRITUAL LETTERS. No. VII. From the Rev. to a Friend.

To my dear friend in Christ Jesus, may pure and undefiled religion be made to abound, so that he may be glorified now and evermore !

Agreeably to your wish, I would put down a few thoughts upon the necessity of "keeping ourselves unspotted from the world," (Jam. i. 27,) if we would worship God in spirit and in truth, walking as children of the light and of the day. May the Holy Ghost, the Author and Giver of purity, speak to my heart, and guide my pen, that what shall be written may be profitable!

"God is love;" and love is the end of every precept, and promise, and threatening in his word. Christ hath loved us; and love is the law of his kingdom; the standing ordinance of his house, and the great bond of union among his followers. The

[ocr errors]

Holy Ghost is a loving Spirit; and love is the first fruit he produces in the heart where he has taken up his abode, from which, as a seed, all other graces arise. It is the only foundation upon which true religion can be built; if that be wanting, all must tumble into ruin ere long, when the winds blow, and the rain descends, and the floods rise. Nor can that religion be pure, which is without love for God is love; and because he is love, all light, and no darkness at all. As the least tinge of any colouring matter in a diamond spoils its beauty, so the least mixture of what is earthly in our religion makes it defiled. If love do not lead us to the abodes of misery, wretchedness, and sin, it is not from pure religion we go, and so will not profit us at all. If it do not teach

us to care for the things of others, and bear their burdens, and carry their sorrows, our doing so will not meet with the approbation of God. If it do not make us willing to forego our own ease and convenience, to minister to the wants of other men, no other principle will call forth the "well done" of the heavenly King, on the great day of account. It is divine love, therefore, which must keep us "unspotted from the world," or our separation from it will be only in show and appearance, not in truth and reality. We shall be in it and of it, while we profess to be out of it and above it, if the love of Christ is not at all times the constraining principle under which we live, and move, and act, leading us to do all to the glory of God only.

What, then, is this state of purity, but a state of perfect love, in which the soul finds God to be all-sufficient? It looks at none, it desires none, it lives for none, but God, who is its all. To such a soul it is enough that God is great, and good, and full of compassion, and rich in mercy, and unchangeable in his being, and everlasting, without any variation at all. While its eye is fixed upon Him, it is kept unspotted from the world, drinking in light, and life, and blessedness from their overflowing fountain in the heart of the Most High. Every thing it may need, and all its desire, is in Him whose delight is to communicate richly out of his fulness to the " poor in spirit."

A sight of any object out of God is enough to draw the heart away from him, as appears by the case of Eve; and in order to be safe, we must not look aside one moment.

It is necessary, too, that the mind should he kept from idly wishing for many things, and being troubled about many things, if we would keep ourselves "unspotted from the world." The fancy, also, should not be left to range as it pleases in a universe of its own creation; which if it do, we shall be sadly defiled indeed. Nor may our reason, full of activity, and eagerly inquiring after what is novel, and profound, and fitted to its capacity, have the rein, or it will carry us through foul ways, quite away from the path of life. The world, from which we are called to live separate, is all opposed to God; all apart from God; all that is not God. We are bidden to crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts, as well as to forsake the company of foolish persons. We are told to cease from all vain thoughts, empty speculations, and sinful reasonings, as well as to turn away our ears from listening to fables, and philosophy, so called, and the show of science. We are to put a yoke upon the wanderings of desire, no less than to bridle the tongue, and maintain silence in an evil time. All that is contrary to love is forbidden to have a place in our heart; and if any thing of the kind steal in, it will defile it assuredly.

To keep ourselves "unspotted from the world," we must live in our heart alone with God. If we dwell with him, there we shall not look on things after the outward appearance, but as they show themselves in the light of his countenance. If we take his counsel given us, there we shall not disquiet ourselves in vain, or trouble ourselves to no purpose. If we forsake all to enjoy fellowship with Him in our own bosom, we shall find all in Him; yea, an abundance, superabounding all thought, desire. Our life then will be hid with Christ in God; so as to be safely kept from all pollutions of idols, all earthly affections, and all the fiery darts of the enemy. He MARCH, 1835.

"Looking to Jesus," we shall escape the pollution which is in the world through lust. But to look only at the wickedness which may abound in our day, among all classes and persons, is to become spotted with it. To view only the evils existing in the church, and running through every section of it, is to come under their influence. To notice the faults of our neighbour, is to lay ourselves open to the bad impression they are fitted to make on all around. We cannot see these things in themselves apart from God, without receiving their tincture. We cannot look upon them in their native hue without being infected by them ere we are aware. VOL. XIV. Third Series.

all

« PreviousContinue »