Chapter XIV: Appendix: Of Additional Notes

I. Note on § (24). QUIRINIUS

P. Sulpicius Quirinius, a native of Lanuvium, was consul in 12 B.C.; some years later was sent on an expedition against the Homonadenses, a mountain tribe in Cilicia, and was awarded a triumph for his successes; accompanied Gaius Cæsar, grandson of Augustus, to the East in A.D. 2 as his tutor; and in A.D. 6 was appointed Governor of Syria as legatus of the Emperor, and in that capacity took over Judæa on the deposition of Archelaus, and made the valuation of the newly-annexed district here described by Josephus. Towards the end of his life he caused some scandal at Rome by the divorce of his wife Lepida, whom he accused of attempting to poison him. He remained in favour with Tiberius, who, on his death about A.D. 21, secured him a public funeral. A mutilated inscription found near Tivoli (Tibur) seems to prove that he was _twice_ governor of Syria. (Tacitus _Ann._ III. 48 and 22; Suet. _Tib._ 49 ; art. in _Encycl. Bibl._).

This is not the place to discuss the formidable difficulties arising from St. Luke’s reference (ii. 1 ff.) to “the decree from Cæsar Augustus” and “the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” These are set out in full in Schürer’s _Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ_, i. 2, pp. 105-143; on the other side should be read Sir W. M. Ramsay’s _Was Christ born at Bethlehem?_ (1898). It has been held that St. Luke is guilty of an anachronism in making the birth of Christ contemporary with the well-known enrolment under Quirinius (Acts v. 37), which took place ten years after the death of Herod, and that other features in his account, which lacks external support, render the whole narrative incredible. Those who argue that the Evangelist is guilty of such gross error must at least admit that he had not read the last books of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus (see Note IV below). But it is difficult to believe that a historian generally so careful has erred in this way. Since Schürer’s indictment was written, Ramsay has adduced important new evidence from the papyri, proving that in Egypt from the time of Augustus a periodic census or “enrolment by household” took place every fourteen years; he has further given reason for thinking that this system applied to other provinces and dependencies of the Roman Empire, and that Judæa under Herod was not exempt, although a concession was made to local prejudice in the manner of the enrolment; he concludes that the “first” enrolment under Quirinius and the birth of Christ fell in the year 6 B.C. He has not quite removed all difficulties. In particular, it seems impossible to find room within the lifetime of Herod for the first governorship of Quirinius, unless the ἡγεμονία mentioned by St. Luke refers to his appointment as a _special_ lieutenant of Augustus to conduct the war against the Homonadenses, while Quintilius Varus administered the ordinary affairs of Syria. But why in that case does St. Luke connect the census with the military commander Quirinius, rather than with Varus?

II. Note on § (26). THE ALLEGED WITNESS TO JESUS CHRIST

Recent literature:—

(_a_) For the authenticity of the whole section.

F. C. Burkitt; in _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, Leiden, 1913, pp. 135
ff.

A. Harnack in _Internat. Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und
Technik_, 1913, pp. 1037 ff. (I have, unfortunately, been unable to
see this, and only know it through Norden’s rejoinder, which seems
conclusive.)

(_b_) For partial interpolation.

Th. Reinach in _Revue des Études Juives_, tom. xxxv, 1897, pp. 1 ff.

P. Corrsen in _Zeitschrift für die N.T. Wissenschaft_, 1914, pp. 114
ff., _Die Zeugnisse des Tacitus u. Pseudo-Josephus über Christus_
(thinks the interpolation has probably replaced a genuine statement
of Josephus about Christ).

(_c_) Against the authenticity of the whole section.

E. Norden in _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_, vol.
xxxi, 1913, pp. 637 ff., _Josephus u. Tacitus über Jesus Christus
und eine messianische Prophetie_.

E. Schürer, _Hist. of Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ_,
1898, I. 2, pp. 143 ff. (where the older literature is quoted).

(_d_) For the passages in the Slavonic version of the _B.J._

A. Berendts in _Texte und Untersuchungen_, N. F., Bd. XIV, 1906.

In this much debated passage Josephus appears to speak of Jesus Christ as one of more than mortal nature, as a wonder-worker and a teacher of men who receive “the truth” with pleasure, and as gaining many adherents among Jews and Greeks. Then comes the explicit statement, “This was the Christ.” The writer proceeds to mention His crucifixion by Pilate “on the indictment of our principal men,” His resurrection and appearance to His followers on the third day, and the survival at the time of writing of “the tribe” of Christians who took their name from Him.

The passage largely accounts for the high esteem in which Josephus was held by Patristic writers. Since the revival of learning the question of its authenticity has been the subject of keen controversy. Until recently few scholars of weight have ventured to maintain that the paragraph _as it stands_ can have been penned by the Jewish historian; the point on which opinions have diverged has been whether the whole is an interpolation or whether a genuine brief statement of Josephus about Christ has been expanded and emended by a Christian hand. In recent years the question has been reopened in two ways, by the conversion of two authorities of the first rank to the rejected view and by the discovery of new materials. Professor Burkitt in this country and (following him with a little hesitation) Harnack in Germany have pronounced in favour of the genuineness of the passage. The existence has also been brought to light of other passages in the Slavonic version of the _Jewish War_ relating to John the Baptist, Christ and the early Christians. The Slavonic matter may be treated independently; it has no attestation in the Greek MSS, and, whatever its origin, lacks the authority with which the present passage comes before us. Harnack has been answered in a masterly article by one of his own countrymen (Norden), and, notwithstanding the weight attaching to the names of its recent supporters, the arguments against the authenticity of the passage (at least in its present form) appear overwhelming. The really decisive factors in the problem must be sought rather in the relevance of the passage to its context and in the style than in any subjective considerations as to what Josephus could or could not have written.

External evidence

The passage, it is true, stands in all our MSS, but this tells us little, since the oldest of them (Niese’s P) is not earlier than the ninth or tenth century. Eusebius quotes it (_H.E._ i. 11, cf. _Dem. Ev._ iii. 3. 105 f.), thus attesting its existence in the fourth century. On the other hand, it is practically certain that Origen in the preceding century did not find it in his text. He knows the allusions to John the Baptist in the same book of the _Antiquities_ (§ 29) and to James the Lord’s brother in the twentieth book (§ 37), but of any mention of Christ he has no word. Nor are we confined to this _argumentum e silentio_; his language makes it impossible to suppose that he found the statement “This was the Christ.” “The wonder is,” he writes, “that, though he (Josephus) _did not admit our Jesus to be Christ_, he none the less gave his witness to so much righteousness in James” (_Comm. in Matt._ x. 17); and again (writing on John the Baptist) “although he (Josephus) _disbelieved in Jesus as Christ_” (_c. Cels._ i. 47). The passage about James as cited by Origen differs, indeed, from the normal text; according to Origen, Josephus regarded the destruction of the Temple as a punishment for the murder. Prof. Burkitt thinks that Origen may have “mixed up in his commonplace book the account of Ananus’ murder of James and the remarks of Josephus on Ananus’ own murder” (§ 45); but it is difficult to believe, as the Professor appears to suggest, that his familiarity with the _Antiquities_ was so slight that he could have missed the statement in XVIII. 63 f. and written as he did if it stood in his text. The real importance of Origen’s evidence is that it seems to supply the date when our passage was interpolated by a Christian reader, viz. towards the end of the third century, between the age of Origen and that of Eusebius.

