Part 150 (1/2)

”Flavius Josephus, the well-known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A. D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circ.u.mstances of the times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not seem to have ever mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the pa.s.sage in his '_Jewish Antiquities_' that refers to him is certainly spurious, and was inserted by a later and a _Christian hand_.

The _Talmud_ compresses the history of Jesus into a single sentence, and later Jewish writers concoct mere slanderous anecdotes. The ecclesiastical fathers mention a few sayings or events, the knowledge of which they drew from oral tradition or from writings that have since been lost. The Latin and Greek historians just mention his name. This meager harvest is all we reap from sources outside the Gospels.”[565:2]

Canon Farrar, who finds himself _compelled_ to admit that this pa.s.sage in Josephus is an interpolation, consoles himself by saying:

”The single pa.s.sage in which he (Josephus) alludes to Him (Christ) is interpolated, if not wholly spurious, and no one can doubt that his silence on the subject of Christianity was as deliberate as it was dishonest.”[565:3]

The Rev. Dr. Giles, after commenting on this subject, concludes by saying:

”_Eusebius_ is the first who quotes the pa.s.sage, and our reliance on the judgment, _or even the honesty_, of this writer _is not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine_.”[565:4]

Eusebius, then, is the first person who refers to these pa.s.sages.[565:5]

Eusebius, ”_whose honesty is not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine_.” Eusebius, who says that _it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ_.[565:6] This Eusebius is the sheet-anchor of reliance for most we know of the first three centuries of the Christian history. What then must we think of the _history_ of the first three centuries of the Christian era?

The celebrated pa.s.sage in Tacitus which Christian divines--and even some liberal writers--attempt to support, is to be found in his _Annals_. In this work he is made to speak of _Christians_, who ”had their denomination from _Christus_, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”

In answer to this we have the following:

1. This pa.s.sage, which would have served the purpose of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, _is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers_.

2. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus.

3. And though his argument immediately called for the use of this quotation with so loud a voice (Apol. ch. v.), that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounts to a _violent improbability_.

4. This Father has spoken of Tacitus in a way that it is absolutely impossible that he should have spoken of him, had his writings contained such a pa.s.sage.

5. It is not quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, _who set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which Pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time_.

6. It has been nowhere stumbled upon by the laborious and all-seeking Eusebius, who could by no possibility have overlooked it, and whom it would have saved from the labor of forging the pa.s.sage in Josephus; of adducing the correspondence of Christ Jesus and Abgarus, and the Sibylline verses; of forging a divine revelation from the G.o.d Apollo, in attestation of Christ Jesus' ascension into heaven; and innumerable other of his pious and holy cheats.

7. Tacitus has in no other part of his writings made the least allusion to ”_Christ_” or ”_Christians_.”

8. The use of this pa.s.sage as part of the evidences of the Christian religion, is absolutely modern.

9. There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century.[566:1]

10. No reference whatever is made to this pa.s.sage by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before that time,[567:1] which, to say the least, is very singular, considering that after that time it is quoted, or referred to, in an endless list of works, which by itself is all but conclusive that it was not in existence till the fifteenth century, which was an age of imposture and of credulity so immoderate that people were easily imposed upon, believing, as they did, without sufficient evidence, whatever was foisted upon them.

11. The interpolator of the pa.s.sage makes Tacitus speak of ”_Christ_,”

not of Jesus _the_ Christ, showing that--like the pa.s.sage in Josephus--it is, comparatively, a modern interpolation, for

12. The word ”_Christ_” is _not a name_, but a t.i.tLE;[567:2] it being simply the Greek for the Hebrew word ”_Messiah_.” Therefore,

13. When Tacitus is made to speak of Jesus as ”Christ,” it is equivalent to my speaking of Tacitus as ”Historian,” of George Was.h.i.+ngton as ”General,” or of any individual as ”Mister,” without adding a _name_ by which either could be distinguished. And therefore,

14. It has no sense or meaning as he is said to have used it.

15. Tacitus is also made to say that the _Christians_ had their denomination from _Christ_, which would apply to any other of the so-called _Christs_ who were put to death in Judea, as well as to Christ Jesus. And

16. ”The disciples were _called_ Christians first at Antioch” (Acts xi.