CHAPTER VIII
The Historical Jesus
The procurator of Judea who preceded Gessius Florus (64-66CE,) during whose administration the war broke out, was Albinus (62-64CE.) He had no scruples to accept bribes from the Sicarii, before whose outrages neither life nor property was safe, and to wink at, if not profit by, their iniquitous spoliations. His complicity, however, was not generally known, and it was left to his successor, Gessius Florus, whose actions were as brutal as they were unjust, to arouse the passions and hostility of the people to a pitch which only bloodshed and destruction could quench.
There was discontent till then, and much injustice arising from the wicked complicity of Albinus, but no appeal to arms or open revolt. It was a period of portents and prodigies, as authentic history reports. The fate which shortly after befell the Temple, the city, and the people, was not as yet apprehended. The security of the nation was not threatened; comparative peace prevailed….
“Such was the state of feeling in the Commonwealth, when one day, of a sudden, at the Feast of Tabernacles in the Temple, a wild, fearful cry startled and appalled the congregation. It came from a plebeian or peasant, and its appeal was heard far and wide by the multitude. It proclaimed the impending desolation of the Temple and the city, and the dispersion of the people. It was such a presage as Holy Writ gives some idea of when a prophet comes forth at the command of God to denounce His anger against a wicked generation, and doom the city they inhabit to the vengeance of His wrath. This fearful cry repeated at every festival, and its shrill notes heard all over the city while the ceremonial lasted. It was a cry by day and by night, saying, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people." (Wars of the Jews," Book vi. chap. 5, § 3)
This prophecy of destruction and desolation was the proclamation of the historical Jesus, the only Jesus recognized at the time as a prophet of the Lord by the people and it foretold what was coming on the city, the Temple, and the nation.
"This was his cry," continues Josephus, "as he went about by day and by night in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among, the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say anything for himself, or anything peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet did he not make any supplication for himself nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible at every stroke of the whip, his answer was, 'Woe, woe to Jerusalem.' And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him who he was, and whence he came, and why he uttered such words, he made no manner of reply to what he said but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him for a madman and dismissed him. Now during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so, but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, ‘Woe, woe to Jerusalem.' Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals, and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for, as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, ‘Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house;' and just as he added at the last, ‘Woe, woe. to myself also!' there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages, he gave up the ghost."
This was the only Jesus known in Judea, or by the world at large, as having had at the period we speak of the slightest influence as a prophet upon the men of that generation. He was a man of transcendent meekness, cherishing no hatred to those who persecuted him, even though they seemed to thirst for his life. No reproaches even ever passed his lips; one passion only seemed to possess him, and that was to recall his countrymen to their ardent loyalty, by threat of the terrible woe that was coming upon them if they continued in their guilt The very Temple would not be spared to them, their city was a doomed city, and the Jewish people were to endure a terrible curse, such as their own scriptures forewarned them would smite their apostate hearts.
This historical Jesus was fed, more or less, by the people, and he gave no thanks nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day.
This is the Jesus who prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the people, in accents enough to appall the most callous, with an earnestness and persistency of denunciation that is unparalleled in the annals of the world. He was brought before the Sanhedrin or Jewish authorities, at whose instance he received a great number of stripes; yet did not say anything for himself or anything peculiar "to those that chastised him." It was after inflicting this punishment that the rulers (the Sanhedrin), supposing, as proved to be the case, that there was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, yet he did not make any supplication for himself. He was not killed, but his bones were laid bare; and he was in such a plight that he was not for some time thereafter anywhere to be seen; for, now, says Josephus, "during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens nor was seen by them." It was not unreasonable to surmise, as he disappeared after this torture, that he was dead, and so his reappearance might naturally come to be spoken of as a resurrection. “He rambled about the country, visiting every city, and in his fits of transport uttered the same terrible prediction, straining his voice to the utmost pitch, yet not enfeebling it: When the war broke out, he went on with the same enthusiasm proclaiming vengeance and with crowds of his countrymen returned to Jerusalem" (Bossuet's Discourses on Universal History, Quoted by George Solomon.)
This is the meek Jesus who was scourged for witnessing to the truth that the judgments of God were abroad and would fall on the devoted city. His bones were laid bare, and yet he cursed not his persecutors. He returned to Jerusalem to die, for he knew his time had come. He could not be dissuaded by his followers from returning to Jerusalem in the apprehension he should suffer the same harsh and cruel treatment, or worse, at the hands of the authorities. Authentic history corroborates these statements, but is definitely against the assumption that such events took place during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.
The followers of this Jesus may have suffered from the cruelty of Nero. Anyhow, events had happened enough to stir up in them emotions of frenzied enthusiasm. They had seen a meek prophet, whose wise warnings had spread far and wide, and had proved himself a tender– hearted lover of his people, fall a victim to the obstinacy of the rulers. Such was the general esteem in which he was held, that he was accounted to have a divine spirit within him — a possession which is designated by the historian as a "divine fury.” He had no learning, but he spoke the words of truth. He attained the maturity of manhood before his prophetic powers were recognized and his name became celebrated. His career was a short one, but in the course of it he uttered truths which remain unchallenged to this very day.
The miraculous events or phenomena which are recorded by the historian of the day, Josephus, had a most portentous character. In the traditional accounts furnished to the world at a subsequent period by the four Greek narrators of these events, these prodigies first became elaborated into a system of signs and wonders in attestation of his supernatural greatness. If what is unnatural be deemed miraculous, then these matters we are about to quote were miracles: "But before Caesar had determined anything about these people, or given the commanders any orders relating to them the soldiers were in such a rage that they set the cloisters on fire, by which means it came to pass that some of these were destroyed by throwing themselves down headlong, and some were burnt in the cloisters themselves; Nor did any one of these escape with his life. A false prophet was the occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day that 'God commanded them to get up upon the Temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance.' Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose upon the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. Now, a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for, when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such deliverance.
"Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself, while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.
“Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus (Nisan), and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house that it appeared to be bright daytime, which light lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival (Passover) also, a heifer, as she was led by the high-priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the Temple.'' (Wars of the Jews Book vi. Chap. 5, § 2)
A simple study the particulars of this narrative comparing it with the story of the Evangelists, readily discloses the parallel source of their ideal representation, including the inspiration suggested by the miraculous birth of a lamb brought forth in the stables of the Temple, to be sacrificed for the sins of the people and above in the heavens is shining the curious star which stood over the house where the miraculously conceived being was born.
To believe that “so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house” may appear difficult to some, but do not we have the experience reported of Simon Peter indicating he saw such a light when he escaped from prison immediately after the sacrifice of this lamb? For Josephus in his description proceeds to describe this very event: — “Moreover the eastern gate of the inner (court of the) Temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord, about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the Temple came thereupon running to the captain of the Temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open to them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies; so these publicly declared that this signal foreshadowed the desolation that was coming upon them."
Again, we stress that no such incidents as these occurred in the time of Pontius Pilate, but there is the historical proof to show that they happened at the period to which we refer, and the Temple records which attest them are unimpeachable. The evidence that will be furnished cannot fail to satisfy those who have any sense of historical truth that this is the so-called Messianic age, and that, as predicted, the people who lived in it did not believe in the true prophet, but the false, till the judgment came upon them, and the words of "the meek and lowly one" were fulfilled. The prophets of the day, who were all false save this one, taught the people to believe that the latter days had come and that when the worst came to the worst God would interfere and work deliverance.
Jesus had come and gone, and left disciples behind him, who believed that he had a divine mission to fulfil and a divine spirit within him. In his decease they both saw the fulfilment of that part of his prophecy which concerned himself and a token, of which there were other infallible indications that the ruin threatened would not fail to overtake the city and its people also. But before that event arrived, one other miracle took place, of which there are two accounts, one by the historian of the day, and the other in the Acts of the Apostles. The version given by Josephus is as follows: — "Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner (court of the) Temple, as their custom was to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that in the first place they felt a quaking and heard a great noise and after that they heard a sound, as of a multitude, saying, ‘Let us remove hence" (Wars of the Jews," Book vi. chap. 5, § 3.)
The version in the Acts in chap. 2: I, 2: — "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting." (KJV)
It should be obvious to the reader that the story told by the Greek writers, though traditionally conveyed, is historically grounded, and it has been our business all along to show that it is no mere cunningly devised fable. The traditional accounts are supported by the historical in their assertion of miraculous occurrences in connection with the fall of the Jewish state. Both introduce a prophet of the name of Jesus, who foretold the ruin of the nation and perished in the wreck. Both represent him as of humble birth, of meek, patient temper, hardly treated, sorely baffled, and sad at heart. Both, as they had many foes to whom they bore no rancor, so had they many followers to whom they owed no thanks. Both were instinct with a divine spirit and wandered over Judea, denouncing the judgments of Heaven on all who would not repent. Neither left written records: only the weird echo of their piercing words, "Woe! Woe!" Both, strong in the divine justice of their mission, refused to plead for mercy before a human tribunal, and were dumb, opening not the mouth. Both predicted their own decease at Jerusalem, and the bones of both were laid bare in the torture they underwent. Both were looked upon as insane by an un-sympathizing world, while by a few they were reverenced as God-inspired and prophets of the Lord.
It is notable that the charge of insanity proffered against the Jesus of the Gospels is recorded in the Gospels themselves. Thus in John 10: 19, 20, we read: — "There was a division, therefore, among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said. He hath a devil and is mad; why hear ye him?" In Mark 3: 13-21 we read: — “And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would; and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out devils. And Simon he surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him; for they said. He is beside himself." And in verses 31-34, at the same time and place, it is further recorded: — "There came then his brethren and his mother, and standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him; and they said unto him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, ‘Who is my mother or my brethren?’ And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, ‘Behold my mother and my brethren’" (KJV)
So, both the Jesus of History and the Jesus of tradition exposed themselves to the charge of insanity, and both exposed themselves to this reproach by a most singular life.
Let us conclude this chapter by calling again our Readers’ attention to the parallel we have sought to draw between the Jesus of Josephus and the Jesus of the Gospels. Is it not surprising that Josephus should make no mention of the first Jesus, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and the Evangelists make no mention of the second Jesus, so like the first in spirit and fate, and who suffered just before and during the siege of Jerusalem in 66-70CE? Can any other explanation account for this singular circumstance and the no less singular correspondence in the characters and history of the two prophets, except that, with all their inconsistencies otherwise, the accounts refer to the same period, the same incidents, and the same Jesus?