k Thus when Jofephus fays, as we have feen, that the most equitable Citizens of Jerufalem, and those that were moft zealous of the Law, were very uneafy at the Condemnation of this James, and fome of his Friends or Fellow Chriftians, by the High Prieft and Sanhedrim about A. D. 62. and declares that he himself was one of thofe Jews 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 eafily fee thofe Opinions could only be the Opinions of converted Jews or Ebionites. The High Prieft and Sanhedrim, who always perfecuted the Chriftians, and now condemned thefe Chriftians; and the Body of thofe unbelieving Jews who are fuppofed to fuffer for murdering this James, the Head of the Nazarene or Ebionite Chriftians in Judæa, could not, to be fure, be of that Opinion. Nor could Josephus himself be of the fame Opinion, as he declares he was, without the ftrongest Inclinations to the Christian Religion; or without being fecretly a Chriftian Jew, i. e. a Nazarene or Ebionite. Which thing is, by the way, a very great additional Argument that fuch he was, and no other. Thus, Jaftly, when Jofephus is cited in Suidas as affirming that Jefus officiated with the Priests in the Temple; this Account is by no means difagreeable to the Pretenfions of the Ebionites. Hegefippus, the Ebionite, affirming the very fame of James the Just alfo. Not that fuch Ebionite Teftimonies are always authentick, or to be depended on; but that Jofephus, an Ebionite, might be fometimes impofed upon by his Brethren, the Ebionites, in fuch Matters: As I have elfewhere fhewn he was impofed upon by them in certain Accounts relating to the Converfion of Abgarus, and his Queen Helena to 'Eraigs in Syncellus. See Prim. Chrift. Reviv'd, Vol. III. P. 42-46. Chrifti Chriftianity. To which Treatife the Reader must be here referred for farther Satisfaction. VII. The first Author I have alledg'd for the famous Testimony concerning our Saviour in Fofephus, is Justin Martyr; one fo nearly coeval with Josephus, that he might be born about the Time when he wrote his Antiquities. Juftin elsewhere" 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 Teftimony in them concerning our Saviour, when he affirms in this Place, to Trypho the Jew, that His Nation originally knew that Jefus was rifen from the Dead, and afcended into Heaven; as the Prophecies did foretel was to happen. Since there neither now is, nor probably, in the Days of Juftin was any other Jewi Teftimony extant, which is fo agreeable to what Justin here affirms of thofe Jews, as is this of Jo-' Jephus the few before us. Nor, indeed, does he feem to me to have had any thing else particularly in his View here, but the 13th and 14th Claufes of this very Teftimony; where Jofephus fays, that Jefus appeared to bis Followers alive the third Day af ter bis Crucifixion; as the Divine Prophets bad foretold thefe, and a vaft Number of other wonderful Things concerning him. I muft leave this Application to the impartial Readers own Confideration. VIII. The fecond Author I have quoted for JoSepbus's Teftimonies of John the Baptift, of Jefus of Nazareth, and of James the Juft, is Origen: Who is indeed allow'd on all Hands to have quoted him for the excellent Characters of John the Baptift, and of James the Juft; but whofe fuppofed intire Silence about this Teftimony concerning Chrift is ufually alledged as the principal Argument against its being genuine: And particularly as to the Clause, • Xelsis TO IV, This was the Christ: And that, as Cohort. ad Græc. p. 10. we we have seen, because he twice affures us, that, in his Opinion, Jofephus did not himself acknowledge Jefus for Chrift. Now as to this latter Clause, I have already fhewed, that Jofephus did not here, in writing to Greeks and Romans, mean any fuch thing by thofe Words as Jews and Chriftians naturally understand by them: I have also obferved, that all the Ancients allow ftill, with Origen, that Jofephus did not, in the Jewish and Christian Senfe, acknowledge Jefus for the true Meffiah, or the true Chrift of God, notwithstanding their exprefs Quotation of that Claufe in Jofephus, as genuine. So that unless we fuppofe Origen to have had a different. Notion of these Words from all the other Ancients, we cannot conclude from this Affertion of Origen's, that he had not thofe Words in his Copy. Not to fay, that it is, after all, much more likely that his Copy a little differed from the other Copies in this Claufe, or indeed omitted it intirely (as does Cedrenus Tranfcript, and the firft Edition of Epiphanius's old Verfion omit it; and those only of all the Çitations, Editions, and MSS. that I have heard of) than that he, on its Account, must be supposed not to have had the reft of this Teftimony therein: Though indeed I fee no Neceffity of making any fuch Suppofal at all. However, it feems to me, that Origen affords us four feveral Indications that the main Parts, at least, of this Teftimony itself were in his Copy. (1) When Origen introduces Jofephus's Teftimony concerning James the Just, that he thought the Miferies of the Jews were an Inftance of the Divine Vengeance on that Nation for putting James to death instead of Jefus, he uses an Expreffion no way neceffary to his Purpose, nor occafioned by any Words of Jofephus there; I mean that they had Main + προφητευόμιμον Χρισόν, that Chrift which was foretold in the Prophecies. Whence could this Expreffion come here into Origen's Mind? when he was was quoting a Teftimony of Josephus concerning the Brother of Christ, but from his Remembrance of a Clause in the Teftimony of the fame Jofephus concerning Chrift himself, that the Prophets bad foretold bis Death and Refurrection, and a vaft Number of other wonderful Things concerning him? (2) How came Origen to be fo furprized at Jofephus's afcribing the Deftruction of Jerufalem to the Jews murdering of James the Juft, and not to their murdering of Jefus, as we have feen he was, if he had not known that Jofephus had spoken of Jefus and his Death before; and that he had a very good Opinion of Jefus: Which yet he could learn no way so authentickly as from this Teftimony. Nor do the Words he here ufes, that Jofephus was not remote from the Truth, perhaps allude to any thing else, but to this very Teftimony before us. (3) How came the fame Origen, upon another flight Occafion, when he had juft fet down that Teftimony of Jofephus concerning James the Juft, the Brother of Jefus who was called Chrift, to fay, that It may be queftioned whether the Jews thought Jefus to be a Man, or whether they did not suppose bim to be T Jeóregov, a Being of a diviner Kind. This looks fo very like to the third and fourth Claufes of this Teftimony in Jofephus, that Jefus was a wife Man, if it be lawful to 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 efteemed Jesus with one Confent as a meer Man, the Son of Jofeph and Mary; and 'tis not, I think, poffible to produce any one Jew but Jofephus, who in a Sort of Compliance with the Romans and the Catholick Chriftians, who thought him a God, would fay any thing like his Being a God. I take this Argument to be a very strong one: Let the judicious confider it. 4 (4) How (4) How came Origen to affirm twice, fo exprefly, that Jofephus did not himself own, in the Jewish and Chriftian Senfe, that Jefus was Chrift? Notwithstanding his Quotations of fuch eminent Teftimonies out of him for John the Baptift his Forerunner, and for James the Juft, his Brother, and one of his principal Difciples? There is no Paffage in all Jofephus fo likely to perfuade Origen of this, as is the famous Teftimony before us : Wherein, as he and all the Ancients understood it, he was generally called Chrift indeed, but not any otherwise than as the common Name whence the Sect of Chriftians was derived; and where he all along speaks of those Chriftians as a Sect then in being, whofe Author was a wonderful Perfon, and his Followers great Lovers of him and of the Truth; yet as fuch a Sect as he bad not joined himself to. Which Expofition, as it is a very natural one, so was it, I doubt, but too true of our Jofephus at that time. See Authent. Rec. Vol. II. p. 960. Nor can I devise any other Reafon but this, and the parallel Language of Jofephus elsewhere, when he speaks of James as the Brother, not of Jefus who was Chrift, but of Jefus who was called Chrift, that could fo naturally induce Origen and others to be of that Opi nion. N. B. There are two remarkable Paffages in Suidas and Theophylact, already fet down, as citing Jofephus; the former that Jefus officiated with the Priests in the Temple; the latter that the Deftruction of Jerufalem and Miseries of the Jews were owing to their putting Jefus to death; which are in none of our prefent Copies, nor cited thence by any ancienter Authors; nor indeed do they feem altogether confiftent with the other more authentick Teftimonies. However, fince Suidas cites his Paffage from a Treatife of Jofephus's, called Memoirs of the Jews Captivity, a Book never heard of elfe wheres |