Internal evidence

(1) _Context._—The latest advocates of the authenticity of the statement have judged it on its merits, apart from its context, from which it cannot be isolated. As Norden has convincingly shown, it breaks the thread of the narrative, the framework of which at this point consists of a series of “tumults” or “disturbances” (θόρυβοι). This framework seems to have been taken over from an older authority, and so mechanically that disturbances which occurred at different dates are treated as contemporaneous. We have:—

First θόρυβος (XVIII. 55-59).—Pilate introduces the Emperor’s busts into Jerusalem and threatens the Jewish petitioners with death “if they did not desist from turbulence” (θορυβεῖν 58).

Second θόρυβος (60-62).—Pilate appropriates the Corban money for building purposes. His soldiers overpower the insurgents (τοὺς θορυβοῦντας 62), “and so the sedition (στάσις) was quelled.” (See § 25 of the translation for these two θόρυβοι).

[Here (63-64) comes the passage about Christ.]

Third θόρυβος (65-84).—Two scandalous events at Rome leading respectively to the crucifixion of the priests of Isis and to the banishment of the Jews (for the second of these see § 27). These paragraphs open with the words “Now about the same time another calamity disturbed (ἐθορύβει) the Jews.”

Fourth θόρυβος (85-87) in Samaria, introduced by the words “The Samaritan race also was not exempt from disturbance” (θόρυβος), while the next paragraph begins “When the disturbance (θορύβου) was put down.”

It will be seen that this scheme is interrupted by the Christian περικοπή. The opening of 65 connects the third “disturbance” directly with the second (62). The mention of Pilate naturally led the interpolator to insert his statement at this point; but the structure of the original narrative leaves no room for it.

(2) _Style._—Notwithstanding its brevity (it comprises only three sentences in Niese’s text) the paragraph is long enough to betray in its language the hand of the forger. The style is not quite so “neutral” as Harnack suggests.

Here, again, regard must be had to the immediate surroundings. The style of Josephus is variable, now easy and flowing, now extraordinarily difficult. The testimony to Christ is imbedded in a portion of the _Antiquities_ (XVII. 1-XIX. 275) which contains some of the hardest Greek in our author. The language throughout this group of nearly three books is distinguished by some well-marked characteristics, _e.g._ a large use of periphrastic expressions. The simple verb is replaced by the combination of the _nomen actoris_ in -τῆς with καθίστασθαι, γίγνεσθαι, εἶναι or the like (thus κριτὴς εἶ αι = κρίνειν XIX. 217); μὴ ἀπηλλαγμένος with inf. (_ibid._ “not incapable,” “competent”) is a similar mannerism of constant occurrence in these books and is based on Thuc. I. 138. Χρῆσθαι is used with extraordinary frequency in periphrases. Other peculiarities are the use of the neuter participle with article as an abstract noun (Thucydidean), of οὐδὲν (μηδὲν) εἰς ἀναβολὰς for “quickly” (after Thuc. VII. 15), and of ὁπόσος (100 examples in these books) for ῞ὅσος in other parts of Josephus. The departure from the author’s normal practice extends to the spelling; the double σ (of Thucydides) in words like πράσσειν in these books replaces as a rule the so-called “Attic” ττ employed elsewhere in the _Antiquities_. Imitation of Thucydides, found sporadically in other parts, here reaches its climax. This practice largely accounts for the cumbrous phrases and involved periods prevalent in these books. The style is artificial and imitative and does not lend itself readily to imitation by another, The sources of this portion of the work are mainly, if not entirely, Roman, notably the narrative of the accession and (at quite disproportionate length) the death (XIX. I. 275) of Caligula; and I can only account for the phenomena by supposing that the author here handed over entirely to one of his literary _collaborateurs_ or συνεργοί (cp. _Ap._ I. 50), who had hitherto rendered only occasional aid, the task of translating his Latin authorities. On the accession of Claudius, when the centre of interest shifts from Rome to Palestine, the normal style is resumed (at XIX. 276).

Now, the mannerisms of _Ant._ XVII-XIX. 275 recur with wearisome iteration; it is rare to find a sentence which does not contain one or more of them. Thus in the paragraphs immediately preceding the passage about Christ we find three examples of periphrasis with χρῆσθαι (58, 60, 62); in the paragraph which follows two examples of οὐκ ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι (65, 68). But the passage itself contains none of the really distinctive features; one phrase alone (ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι) gives us pause. The following details may be noticed.

“A doer of wonderful works.” In compiling a Greek index to _Ant._
XVI.-XX. I have not noticed another instance of παράδοξος.

“Men who receive the truth with pleasure.” “The truth” (τἀληθῆ). The
crasis is in the style of Jos., but the phrase is again unexampled,
at least in this portion. On the other hand, “to receive with
pleasure” (ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι) recurs in XVIII. 6, 59, 70, 236, 333;
XIX. 127, 185 and similar phrases (ἡδονῇ φέρειν, χαρᾷ φέρειν or
δέχεσθαι) elsewhere in this portion of the work. I account for this,
with Norden, by supposing that “the interpolator knew his author.”
He knew him just well enough to employ the crasis in τἀληθῇ and a
phrase which he found twice in the immediate context (59, 70).

“The Greeks” (τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ). The neut. may be paralleled by _B.J._
II. 268, but is not uncommon outside Josephus.

“Our principal men.” Norden notes that, whereas “the first” or
“principal men” (οἱ πρῶτοι) is frequent in _Ant._ XX. (2, 6, 53,
119, 123, 135, etc.), it never has the personal note (“our”)
attached to it.

“Those who first loved (him).” Ἀγαπᾶν in Jos., never, according to
Norden, has the Christian meaning of “love,” but only its classical
sense of “be content”; an instance occurs in the previous paragraph
(60, cp. 242).

“On the third day.” The phrase (τρίτην ἡμέραν ἔχων) is again
unexampled in Jos.; the N.T. yields the nearest parallel (Lk. xxiv.
21, τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει).

“Alive again” (πάλιν ζῶν). Jos. writes elsewhere of a future life
ἀναβιοῦν (_Ant._ XVIII. 14) and γενέσθαι τε πάλιν καὶ βίον ἀμείνω
λαβεῖν (_Ap._ II. 218); he does not use ζῆν or ζωή in this
connexion.

“And to this very day” (εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν). The phrase is foreign to
Jos., who commonly writes ἔτι καὶ νῦν, occasionally καὶ μεχρὶ τοῦ
νῦν and the like, never εἰς ἔτι (Norden).

Jos. is scrupulous in avoiding a harsh hiatus—the juxtaposition of
unelided vowels at the end of one word and the beginning of the
next. The interpolator writes τἀληθῆ correctly, but, as Norden
notes, he has in these few lines introduced three glaring examples
of hiatus: Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο, σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος, Πιλάτου οὐκ.

(3) _Contents._—Our decision must rest primarily upon the arguments already adduced from context and style. But the whole tone of the passage suggests a Christian hand. It is the eulogy of a devotee masquerading under the mantle of the Jewish historian, rather than what we should expect, the bare chronicle, if not the bitter invective, of the priestly historian himself. “If one should call him a man”; “this was the Christ.” Could Josephus have so written? Even Jerome found this last phrase incomprehensible on such lips and altered it in his translation to “_credebatur_ esse Christus” (_De vir. ill._ 13). Prof. Burkitt ventures to uphold the authenticity even of these words. The passage, he argues, was penned at a time when Christianity had not yet become a formidable foe to Judaism, and was intended as an answer to Jewish expostulations on the subject of the coming of Messiah. This is how he paraphrases it: “Yes, the Christ was to come and indeed did come. That very estimable person who met with his death some time ago was the Christ. As in the case of so many other personages in our divinely chosen nation, there were some wonders and prodigies told about him. Even now there are some who revere him. They are good harmless folk like their master. But they are quite unimportant and no danger to the State; when you hear of ‘Christ’ it is no future Hannibal or Spartacus, but a good man who is dead and gone” (_loc. cit._ p. 140 f.). The reader must be left to estimate the value of this interpretation of the historian’s character and language in the light of the other evidence.

The theory of _partial_ interpolation, held by those who reject the obviously Christian phrases but believe that Josephus made some statement about Christ, is unsatisfactory. In so far as it is supported by any solid arguments, it is based partly on the few phrases for which parallels can be found in his writings, partly on the assumption that the other mention of “Jesus who was called Christ” (_Ant._ XX. 200) implies a fuller statement elsewhere. But the elimination of all that is suggestive of Christian origin leaves practically nothing behind. We may well follow Norden in declining to discuss what he calls the “transcendental” question whether the interpolation may have ousted a genuine statement of the historian about Christ, now lost beyond recovery; merely adding that the argument that the paragraph interrupts the sequence of the narrative is an argument for its spuriousness as a whole.

* * * * *

In connexion with the passage in _Ant._, the very curious additional matter in the Slavonic version of the _Jewish War_ (edited with a German translation by Berendts, _v. supra_) must be briefly mentioned.

Of the eight passages the first three relate to the Baptist. (1) A description of “the savage” (_Wilder_) and his baptism, of his being brought before Archelaus and how Simon the Essene disputed with him; (2) his interpretation of a dream of Herod Philip; (3) his rebuke of Herod (Antipas) for marrying Herodias his brother Philip’s wife _after_ the latter’s death (“for thou dost not raise up seed to thy brother, but gratifyest thy fleshly lusts and committest adultery, since he has left four children”), and his abstinence, even from unleavened bread at the Passover season. Then follows (4) a description of Christ, beginning in the same way as our passage, “At that time there arose a man, if it is right to call him a man,” but with much greater detail: his miracles wrought by a mere word (this is twice repeated); the current belief that he was “the first lawgiver risen from the dead”; his resort to the Mount of Olives; his 150 disciples (_Knechten_); and how Pilate, whose dying wife he had healed, released him upon the first hearing, but was subsequently induced by a bribe of thirty talents from the Jews (a curious distortion of the Gospel story!) to deliver him to them for crucifixion. No. (5) tells of the persecution and dispersion of the early Christians, who were drawn from the lower classes, shoemakers and labourers; (6) of an additional inscription round the outer wall of the Holy Place (cp. _B.J._ V. 5. 2 [193 f.]), “Jesus did not reign as King; he was crucified by the Jews because he announced the destruction of the city and the desolation of the Temple”; (7) of the rending of the veil of the Temple and current views upon Christ’s resurrection, “Some report that he rose from the dead, others that he was stolen by his friends. I know not which are right ...”; (8) of the oracle concerning the world-ruler who was to come from Judæa (see § 50 in the translations), “Some understood that it referred to Herod, others to the crucified wonder-worker Jesus, others to Vespasian.”

The actual MSS containing these extraordinary passages are not earlier than the fifteenth century; the translation can be dated back to the thirteenth century at latest. The earlier history of the additions is lost in obscurity; they have left no trace in the extant Greek MSS. Berendts boldly maintains their authenticity, believing them to be fragments of the original Aramaic edition of the _Jewish War_ written for Syrian readers (§ 38), which were eliminated when the later Greek version, addressed to a wider and more critical circle, was produced. This daring theory has met with little support; but the origin of the passages remains a mystery, no final solution of which is possible pending the publication of a complete text from the Russian MSS. The remarkable facts about them are their _Jewish_ appearance, their independence (in part) of the Gospel narrative and the impression which they make of being derived from oral tradition. Parallels to a few of the statements (the bribery of Pilate, the healing “by a word”) occur in the Christian apocryphal _Epistle of Tiberius to Pilate_ (ed. M. R. James in _Texts and Studies_, vol. V. p. 78, 1899); compare also the apocryphal _Acts of Pilate_ (Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_, Leipzig, 1853, p. 292), where Joseph of Arimathæa, addressing the body of Christ, uses the words “if it be right to call thee a man,” recalling the phrase common to the fourth Slavonic passage and the “testimony” in the _Antiquities_.

III. Note on § (29). THE FIRST HUSBAND OF HERODIAS

Josephus calls the injured husband simply Herod. The first two Gospels give him the name Philip (“Herodias his brother Philip’s wife,” Matt. xiv. 3, Mark vi. 17). The name stands in all the MSS in Mark; in Matthew it is omitted by the “Western text” (cod. D and Latin versions); in Luke (iii. 19) it is absent from all the best MSS and in those which insert it is undoubtedly an interpolation from the other Gospels. It is clear from Josephus that the first husband of Herodias was not Philip the Tetrarch, but his half-brother who paid the penalty for his mother’s complicity in a plot by having his name removed from Herod’s will, and lived as a private individual, apparently in Jerusalem (cf. _B.J._ I. 30. 7 [600]). Either then Herod the Great had two sons named Philip (1) by Mariamne II (daughter of Simon the High Priest), the husband of Herodias, and (2) by Cleopatra, Philip the Tetrarch, who married Salome the daughter of Herodias; or, more probably, the name Philip in the first two Gospels is a primitive error, due to confusion between the husband and the son-in-law of Herodias. That two sons should have borne the name Philip is improbable; no argument can be drawn from the appropriation of the dynastic or family name Herod by more than one member of the family. The omission of the name Philip by St. Luke, who shows special acquaintance with the Herodian court, is very significant. The confusion with Philip the Tetrarch appears elsewhere, notably in the eccentric account of the Baptist’s denunciation of the second marriage of Herodias in the Slavonic version of the _Jewish War_ (Note II above).

IV. Note on § (35). THEUDAS AND JUDAS

This passage has been often quoted as convincing proof that St. Luke had read the _Antiquities_ of Josephus, or at least the twentieth book. On this view the date of the _Acts_ must be brought down to the close of the first century. The Evangelist is at the same time accused of the grossest carelessness.

Gamaliel in his speech in the Sanhedrin adduces two instances of insurrectionary movements which came to nought in the chronological order: (1) Theudas, (2) Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 36 f.).

The date when Gamaliel is represented as speaking must have been some time in the early “thirties.” The revolt of Theudas, according to Josephus, occurred in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus (about 44-46 A.D.), at least ten years later. The revolt of Judas in “the days of the enrolment” was in 6 A.D. Thus the events appear to have been transposed in the speech and one of them to have been still in the womb of the future!

The error, if it is one, is commonly explained as due to a cursory reading and inaccurate recollection on the part of the Evangelist of the passage in the _Antiquities_ which alludes to the fate first of Theudas and then of the _sons_ of Judas under the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander (about 46-48 A.D.), the latter notice leading to a brief mention of their father. This view has been supported by Burkitt (_Gospel History and its transmission_, pp. 106 ff.), Krenkel (_Josephus and Lucas_), Schmiedel (art. in _Encycl. Bibl._) and many German commentators. It has been rejected, among others, by Schürer, Blass, Harnack (_Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, p. 115), Stanton (_Gospels as Historical Documents_, pt. II, p. 272), and most recently by Prof. C. C. Torrey (_Composition and date of Acts_, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1916). Cf. also an art. on “St. Luke and Josephus,” by the Rev. J. W. Hunkin, in the _Church Quarterly Review_ for April 1919, pp. 89-108.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there has been error on the part of some one responsible for putting the speech into the mouth of Gamaliel. The attempts which have been made to remove the apparent anachronism are unconvincing. Either an earlier unknown Theudas is postulated (but one would expect the person named by Gamaliel along with the notorious Judas to have been of sufficient importance to be mentioned by Josephus); or the mistake as to the date of Theudas is shifted to Josephus; or the name Theudas is regarded as a Christian interpolation in the _Antiquities_ (Blass).

But that the passage in _Acts_ is to be explained by a casual perusal of Josephus by St. Luke is highly improbable for the following reasons:—

(1) St. Luke gives the number of the followers of Theudas as “about four hundred”; Josephus writes “most of the common people.” Clearly St. Luke had access to some source other than Josephus.

(2) The carelessness attributed to St. Luke in the supposed use of Josephus is not what we should expect from the professions of the writer of the prologue to the third Gospel and from the handling of his sources in the earlier work.

(3) If there has been error, it is older than St. Luke and goes back to his authority. Torrey in the above-mentioned work seems to have proved conclusively that Acts i-xv is based on an Aramaic source, to which St. Luke was “singularly faithful.” “He disliked to alter, even slightly, the document in his hands, even where he believed its statements to be mistaken, and where he found himself obliged to contradict them” (p. 40). On the alleged use of Josephus in Acts v., after referring to the horror which must have been aroused in Judæa by the crucifixion of the _sons_ of the insurgent Judas, he adds: “Any history dealing with this period would have been pretty certain to mention Theudas and Judas at this point, and in this order, although the revolt under Judas really happened much earlier. From some history of the kind, in which the facts were not clearly stated, the author of Luke’s Aramaic source obtained his wrong impression of the order of events” (p. 71).

V. Note on § (45). THE BLOOD OF ZACHARIAS

This incident is of interest to the N.T. student because of the suggestion, made long ago and recently revived by Wellhausen, to identify the Zacharias of Josephus with the “Zachariah son of Barachiah” of Matt. xxiii. 35. “Son of Barachiah” is a well-known _crux_ in that passage, but, _pace_ Wellhausen, there is little or no doubt that our Lord there referred to the murder of Zechariah son of Jehoiada described in 2 Chron. xxiv. 19 ff.

The theory of Wellhausen and others evades the difficulty of an apparent confusion in Matthew between the pre-exilic prophet and the prophet of the Restoration, but introduces far greater difficulties. The text of Josephus just fails to supply the desired evidence. The name of the father of the Zacharias of Josephus _resembles_, but, it will be observed, only resembles, the Βαραχίας of the N.T. There is a variety of readings, but Βαρίσκαιος (LMmg) has the appearance of being what Josephus wrote or at least the nearest approximation in the MSS to the original name. Βάρεις of most MSS is a corruption of this. The reading “Baruch” (the nearest approach to “Barachias”) is doubtless a correction; it occurs only in cod. C which in other instances replaces an unfamiliar by a Biblical name (Niese, vol. VI, p. xxxix), and as an alternative to “Bariscæus” in cod. M.

Again, it may be urged in support of this theory that the two murders mentioned in Matthew are cited as the first and last of a series, and that as that of Abel was the first recorded in Biblical history, so that of Zachariah ben Bariscæus was the last outstanding murder of a Jew by his own countrymen before the Fall of Jerusalem, which is the culminating event in the mind of the Speaker in Matt. xxiii. The contemporaneous murder of Ananus is regarded by Josephus as the beginning of the end.

The obvious difficulty of this identification is that in the mouth of our Lord the words must be prophetical, whereas the past tense is used in both reports of the words (“whom ye _slew_,” Matt., “who _perished_,” Luke xi. 51).

The passage in Matthew and the parallel passage in Luke are both derived from an older source, an early collection of the Sayings of Jesus (commonly called “Q”); and behind that again apparently lies a still older source, an apocryphal Wisdom book from which Christ is quoting (“Therefore also said the Wisdom of God,” Luke xi. 49). Luke does not insert the words “son of Barachiah,” and it is therefore doubtful whether they stood in Q; Harnack (_Sayings of Jesus_, p. 104) concludes that they did not. But that they belong to the original text of the first Gospel and are not a later interpolation there seems no reason to doubt. If the error originated with the Evangelist himself, we may compare the rather similar confusion (“Jeremiah” for “Zechariah”) in Matt. xxvii. 9; if, as seems more probable, he has taken it over from Jewish tradition, it is natural to find such influence in this particular Gospel.

The three persons bearing the name of Zacharias who come primarily[431] into the question are:—

(1) Z. ben Jehoiada, murdered in the first Temple (2 Chron. xxiv.).

(2) Z. ben Berechiah ben Iddo, the prophet of the Restoration (Zech. i. 1).

(3) Z. ben Bariscæus, murdered in Herod’s Temple (Josephus).

There is every reason for identifying the Zacharias referred to by our Lord with the first of these, whether we look at the original text of Chronicles or at the Jewish Haggadah which grew up round it.

(i) With the words of Christ, or of the personified Wisdom in the work from which He quotes, “I send unto you prophets” (Luke “I will send unto them prophets”) compare 2 Chron. xxiv. 19, “Yet he sent prophets to them to bring them again unto the LORD.”

(ii) With St. Luke’s twice repeated “may (shall) be required of this generation” (xi. 50 f.) cp. the dying words of Zechariah, “The LORD look upon it and require it,” as also Abel’s blood “crying from the ground” (Gen. iv. 10).

(iii) Turning to Jewish tradition, we find that legend has been active in connexion with the murder in the Temple of a pre-exilic Zachariah who can be no other than the son of Jehoiada. And it is noteworthy that the two points dwelt on are just those which appear in the N.T. passage, viz. (_a_) the exact spot in the Temple where the murder occurred (cp. the precise localisation “between the sanctuary and the altar”) and (_b_) the crying out of the blood from the ground for vengeance, like that of Abel, and the terrible expiation required to still it. “R. Johanan said,” we read,[432] “‘Eighty thousand of the flower of the priesthood were slain on account of the blood of Zachariah.’ R. Judan asked R. Aha ‘Where did they kill Zachariah? In the Court of the Women or in the Court of Israel?’ He answered, ‘Neither in the Court of the Women nor in the Court of Israel, but in the Court of the Priests.’” The legend goes on to tell how the murder was rendered more heinous by being committed on a sabbath and that the Day of Atonement, and how Nebuzaradan when he entered the Temple saw the prophet’s blood welling up from the floor, and of the holocaust of priests which hardly availed to quench the stream.

(iv) Furthermore, there is evidence to show that the Rabbis, like the author of the first Gospel, confused or, disregarding chronology, identified the pre-exilic victim with Zechariah the prophet of the Restoration. The Targum on Lam. ii. 20 (“Shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?”) runs, “Is it also fit that they should slay a priest and prophet in the Temple of the Lord, as ye slew Zacharias _the son of Iddo_ ... in the house of the Sanctuary, on the day of Expiation?” (Lightfoot _l. c._). The Midrash (tr. Wünsche) interprets the same passage of Lam. of Zechariah son of Jehoiada.

(v) What is the intended series or line of which Zechariah is the last representative? Abel is naturally the first, but, chronologically, Z. ben Jehoiada was not the last prophet whose murder is recorded in the O.T.; Uriah (Jer. xxvi. 20 ff.) was later. The usual explanation that his murder stands last in the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible with Chronicles at the end is unsatisfactory; the books of the O.T. still circulated separately in the first century of our era. Moore’s answer is “It is not because the death of Z. was the last crime of the kind in Jewish history that it is named in the Gospel, but because it was in popular legend the typical example of the sacrilegious murder of a righteous man, a prophet of God, and of the appalling expiation God exacted for it.” But the identification of the victim with the prophet of the Restoration suggests another answer. Zechariah ben Berechiah _did_ in fact stand chronologically at the end of the prophets; as Josephus writes (§ 63), the succession failed after Artaxerxes (_i. e._ Ahasuerus). The context in Matthew relates to the _ancient_ prophets; the later generation that built the prophets’ tombs is set over against that of the forefathers who murdered them. That the final instance of such murder should be drawn from recent (to say nothing of future) history would be inappropriate. The son of Bariscæus was no prophet or priest and “as a layman would have no business in the part of the court between the temple and the altar” (Moore).

For the opposite view see Wellhausen _Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien_, ed. 2 (1911), pp. 118 ff. His main points are that Chronicles was a learned, not a popular, book and not likely to have been known to or quoted by Christ (but Christ is apparently quoting at second hand from one of those apocryphal books which were essentially popular), and that the rabbinical legend is in its origin unconnected with the story in Chronicles and really an echo (_Nachklang_) of the episode in Josephus, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans having here, as elsewhere, been confused with the earlier destruction by the Babylonians.

Footnote 431:

Tradition also connects Z. ben Jeberechiah (Isa. viii. 2) and
Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, with the N.T. passage.

Footnote 432:

Translated from _T.J., Taanith_ iv. 5, by G. F. Moore in the _Journal
of the American Oriental Society_, vol. xxvi. (1906), pp. 317 ff.; cf.
Lightfoot _Horæ Hebraiacæ_ on Matt. _l. c._

VI. Note on § (50). PORTENTS AND ORACLES

With this passage should be compared the following allusions in Roman writers:—

Tacitus _Hist._ V. 13. “Portents had occurred; but that nation, at once a prey to superstition and an enemy of religious rites, regards it wrong to avert such omens by sacrifices or votive offerings. There were visions of armies joining battle in the heavens with armour glowing red,[433] and the Temple in an instant was all lit up with fire from the clouds. The doors of the sanctuary opened of a sudden and there was heard a voice of superhuman strength saying that the gods were departing, and at the same moment a mighty commotion of departing beings. Yet few saw a fearful meaning in these things. Many were firmly persuaded that their ancient priestly lore contained a prediction that at that very time the East was to wax strong and persons proceeding from Judæa were to become masters of the world. This enigmatic utterance had foretold of Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual ambition of humanity, read it as predicting this high destiny for themselves, and even disaster failed to bring home to them its true meaning.”

Suet. _Vesp._ 4. “An ancient and rooted belief had spread throughout the whole of the East that persons proceeding from Judæa were destined at that time to become masters of the world. The prophecy, as after events proved, had reference to the Roman Emperor, but the Jews appropriated it to themselves and plunged into revolt.”

For interesting discussions on Josephus and Tacitus and the (Messianic) prophecy the reader is referred to the articles by Norden and Corrsen mentioned at the head of Note II.

Footnote 433:

After Virg. _Æn._ VIII. 528 f.

VII. Note on § (63). THE TWENTY-TWO BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE

This passage is important in connexion with the history of the O.T. canon. The language of Josephus implies that the canon had long since been closed, the test of canonicity being antiquity. Nothing written later than Artaxerxes (_i. e._ Ahasuerus) has full credentials. The mention of Artaxerxes must refer to the book of Esther, which Josephus thus regards as the latest addition to the collection. The statement differs in some respects from what is believed to be the oldest Palestinian tradition, but there is no reason to doubt that the unnamed 22 books are other than those comprised in the modern Hebrew Bible.

(1) The _number 22_ as the total of the books of Scripture is here met with for the first time, but reappears as the dominant reckoning in early Eastern Church writers (Melito, Origen, etc.), who connect it with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. As these writers were in touch with Palestinian tradition and Melito expressly states that he derived his information from the East (ap. Eus. _H.E._ IV. 26), it seems that this reckoning had the support of at least one section of the synagogue. The normal tradition, however, made the total 24, a number which first appears in a work almost contemporary with the _Contra Apionem_, 2 Esdras (or the Apocalypse of Ezra) xiv. 45 (Oriental text). The smaller number was reached by treating Ruth and Lamentations as supplements respectively to Judges and Jeremiah. The arrangement in 24 books possibly arose in Babylonia.[434]

It is uncertain which of these two reckonings is the older, but in favour of the priority of the number 24 it may be said that (i) the equation with the number of Hebrew letters is artificial and therefore likely to be late, although as Josephus does not allude to this it may be an after refinement; (ii) it is easier to understand the subsequent attachment of Ruth and Lamentations to prophetical books with which their contents or supposed authorship connected them than how, having once gained admission among the Prophets, they could afterwards be relegated to the lower category of “Writings,” in which they now stand.

A third and later arrangement names 27 books, a number arrived at by dividing the double books, while the parallelism with the Hebrew alphabet is retained by reckoning separately the “final” forms of those letters which possessed them. Jerome in his preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings shows acquaintance with all three systems.

(2) Josephus presents a _tripartite arrangement_ (5 + 13 + 4 books), but not the normal one (5 + 8 + 11: Law, Prophets, Writings). His third group is reduced to 4 by the transference to the “Prophets” of a number of books commonly included in the “Writings.” The normal arrangement, which reflects the stages in the formation of the canon and places, _e. g._, Daniel in the third group because of the late date at which it gained admission, is clearly the more ancient. Josephus as a Greek historian writing for Greek readers neglects this and follows the example of the translators of the Greek Bible in grouping all the historical and prophetical books together. A close parallel to his third class (“hymns to God and practical precepts for men”) may be found in the description of the sacred books of the Therapeutæ in Egypt in the _De Vita Contemplativa_ ascribed to Philo, “Laws and oracles delivered by prophets and _hymns and the other (works) by which knowledge and piety are promoted and perfected_” (ed. Conybeare p. 61).

(3) The _constituent books_ doubtless here, as with the Christian writers who name 22 as the total and enumerate the books (cp. Origen in Eus. _H.E._ VI. 25), coincide with the normal Hebrew canon. Dr. Ryle (_Canon of O.T._ p. 165 f.) concludes that the 13 books of the Prophets are probably (1) Joshua, (2) Judges + Ruth, (3) Sam., (4) Kings, (5) Chron., (6) Ezra + Nehemiah, (7) Esther, (8) Job, (9) Isaiah, (10) Jeremiah + Lamentations (11) Ezekiel, (12) Minor Prophets, (13) Daniel; while the group of four will comprise (1) Psalms with (2) Song of Songs, constituting the “hymns,” and (3) Proverbs with (4) Ecclesiastes, the “practical precepts.” The view of Grätz that Josephus omitted Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, as not having yet been admitted to the canon, has not met with acceptance.

(4) The canon here laid down has not governed the historian’s practice. He does not scruple to draw upon apocryphal books like 1 Maccabees, nor does he hint that the authorities used in the latter part of the _Antiquities_, for the period subsequent to “Artaxerxes,” are less trustworthy than the rest; he implies, on the contrary, that the whole work is in accordance with “the holy books” (cp. _Ant._ I. 17; XX. 261).

The reader may consult in particular the works on the _Canon of the O.T._ by Ryle (pp. 160-66) and Buhl and the article “Bible Canon” in the _Jewish Encylopædia_.

Footnote 434:

Fürst (_Kanon des A.T._), p. 4.

TABLE OF DATES

The figures in brackets refer to the numbered translations.

B.C. JUDÆA AND SYRIA. ROME.

135 JOHN HYRCANUS I (56)

104 ARISTOBULUS I

103 ALEXANDER JANNÆUS (57)

76 QUEEN ALEXANDRA (57) (58)

67 ARISTOBULUS II

63 Pompey takes Jerusalem and
Syria becomes a Roman province
(8)

63-40 HYRCANUS II a Roman vassal

_c._ 57 Gabinius divides Palestine
into five districts (9)

48 Battle of Pharsalia.
Defeat of Pompey by
J. Cæsar

47 Palestinian settlement under
J. Cæsar (10)

_c._ 46 Antipater and Herod in power.

Trial of Herod (12)

44 Death of J. Cæsar

_c._ 43 Cassius in Syria. Herod made
governor of Cœle-Syria (13)

42 Battle of Philippi.
Defeat of Brutus and
Cassius by Antony
and Octavian

41 Antony appoints Herod and
Phasæl tetrarchs of Judæa (14)

40 Invasion of Palestine by the
Parthians. Flight of Herod to
Rome (15)

40-37 ANTIGONUS

37 Jerusalem captured by Herod
and Sosius.

37-4 HEROD THE GREAT

31 Battle of Actium.
Defeat of Antony by
AUGUSTUS

30 Herod’s kingdom confirmed by
Augustus (16)

29 Execution of Mariamne (17)

23 Trachonitis etc. added to
Herod’s kingdom (18)

_c._ 7 Execution of Alexander and
Aristobulus (20)

4 Death of Herod. His kingdom
divided between ARCHELAUS
(B.C. 4-A.D. 6), PHILIP (B.C.
4-A.D. 34) (22) and Antipas
(B.C. 4-A.D. 39)

A.D.

6 Judaæa annexed to the province
of Syria under procurators
(23)

6/7 Census of Quirinius and revolt
of Judas (24)

14 TIBERIUS

26-36 Pontius Pilate procurator (25)
(28)

37 HEROD AGRIPPA I. (30) CALIGULA (31)

41 CLAUDIUS (32)

44 Death of Herod Agrippa I. (33)

Famine in Judæa (34)

_c._ 46 Crucifixion of sons of Judas
(35)

50-100 HEROD AGRIPPA II. (3) (36)

54 NERO

Procurators—

52-60 Felix (36)

60-62 Festus (39)

62-64 Albinus (39)

64-66 Gessius Florus (39)

66 Outbreak of war with Rome

Cessation of daily offering
for the Emperor (40)

66 Oct. Defeat of Cestius Gallus near
Beth-Horon (41)

Josephus in command of Galilee

67 Advance of Vespasian from
spring Antioch

July Capture of Jotapata (43)

67-68 Civil war in Jerusalem (45)
winter

68 June Campaign interrupted through death of Nero

68-69 GALBA, OTHO,
VITELLIUS

69 July VESPASIAN proclaimed
Emperor

70 April Titus lays siege to Jerusalem

July Cessation of Temple sacrifices
(48)

Aug. Capture and burning of Temple
(49)

Sept. Capture of the whole city (51)

79 TITUS

81-96 DOMITIAN

INDEX

Abel, 195, 197

Abella, Abila, 88, 94, 102

Actium, battle of, 55, 73

_Acts_, 90, 107 _n._, 192 ff.

Ader = Ben-hadad, 42

Adiabene, 90, 99

Agrippa, M., 57 f., 60

—— son of Felix and Drusilla, 95

—— Herod Agrippa. _See_ Herod

Ahab, 42 ff.

Albinus, 96 f., 105, 144

Alexander the Alabarch, 93

—— brother-in-law of Herod, 54

—— Jannæus, 164

—— son of Herod, 58, 60

——, Tiberius, 93, 193

Alexandra, 164 ff.

Alexandria, 92, 97

Alexandrium, 60

Alexas, 63

Aliturus, 34

Alphabet, the Hebrew, and the books of Scripture, 201

Amathus, 47

Ananias, 91

—— high priest, 107

Ananus I, high priest, 73, 96

—— II, high priest, 96 f.

—— III, high priest, 118 f., 130 f., 184, 195

—— son of Jonathan, 113

Anaxagoras, 171

Antigonus, 53 f.

Antioch, 107, 110

Antiochus, 110

—— Epiphanes, 162

Antipas, 109

Antipater, father of Herod, 47 ff, 51 ff.

—— son of Herod, 62

—— nephew of Herod, 68

Antipatris, 111, 117

Anti-Semitism, 18 f.

Antonia, 84

—— Tower of, 135, 138, 145

Antony, 51 f., 55 f.

_Apion, Against_, 18 f.

Aqiba R., 148

Aqueduct, 75

Arabia, 80, 99

Arabians, 55

Aramaic original of _B. J._, 14, 98

—— speech in, 136

Archelaus, 16, 29, 66 ff., 140 n., 189

Arethusa, 46

_Aristeas, Letter of_, 17

Aristobulus II, 45 f., 165

—— son of Herod, 58, 60

—— brother of Herod Agrippa I, 85

Artaxerxes = Ahasuerus, 176, 198, 200

Artemisium, month of, 143

Ascalon, 71

Asphaltitis, Asphaltophorus (= Dead Sea), 63

Athenian laws, 172

Athens, plague of, 26

Atomos, 95

Atratinus, 53

Augustus (Octavius, Cæsar), 51, 53 f., 55 f., 57 f., 60, 68 ff.

Auranitis, 58, 70, 88 _n._, 110

Autocratoris (= Sepphoris), 74

Azizus, 94 f.

Azotus, 46, 70

Babylonians, 99;
Babylonian and Roman destruction of Jerusalem confused, 199

Bagoas, 169

Bannus, 10, 33

Baptism, John’s, 80 f.

Barachiah, Berechiah, 195 ff.

Baris, Bariscæus, Baruch, 131, 195 ff.

Batanæa, 58, 70, 94, 102, 110

Berendts, A., 189f.

Berenice, 95

Berytus, 35

Betharamphtha, 74

Beth-Horon, 111, 116

Bethsaida, 74

Bezetha, 113

Blass, F., 193

Books (the) Sacred, 123, 145

Borcæus, 112

Brigands, 102, 104 f., 150

Burial, Jewish care for, 130

Burkitt, F. C., 183, 188, 193

Cæsar, Julius, 47

——, Sextus, 48, 50

Cæsarea (Strato’s Tower), 46, 57 _n._, 74 f., 88, 90, 104

—— Philippi, 74

Caligula (= Gaius), 16 f., 19, 27, 82-7, 90, 186

Callirrhoe, 63

Calvarius, Sextus, 120

Calvinus, 54

Candlestick, seven-branched, 45, 147

Captain of Temple. _See_ Temple

Carus, 169

Cassius, 51 f.

Catapult, 117, 144 _n._

Caudine Forks, 110

Census, periodic in Egypt, 181

Cerealius, 38

Cestius Gallus, 11, 15, 106 f., 110 ff.

Chalcis, 94, 102

Christians and Christianity, 10, 22 f., 76, 182 ff.

