Part 10 (1/2)

4. Jesus, son of Sie (Ant., xvii. xiii. 1).

5. Jesus, son of d.a.m.neus (Ant., xx. ix. 1).

6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel (Ant., xx. ix. 4).

7. Jesus, son of Sapphias ( Wars, ii. xx. 4).

8. Jesus, son of Shaphat ( Wars, iii. ix. 7).

9. Jesus, son of Ana.n.u.s ( Wars, iv. iv. 9).

10. Jesus, son of Ana.n.u.s, a plebeian ( Wars, vi. v. 3).

11. Jesus, son of Gamala (Life, 38, 41).

12. Jesus, a high priest ( Wars, vi. ii. 2).

13. Jesus, son of Thebuthi ( Wars, vi. viii. 3).

14. Jesus, father of Elymas.

15. Jesus, surnamed Barabbas.

Josephus also refers to one Judas, a Gaulonite, who was a leader of the people, and whose character and career answer in so many respects to qualities credited to Jesus of Nazareth that it is supposed by many that the name Jesus had been changed to Judas; and he also refers to other Jesuses who are too much like the traditional Jesus of the Gospels in many things to be mere coincidences. Then there was the _meek_ Jesus, mentioned by Josephus, who lived during the reign of Albinus, who prophesied such evil things, and who was scourged until his bones were laid bare, and who uttered no reply, and in so many ways was like the Jesus of tradition ( _Wars of the Jews_, book vi., chap. 5). Then we have the mention of the Jesus, as is well known, who was the friend of Simon and John and the ”son of Sapphias,” who was the leader of a seditious tumult, _who was betrayed by one of his followers_, and defeated by Josephus himself when he was governor of Galilee, and put to shame and confusion (_Life of Josephus_, sec. 12-14).

This undoubtedly shows that nearly all that is claimed for Jesus of Nazareth _might_ have been said as the substance of what was written by Josephus concerning real historical persons called Jesus. This may account for the conglomerate character and the many inconsistencies ascribed to this Jesus of tradition.

The failure of Jewish writers of the first century to recognize Jesus of Nazareth, even in the most casual way, is a significant fact. Philo, the celebrated writer of his day, was born about twenty years before the Christian era, and spent his time in philosophical studies at that centre of learning, Alexandria in Egypt. He labored diligently and wrote voluminously to reconcile the teachings of Plato with the writings of the Old Testament, and, though in the prime and vigor of manhood when Jesus is said to have lived, and dwelling in the immediate vicinity of Judea, and in the very city where Christianity was early introduced, yet this learned, devout, and honest Jew makes no mention of Jesus of Nazareth.

Even more strange is the silence of Josephus, the Jewish historian, who was born about A. d. 35, and lived and wrote extensively until after the destruction of Jerusalem, and yet he never mentioned the name of Jesus.

The celebrated pa.s.sage regarding Christ is known to be a forgery, and the one respecting ”James the brother of Jesus, called the Christ,” is by no means worthy of confidence. It must be certain that in the first century of our era Jesus of Nazareth did not attract the attention of these fair and distinguished Jewish writers, if he in fact existed.

In early times the name Jesus, as has been shown, was as common as the names John or James, and when the name is mentioned it is impossible to say who is referred to. The pa.s.sage in Josephus referring to Jesus thus, ”About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be right to call him a man,” etc., is acknowledged by celebrated Christian writers to be a fraud. Its authenticity was given up as long ago as the time of Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, author of the _Credibility of the Gospel History_, and one of the most highly regarded of Christian writers.

Gibbon, too, decided it to be a forgery. Bishop Warburton, the distinguished defender of Pope's _Essay on Man_ against the charge of atheism, and one of the most distinguished of Christian defenders, agreed with Lardner. The Rev. Robert Taylor quotes many other Christian writers as coinciding. The biographer of Josephus in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ says the pa.s.sage is unanimously regarded as spurious. Drs.

Oort, Hookyaas, and Xuenen, German Christian writers of great repute, in the _Bible for Learners_ declare the pa.s.sage to be ”certainly spurious”

and ”inserted by a later and a Christian hand.”

Gibbon says it was forged between the time of Origen (a. d. 230) and Eusebius (a. d. 315). The credit of the forgery, however, is generally given to Eusebius, who first quoted it. The distinguished authors of the _Bible for Learners_ distinctly state that Josephus never mentioned Jesus, and cite Josephus's close following of the atrocious career of Herod up to the very last moments of his life, without mentioning the slaughter of the innocents, as indubitable proof that Josephus knew nothing of Jesus. Dr. Lardner gives these reasons why he regards the pa.s.sage as a forgery:

”I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

”Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word _Christ_ in any of his works, except the testimony above mentioned and the pa.s.sage concerning James, the Lord's brother.

”It interrupts the narrative.

”The language is quite Christian.

”It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been in the text.

”It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

”Under the article 'Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states that the historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

”Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from Christian authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony.