CHAPTER II
Josephus or the Evangelists
The Christian Churches insist, and have all along insisted, on deriving the account of the first beginnings of Christianity from writers of a later age than that in which the related events occurred. Critics of all sides wonder why only authors were chosen, who lived in a different country and wrote in an alien tongue, and who knew nothing of what they record except through foreign report from the original scene of the events. The story appears rooted in no firmer basis than that of mere hearsay testimony. Surely the most reasonable source from which to obtain a reliable account of the facts alleged would be the history of Josephus, himself, who was a contemporary of the apostolic age, who lived on the spot and wrote of the period. This indeed is what we may at the least expect in the case of the historian who assumes the task of recording events known to his contemporaries; but it so happens that none of the so- called “Church Fathers” or their followers ever consider the historical testimony given by Josephus, except brief references by Eusebius Pamphilius in his Church History (324CE).
This is the task we have deemed necessary to complete: to compare the so-called writings of the Apostles, which were of a later origin, and were certainly compiled after the publication of Josephus' Histories, with the circumstantial records of the events precisely given by this historian, extending, not only from the days of Herod the Great, but coming down to the very destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, in 70CE.
If Josephus had not noticed any of the incidents recorded in the apostolic accounts, we would have the strongest presumptive proof of his untruthfulness. But he was a statesman who took part in the epoch-making events of the day and carefully reported them as an accurate historian. If Josephus piques himself, or is entitled to pique himself, on any virtue at all, it is on his fidelity and fairness; and it is inconceivable to suppose that he, of all writers, should have dared, in a narrative expressly of his own times, to have omitted to chronicle what was matter of such universal notoriety.
Now, we must also evaluate the character and qualifications of the Gospel writers and Apostles from the point of view of the events themselves and having done this, proceed with our planned comparison of their testimony against Josephus’ own and decide which party has the best claim to our confidence. We have only to examine the documents themselves to convince ourselves at first hand of their respective worth and un-worth as historical records.
In the pages of the so-called apostolic writings, critics have easily detected flagrant contradictions more numerous than we would expect from any documents laying claim to historical authority, while the pages of Josephus show a candor of mind, a coherence of narration, and a conscientiousness of description, which stamp him as entirely worthy of the character for truth he enjoyed in his lifetime; The Apostles’ testimony is given in such a fast-and-loose way as to shake all confidence in their veracity as historians. Most critics have highlighted examples of open forgery or falsified quotations from the Old Testament texts. The relation in which Josephus and the Evangelical writers stand to the Biblical accounts shows what historical value is to be attached to their separate narratives. His version is always true to the letter of the original documents (half of his Antiquities is made of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures,) while theirs are plagued with misunderstanding of the text and misapplications. But our inquiry must remain on a strictly historical and not a religious arena — refer to matters of fact and not matters of beliefs; Either Josephus has written falsely or they have written falsely; they cannot be both true, for they are in direct conflict. And there is one set of assertions of a historical nature in which, to his vindication, it will be found, as we have just remarked, he is right and they are wrong, and that is in their respective quotations from the Old Testament: his are always genuine and true to the original, while theirs, partly distorted, partly forged, are all more or less taken in a sense and used for a purpose never meant or intended; and this, moreover, to lend them weight of divine authority.
With these preliminary remarks in support of our view which must be taken of the general historical trustworthiness of the two authorities in question, we will now proceed with our inquiry as to their respective credibility in regard to the Christian era and the incidents connected with it.
Thus far we have Josephus introduced to us with a character for historical truthfulness and honesty, while the Apostles, on the contrary, come before us with a reputation for the opposite, a charge which their disrespect or ignorance of the ancient and sacred historical Scriptures too plainly justifies. But the Evangelical writers show inconsistency in their statements and discrepancy of their accounts with one another. And this fact alone — which is a notorious one — might well lead us, were there no other, to expect greater discrepancies still between them and Josephus. Nor is it surprising that they should be so inaccurate in their historical statements; for they wrote on hearsay, and the history of the events they relate they gathered, as they themselves avow, from traditions which they received from more or less colored sources, whilst Josephus had opportunities of obtaining information from the records of the day and from the most authentic witnesses, his own father, mother, and brother having been contemporaries of Pontius Pilate, and he himself in daily association with the ruling families in Jerusalem. He was afterwards governor of Galilee, too, and as such must have had access to all the public archives. He must, if they existed, have been familiarly acquainted also with the younger contemporaries of Jesus, his Apostles, and the generation that immediately succeeded. He must, moreover, have seen springing up around him the Christian churches, and their growing congregations of worshippers, and been aware of the great and wonderful faith they professed and deeds they performed; and yet he deliberately says, and sets it down as authentic unchallengeable history, that while there were three sects of ancient date, there was only one of recent origin, the one founded by Judas of Galilee. If the Evangelical accounts be true, Josephus must have written this in the very teeth of the Christian community rising up everywhere under his eyes, and that in terms which challenged his contemporaries to deny and in any way question the truth of his statements.
While, therefore, it is not to be supposed that a set of men, situated as the Evangelists were, many years after the events and dependent upon merely traditional reports, could supply an accurate historical relation of these events, and it is unreasonable to expect of them the historical reliability of statement which we look for and find in an author with the opportunities of Josephus, we are not, however compelled to conclude that the Evangelical accounts are altogether fabulous. They could not have grown up except on some basis of fact, colored though that was, so as to be almost invisible, to support the religious creed of which it was supposed to be the revelation. Indeed we find one of the Evangelists, Luke, expressly insisting that the Christian gospel is grounded on fact, and referring to the evidence of testimony in proof of its reality and the credibility with which it is regarded. His words are these: — "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed." (NRSV)
Here we see the object of the author is not to write a history of the times, but only to relate a statement of events in them to bear out a belief in that in which Theophilus and others also had been instructed; and then, in point of fact, there follows a relation of incidents, although these are in the main positively contradicted by the historian of the period, who writes, not in support of any particular theoretic belief in which his readers had been instructed, but to portray such an image of the time as would be true of it to the end of the world.
Each writer has his own particular design; Luke's and that of the many who likewise retold the stories, being to historically vindicate a given creed, whereas Josephus' was to chronicle, from the best authorities, in the interest of no sect, the political and religious aspects of his own times and those of his father. Thus it happens we have before us, from his pen, a narrative such as will bear out the view we take of the case, commencing with the time of Pontius Pilate, and extending to the end of the war in the fall of Jerusalem; and the reader will notice how close an agreement there is as to general statements between his relation of events and that of the compilers of the Christian narratives, despite the too obvious discrepancies between them otherwise in historical detail and the philosophy of religion.
To confirm this theory of the case, we must quote extensively both from the Apostolic writings and from those of Josephus; and we will begin with the latter: — In Book xviii of the Antiquities, cap. 4, § 1, he says: — “But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived everything so that the multitude might be pleased. So he bade them get together upon Mount Gerizim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together. But Pilate prevented their going up by seizing upon the roads with a great band of horsemen and footmen, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of whom, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain"
Then in Section 2 he adds: — "But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome to answer before the Emperor to the accusation of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tamed ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.”
In this narrative we see that Josephus partly agrees with and partly differs from the Evangelical accounts, for he represents Pilate as having involved himself in trouble in consequence of causing the death of a man who was a mere religious fanatic and had no political designs, while he says nothing whatever about, and does not even name, the crucified king, whom, as alleged, thousands followed with their hosannahs, and who was celebrated throughout Judea for his startling oracles and his still more startling works; thus agreeing with the Apostles in charging Pilate with the murder of a prophet, but disagreeing with them in not identifying him with Jesus.
So, we are naturally tempted to ask: Is it reasonable to suppose for a single moment that Josephus would have omitted to record the doings or mention the name of Jesus, when he condescends to refer to this obscure individual, who, though he had many followers, cannot be compared with the founder of a religious sect, and one, too, endowed with such attributes as are claimed by and conceded to the founder of the Christian religion? And are we, by combining the Evangelical accounts with his, to conclude that there were two prophets slain by Pontius Pilate, one the great character whom they portray, of whom Josephus gives no account, and the other the one whom he alone mentions? Is it possible that, in the short period during which Pilate was procurator of Judea, two characters should have appeared who deluded the people — one who wrought wonders and established a new religious belief, the center of which was the divine sacredness of his own person, the other an insignificant fanatic, who established no new creed, and was celebrated for no deed of any note — and that both should have been slain by him, the death of the one calling forth no protest, whilst that of the other provoked an appeal to the Emperor? Is it conceivable that the accurate and truthful historian of the day should so distort the magnitude of events as to single out for remark this temporary figure, and say nothing at all of the remarkable personage, the circumstances of whose miraculous career, according to the Evangelical accounts, from its commencement to its close, amazed his contemporaries into a new faith, which gave birth to a new life and a new fellowship in life, and took shape in visible communities called churches, and not only say nothing of him, but virtually deny, in the face of men alive, the living witnesses to his reality, that he ever existed, by express assertion that the only sect which originated in his day was that of Judas of Galilee?
If there were no other evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels was not slain by Pontius Pilate, that the Christian sect had no existence at the time these Gospels allege, that the miracles, therefore, on the faith of which this sect took its rise, are a mere fable, to an ingenuous mind one would think this silence of Josephus would appear amply sufficient. It is plain that in his day, much more when he actually set to write his Histories, the so-called Apostolic writings did not exist, and that the Christian religion and Church must have first taken shape only at a subsequent period. It will be our business by and by to render probable, if not to demonstrate, this proposition, that the Christian faith and the Christian documents were based upon events and characters as chronicled by Josephus himself, so disguised, however, and distorted by tradition, as, except under very careful analysis, to be hardly recognizable as identical.
The chronology of the Gospel and Apostolic writings cannot well be expected to be other than inaccurate. Considering the necessarily traditional sources of information from which they are derived, it is very natural to suppose that they should differ as they do in this particular from Josephus, as well as contradict each other; and indeed from their own statements it is obvious, for one thing, that the events narrated, if they occurred at all, must have done so at a later period than the date assigned to them. For instance, the death of John the Baptist –literally, the Baptizer - is recorded as follows:
— Matthew 14:1-13 — "At that time Herod the ruler heard reports about Jesus, and he said to his servants, ‘This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers are at work in him.’ For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because John had been telling him, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her.’ Though Herod wanted to put him to death, he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet. But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before the company, and she pleased Herod, so much that he promised on oath to grant her whatever she might ask. Prompted by her mother, she said, ‘give me the head of John Baptist here on a platter. The king was grieved yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he commanded it to be given; he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. The head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, who brought it to her mother. His disciples came and took the body, and buried it, and then they went and told Jesus. Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat to a deserted place by himself. But when the crowds heard it, they followed him on foot from the towns." (NRSV)
Now, as Herod married Herodias in the last two years of Pontius Pilate's procuratorship, it follows as a matter of course, according to this account, that John the Baptizer was alive within this period; and as it is further recorded that John was slain by Herod prior to the death of Jesus, it is plain that this is inconsistent with and subversive of the account the Evangelists give of the slaying of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, in addition to that of the false prophet, which authentic history records took place in the last year of his government.
Nor is it true, as is here asserted, that Herod married his brother Philip's wife, as witness the account of this incestuous affair given by Josephus. In Antiquities, Book xviii cap. 5, § 1, he writes: — "About this time Aretas, the king of Arabia Petrea, and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome he lodged with Herod [not Philip, as is related by the Apostolic writings], who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high-priest Simon's daughter. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus, their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome. One article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas's daughter. So Antipas, when he had made this agreement, sailed to Rome; but when he had done there the business he went about, and was returned again, his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and having learned it before he had notice of her knowledge of the whole design, she desired him to send her to Macherus, which is a place on the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived anything. Now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, which was subject to her father, and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army, and by that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively, and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod's intentions. So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gemalitis [Modern Gamala.] So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Herod's army. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria."
Now it is related that Vitellius proceeded to obey these commands of Tiberius, but before he could put them in execution, the intelligence arrived in Jerusalem, where he was on a visit for four days, that "Tiberius was dead;" from which it is obvious that these events were contemporaneous with the dismissal of Pontius Pilate, whose retirement from the procuratorship of Judea by the orders of the same Vitellius took place at the same time, "for before he reached Rome," as we have already quoted, "Tiberius was dead.” (37CE)
It is important for the reader to bear in mind that the differences between Aretas and Herod which culminated in war arose mainly from the discovery by the former of an intention on the part of the latter to divorce his wife, who was Aretas' daughter, which intention was carried into effect by Herod in the last two years of Pontius Pilate's government, in the reign of Tiberius. For if it be true that John the Baptizer was first placed in prison because he rebuked Herod for marrying his own brother’s wife, and that he was afterwards beheaded out of revenge on the part of Herodias, this deed must have been committed in the last days of the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate; and since, according to the same authorities, Jesus was not crucified until after this event, it will follow that the false prophet who was slain by Pilate during the last year of his administration, and whose murder led to his recall from the government of Judea, was the very individual to whom Josephus, as mentioned above, refers, and not Jesus.
Here we wish the reader to remark, that the agreement, such as it is, for which we argue as existing between the writings of Josephus and those called the Gospels, extends to the incidents they record, and rarely, except in this instance, to the chronology. The several writers refer in common to the same events in such a way, we think, as to clear up and set at rest the doubts and suspicions, often expressed, that the story of the Gospel writers is entirely fabulous, and not based upon analogous incidents recorded in history.
It seems obvious that the relation of those incidents by the Evangelists is not reliable as regards the chronology, nor is it identical with that of Josephus as respects the characters of the persons described, their position in life, and other important particulars. Nevertheless, though there is not an exact agreement, there is a remarkable coincidence, as regards the incidents themselves, divested, however, of all superstitious, mythical, and other distortions, which too often not only disfigure, but absolutely conceal the truth from the eyes of readers. And so much is this the case, that no attempt has yet been made to eliminate from the false traditional accounts the historical basis; nor has it, as far as we know, ever occurred to any one that the facts are already recorded in the pages of authentic history. This inquiry, it would seem, has never been essayed, mainly for two reasons. On the one hand, there were those who objected to the credibility of the Gospel writings in a historical reference, contenting themselves with the argument that it was impossible they should be true, since, if they were, their statements would certainly be confirmed by historical proof, and that there were historians extant, of undoubted accuracy, who lived at the time and wrote of the period, and yet were wholly silent about the events in question (the mysticist thesis); and, on the other hand, there were those who accepted the writings as superior to challenge, seeing they were divinely inspired, and to be accepted as such at the very threshold as a first article of belief (the theological thesis). Our view of the case is the first formal attempt that has been made to relate the traditional accounts to authentic historical records, and we are confident that the analogy we are about to indicate will strike not a few readers with some surprise, as its first discovery did ourselves.
The real history of Jerusalem and Judea generally has, from the time of Pontius Pilate downwards, remained a sealed book to the general public until a very recent period. The parallel events to which we refer have been known only to those who have made a special study of the period, but, so far as we know, not one of these has drawn attention to the parallel as of any historical significance; and unless we happened to have a theological bent as well, we would not be likely to note, or in any detailed degree, at least, trace the analogies which run through the traditional and historical accounts, and to recognize their identity. Not that scholarship is necessary to do the research or find the proof; one has only to read Josephus, and to study his pages with a judgment unbiased in favor of any hypothesis and a sincere desire to arrive at the truth. A parallel does exist, all ready at hand too; and it is open to anyone who can read, to determine the correspondence, even the radical identity, between the traditional accounts and Josephus, and to be convinced that to the latter we must look to find the true historical basis of the former.
Let us note here a few of the parallels to be met with which establish this identity. The historical account will be found to agree with the traditional in these aspects among others:—
1. They alike affirm the existence of a religious sect, which believed, first, in the immortality of the soul, and, secondly, that rewards and punishments in a future existence are determined by a virtuous or vicious course in this life. Both represent this sect as practicing asceticism of a severe order, in renunciation of the pomp and vanities of the world, the rich sharing their wealth with the poor in one common brotherhood, as if they were one family, and calling themselves the children of God.
2. They both record the judicial death, under sentence of Pontius Pilate, of one who claimed to be a prophet of the Lord.
3. Both equally testify to the existence of one Jesus, who had under him a following of fishermen and poor people.
4. The Jesus, common to both, had friends and lieutenants in the persons of John and Simon; as also a body of followers who received the law from his lips, and made their living in his service.
5. This Jesus, common to both, was betrayed by one of his followers, and, when taken prisoner, deserted by all who before adhered to him.
6. According to both accounts this Jesus had seventy devoted followers, who travelled from city to city, in the one instance, to hear cases and give judgment, and in the other, to preach and heal diseases.
7. Both speak of Simon and John, his colleagues, as having been imprisoned and then released.
8. This Jesus, with his two fellow runners, John and Simon, is represented by both as at once a great upholder of the Law of Moses and a daring innovator on the accepted national faith.
9. In both Jesus is spoken of as a man possessed and beside himself.
10. In both he predicts the destruction of Jerusalem by the guilt of the people themselves.
11. Both mention the crucifixion of three persons at one time, and that, when taken down from the cross, the bodies were begged by one Joseph, who was a counselor, a rich and a just man.
12. The two accounts agree so far as to imply, if they do not both equally assert, the believed restoration to life of one of the three, and actually affirm the death of the other two.
13. Both refer to signs in the heavens visible to all, one of which was a certain particular star of woeful import.
14. In both we have accounts of one who falsely promised deliverance to his generation, and who would, he said, one day prevail by his power over the habitable earth.
15. The historical account refers to a commotion at Pentecost, when there was first a quaking felt, then a great noise heard, and then a voice as from a great multitude saying, "Let us remove hence." The traditional accounts refer to a meeting together of disciples at Pentecost, when suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled "the house where they were sitting."
There are other correspondences of a more or less striking character and significant import between the historical and traditional accounts which seem to refer to identical occurrences: In this Essay, we only break ground, and must content ourselves with pointing out to our readers only the more obvious coincidences.
Look for now at the close analogy there is between the actions and general asceticism of Banus, as already quoted from Josephus' Autobiography, and those of John the Baptizer. Evidently this Banus was not a disciple of the Christian religion, for Josephus associated with him for three years, and would have mentioned such a circumstance. However, since the chronology of the Evangelists necessarily is at fault, there is no reason to suppose that he is not the Baptizer of their accounts, but who here knows no Jesus, or any one supernaturally endowed as he was with miraculous powers and gifts. Indeed, so close is the parallel between the character and actions of these two men that they would be at once recognized as one but for the chronological gap.
We have a palpable blunder of the very same kind, for instance, in the Acts, in which Paul is represented as appealing to Caesar Augustus in the time of Festus' procuratorship, instead of Nero, who was then Emperor. And, indeed, it lay, as we have said, in the nature of the case — in the manner in which these accounts were transmitted — that the date should be distorted as well as the events exaggerated; only, unhappily, the distortion and exaggeration are such as to make it often impossible to recognize the parallel between the truth at the basis of the traditional narrative and the facts of history. And yet it is not too much to say that, if we would but leave aside from the Evangelical accounts their supernatural connotations and the matter of dates, the most literal and perfect agreement would begin to appear between their version and the strictly historical.
It is clear that the destruction of Jerusalem had taken place before what hap