_Chronicles_, 195, 198 (as last book in the Heb. Bible)

Circumcision, 90 f., 95

“Civil List” of Vespasian, 13

Claudius, Emperor, 76, 88, 90, 102

Claudius Felix. _See_ Felix

Cleopatra, 52, 55f.

—— wife of Herod the Great, 192

Cluvius Rufus, 17, 27

Cœle-Syria, 46, 51

_Collaborateurs_ of Josephus, 14, 186

Coponius, 72.

Corban, an oath, 29, 179;
sacred treasure, 75 _n._

Corrsen, P., 182, 200

Costobar, 109, 117

Crasis, 187

Crete, 39

Crucifixion, 38, 68, 102, 130, 185

_Custodia, libera_, 83 _n._

_Customs and Causes_, projected work, 19

Cyprus, 92, 95

Dacians, 160

Daphne, 52

Darius, 110

Demetrius of Gadara, 46

Demoniacal possession, 41f.

Destiny, 61. Cp. Fate

Dicæarchia (= Puteoli), 34

Didius, Quintus, 56

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 15, 26

Dium, 46

Dius, month of, 117

Domitia, 39

Domitian, 39

Domitius Sabinus, 120

Dora, 46

Drusilla, 29, 94f.

Drusus, 81

Education, the two systems of, 172

Egyptian false prophet, 103f.

Eleazar, 42, 91

—— the brigand, 102

—— Captain of the Temple, 107

—— a Pharisee, 162

—— son of Simon, 118

Elijah, 44

Elymas, 29, 94

Epaphroditus, 15, 17

_Esdras II_, 201

Essenes, 33, 148-60

_Esther_, 200

Eusebius, 89 _n._, 96, 183

Exorcism, 41 f.

Ezekias, 48 f.

Ezekiel, 42

Fadus, Cuspius, 93, 192

Famine at Jerusalem, 92 f.

Fasts, Jewish, observed by aliens, 178

Fate, 141, 145, 148, 157, 159.
Cp. Destiny

Faustus, 45

Feast of Unleavened Bread, 106, 142

—— of Passover, 66, 189

—— of Pentecost, 68, 143

—— of Tabernacles, 111, 143

—— commemorating Herod’s death, 64 _n._

Felix, Claudius, 10, 29, 34, 94 f., 102 ff.

Festus, 29, 105

Florus, Gessius, 106 f., 109, 161

Flute players as mourners, 129

Fortune, 61, 126

Free-will, 61, 148, 159

Fulvia, 77

Future Life, 124, 159, 174.
Cp. Immortality

Gabinius, 47, 53

Gadara, 46, 47, 70

Gaius. _See_ Caligula

Galilee, 11, 48 f., 70, 102

Gallicanus, 122

Gamala, 73, 80

Gamaliel, 28, 192 f.

Games: Isthmian, Nemean, Olympic, 174 _n._

Gaulanitis, 102

Gaza, 46, 70

Gennesaret, Lake of, 74

Gerizim, Mount, 77

Gibeon, 111, 115

Gorpiæus, month of, 146

Gospels, primitive error in, 192

Grätz, 202

Greek philosophy, 171

Hades, 125, 156, 158

Haggadah, Jewish, 196 ff.

Harnack, A., 183, 193, 196

Hegesippus, 95

Helena, 90ff.

Herod the Great, 16f., 28, 48-65, 66-71, 104, 167-9, 190

—— Antipas (the Tetrarch), 29, 67, 70, 73 f., 79 ff., 189

—— Philip. _See_ Philip

—— husband of Herodias, 79, 191 f.

—— Agrippa I, 17, 29, 79, 87, 88-90

—— Agrippa II, 13-15, 17, 25, 29, 36 f., 94, 96 f., 102, 109 f., 112

Herodias, 29, 79, 81 f., 189, 191 f.

Hiatus, avoidance of, 188

Hippos, 46, 70

Historians, ancient, contrasted with contemporary, 101

Hyperberetæus, month of, 113

Hyrcanus I, 161 ff., 166

—— II, 45-54

—— son of Josephus, 39

Idumæa, 70;
Idumæans, 129ff.

Images, making of, 74

Immortality of Soul, 155-9

Innocents, murder of the, 28, 63

Inspiration, 176

Interpolation, Christian in Josephus, 182 ff.

Irenæus, 67

Islands of the Blessed, 156

Ixion, 156

Izates, 90 ff.

Jadaus (Jadon), 44

James, the brother of Jesus, 22, 29, 95 f.

Jamnia, 46, 70

Jeconiah, king, 136

Jehoiada, 195 ff.

Jehoshaphat, 43

Jeremiah, 42

Jericho, 47, 63, 66

Jeroboam, 44

Jerome, 24, 188, 201

Jesus Christ, 22, 76, 182 ff.

—— son of Ananias, 143 f.

—— son of Damnæus, high priest, 97, 130 f.

_Jewish Antiquities_, 15 ff., 24 f.;
Books XVII-XIX, peculiarities of style in, 26, 186;
Roman sources of, 186

_Jewish War_, 14 f., 25, 35 ff., 98 ff.;
Aramaic original of, 14, 98, 190 f.;
Slavonic version of, 183, 189 ff., 192

Jews in Rome, 69, 76 f.;
in Egypt and Babylon, 175

——, persecution of, 177 f.

Joazar, high priest, 72

John the Baptist, 22, 80 f., 189

—— of Gischala, 11, 135 ff.

Jonathan, high priest, 103

—— a Sadducee, 162 f.

Joppa, 46, 111

Joseph, the patriarch, 123 f.

—— of Arimathæa, 191

—— brother-in-law of Herod, 56 f.

—— son of Gorion, 118

—— high priest, 96

Josephus, life of, 9 ff.;
works, 14 ff.;
authorities, 16 f, 25 f.;
character, 20 ff.;
attitude to Judaism, 22;
to Christianity, 22 f., 188 f.;
as historian, 24 ff.;
importance of, 27 f.;
as illustrating N.T., 28 ff.;
autobiography of, 33 ff.;
style, 186 ff.

Jotapata, 12, 21, 35, 37, 119 ff., 128 f., 133

_Jubilees, Book of_, 40

Judæa, 70 ff., 78, 88, 90, 96, 102

Judas the Gaulanite or Galilæan, 72f., 161., 192 ff.;
sons of, 94, 193 f.

Julias, 102.

Justus, historian, 13, 18, 35

—— son of Josephus, 390

Lacedæmonians, 172

Law, the Jewish, 61, 74 f., 77, 91, 147, 163, 174, 176 ff.

———— weekly reading of, 172 f.

Lebanon, 88

Liberalius, 140

_Life_, the, of Josephus, 17 f.

Lightfoot, Bishop, 152 _n._, 154 _n._ 156 _n._

———— John, 197 _n._

Lots, drawing of, 125 f.

Lous, month of, 138

Lugdunum (Lyons), 84

Luke, St., 30, 66, 85, 88, 180 f., 187, 191 f., 192 ff., 196 f.

Lydda, 111

Lysanias, 84, 88, 94, 102

_Maccabees, Fourth Book of_, 20

Machærus, 79 ff.

Malichus, 51 f.

Malthace, 68

“Man of Sin,” 85

Marcellus, 78

Mariamne, 56 f.

—— II, 192

Marisa, 46

Marsyas, 82

Masada, 107

Matthias, brother of Josephus, 33

—— father of Josephus, 98

Melito, 201

Menahem, the Essene, 167 f.

Messala, 52 f.

Messiah, reticence of Josephus on, 23

Micaiah, 42 ff.

Midrash on _Lamentations_, 198

Military Service, refusal of, 77

Miracles wrought by a word, 190 f.

Months, Artemisium, 143;
Dius, 117;
Gorpiæus, 146;
Lous, 138;
Panemus, 121, 135;
Xanthicus, 142

Moore, G. F., 197 ff.

Moses, 40 f., 77, 153, 170 ff.
Cp. Law

Mucianus, 133

Murcus, 51

Naber, S. A., 31

Nebuzaradan, 197

Nero, 34, 99, 102, 104, 127

New City, 113

Nicanor, 122 f., 126

Nicola(u)s of Damascus, 16 f., 66 _n._, 67 f.

Niese, B., 30 f.

Norden, E., 182-9, 200

Olivet, Mount, 103, 190

Omblaiah (Imlah), 43

Omens, 119, 133, 141 ff.

Oracles, 137, 145, 190, 199

Origen, 183 f., 201

Owl, bird of ill omen, 89

Pallas, 94, 102

Paneas, 58, 74

Panemus, month of, 121, 135

Parable of Nobleman, 29, 66

Parthians, 19, 53 f., 99

Passover. _See_ Feast

Patrician class, 82

Paul, St., 9 f., 20-2, 29, 34, 85, 90, 135 _n._;
Pauline Epistles quoted, 153 _n._, 168 _n._, 172 _n._

Paulinus, 122

Pax, Temple of, 14

Pella, 46

Pentecost. _See_ Feast

Peræa, 70, 102

Periphrasis, 186 f.

Petronius, 28, 84 ff.

Pharaoh, 40 f.

Pharisees, 33 f., 108, 148, 157-9, 161-9

Phasael, 48, 52

Phasælis, 70

Pheroras, 71, 169

Philip the Tetrarch, 66, 69 f., 73 f., 80 f., 90, 189, 191 f.

—— son of Jacimus, 110, 117

Philippi, 52

Philo, 190;
_De Vita Contemplativa_, 202

Phœbus, 112

Pilate, 28, 74-8, 185, 190 (bribery of), 191 (_Epistle of Tiberius to
P._ and _Acts of P._)

Piso, 83

Placidus, 120

Plato, 171

Pollio, Gaius Asinius, 54

—— a Pharisee, 167

Pompey, 44-7, 175

Poppæa, 10, 34

Portents, 141 ff., 199

Procurators, last of the, 102 ff.

Prophecy, 127 f. (of Josephus);
156 (of Essenes);
167 f. (of Menahem)

Pro-Romans, 118

Ptolemais, 85, 110

Ptolemy, 66 f.

Ptolla, 66

Pythagoras, 171

Quirinius, 72 f., 94, 180 f.

Ragaba, 164

Rainfall, providential, 86

Ramsay, Sir W. M., 180

Rhodes, 55

Roman citizenship, 38, 47

Ryle, Dr., 202 f.

Sabbath, 111, 154, 178

Sabinus, 67 f.

Sacrifices for Emperor abrogated, 107 ff.;
daily, abandoned, 135

Sadducees, 33, 96, 148, 157-9, 161-63

Salome, sister of Herod, 57, 63 f., 66, 70, 169

—— daughter of Herodias, 81, 192

Samaria, city of (Sebaste), 46, 58, 60, 70

—— district of, 70 f., 88, 90, 102

Samaritans, 77 f.

Sameas, 50 f., 167

Sanhedrin, 48 ff., 95 ff.

Sardinia, 77

Saturninus, 77

Saul, relative of Herod Agrippa II, 109, 117

_Sayings of Jesus_, 196

Scaurus, 46

Schmiedel, P. W., 193

Schürer, E., 180, 193

Scopus, Mount, 112, 115

Scriptures, the Jewish, 174 ff.;
the number of books, 176, 200 ff.
Cp. Books, the Sacred

Scythopolis, 46

Sebaste. _See_ Samaria

Sects, Jewish, 148 ff.

Selucid Dynasty, 19

Sepphoris, 47, 74

Sergius Paulus, 29, 94

Shewbread, table of, 45, 147

_Sicarii_, 102 f.

Simon, son of Ananias, 109

—— son of Gioras, 111

—— the Essene, 189

—— the high priest, 79, 81

Simonides Agrippa, son of Josephus, 39

Socrates, 171 _n._

Sohemus, 110

Solomon, 41 f.;
Solomonian books, 152 _n._

Sossius, 51

Speeches in _B.J._, 100

Stanton, V. H., 193

Stoics, 34, 171

Strabo, 17

Strato’s Tower (= Cæsarea), 46, 70, 88

Suetonius, 76, 200

Suicide, 121, 124 f.

Sulpicius Severus, 25

Tabernacle, symbol of universe, 131 _n._

Tacitus, 27, 143 _n._, 199 f.

Tantalus, 156

Tarichæa, 102

Targum on _Lamentations_, 198

Taxation, exemption from, 39, 47

Tekoa, 38

Temple 38, 45, 47, 49, 68, 77, 85, 92, 95, 110, 113 f., 118, 132 f.,
135-45, 196 ff.;
Babylonian destruction of, 138, 141;
captain of, 107 f., 142;
gate of, 142;
gifts from foreigners to, 107 f.;
Holy Place(s) of, 45, 140 f.;
inscription in, 190;
veil of, 190

_Testudo_, 114 _n._

Theocracy, 170

Theology, Jewish, 170 ff.

Theophrastus, 179

Therapeutæ, sacred books of the, 202

Thermuthis, 40 f.

Theudas, 93, 103 _n._, 192 ff.

Thucydides, imitation of, 24, 26 f., 32, 73 _n._, 86 _n._, 186

Tiberias, 85, 102

Tiberius, 29, 76 f., 80, 82

—— Alexander. _See_ Alexander

Timber Market, 113

Tirathana, 77 f.

Titus, 13 ff., 25, 36 ff., 100, 120, 126 ff., 133, 135, 138 ff., 146

—— Arch of, 147

Tityus, 156

Torrey, C. C., 193 f.

Towers of Jerusalem, 146 f.

Trachonitis, 58, 70, 88 _n._, 94, 102, 110

Traill, Dr. R., 20 _n._, 23, 24, 31

Tyrannius Priscus, 113

Tyrians, Laws of the, 179

Ulatha, 58

Uriah, 198

Varus, Quintilius, Governor of Syria, 68 f., 175, 181

—— tetrarchy of, 102

Vespasian, 12-15, 25, 36-9, 42, 119-28, 133 f., 145, 190

Vestments, high priest’s, 78 _n._, 131

Vienne, 71

Virgil, 122 _n._, 128 _n._, 199 _n._

Virtues, four cardinal, 171 _n._

Vitellius, Governor of Syria, 78, 80, 85

Wellhausen, J., 194 ff.

Whiston, W., 31

Wisdom book, apocryphal, 196

Xanthicus, month of, 142

Xerxes, 176

Zacharias, son of Baris(cæus), 29 f., 131 f., 194 ff.

Zacharias or Zechariah (various), 194 ff.

Zadok, 73

Zealots, sect of, 73, 118 f., 131 f., 161

Zedekiah, king, 42

—— false prophet, 44

Zenodorus, 58, 70

Printed in Great Britain by
Richard Clay & Sons, Limited.
BRUNSWICK ST., STAMFORD ST., S.E. 1
AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ The author’s archaic punctuation, spellings, and capitalization
have been retained.
○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
when a predominant form was found in this book.
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are
referenced.
○ Text marked as a Sidenote was in the far left or right margin of
the text in the book.