Josephus is one of those men for whose charac ters, in spite of their learning, their ability, and even tbeir good qualities, it is impossible to feel any respect. An almost girlish conceit is every where visible in his narrative of his own proceed ings ; and a consciousness of his own importance often betrays him into a superstition quite alien to the natural tone of his mind (L'ell. iii. S. 9 ; Vit. 15, 42, 75, etc.) Cunning, worldliness, and a vulgar desire for external prosperity, appear in him throughout his life. He was a fulsome flatterer of the great, and was not even ashamed to assume the name of Flavius, as though he had been a freed man of Titus. He was a strange mixture of the bigoted Pharisee and the time-serving Herodian, and he mingles the national pride of the patriot with the apostasy of a traitor. The worst stain on his character is his desertion of his country in the hour of her sorest need ; and the fact that he was eager to kiss the hands that were reeking with Iler blood, and to sing the praises of the men for whom his countrymen could find no curse too deep or loud. While Yudea Captiva wept under her deso late palm-tree, he could live in splendour in' the house assigned to him by her conquerors, enjoy a share of their booty, and boast of their patronage ( Vit. 76) ; while his countrymen were dead, de graded, or enslaved, this nescio quis Arabarches (Juv. 13o) could bear to see his own triumphal statue set up among their oppressors, and could sit as a congratulating guest, offering homage and adoring cringes, whilst the triumphal pageant for Judea ravaged, and Jerusalem burned, filled the hours of a long summer's day ere it unfolded its pomps before him' (B'ell. yuri., vii. 5. 5-7).
Josephus was an admirable writer. Although lie could not pronounce Greek well, he writes it with singular purity (Niebuhr, Lectures on Rom. Hist., iii. 205), with the exception of a few con stant errors ; and he is fairly entitled to his own claim of possessing the highest qualifications for a Greek writer of Jewish history (Antiy. XX. 12. I), as well as to St. Jerome's complimentary designa tion of him as Gmecus Livius' (Epist. ad Eustoch.) His work,' says Niebuhr (Ancient Hist. iii. 455), is one of the most charming and interesting books, and is read a great deal too little.' Never theless, he is hardly deserving of the epithet VjOns, so often bestowed on him (Suid. s. v.
6o-wros ; Isidor Pelusiot. iv., Ep. 75 ; diligen tissim us et rprXaX77Mr7-aros, Jos. Scaliger, DeEmena'. Temp. Pral, etc.) ; for though he understood the duty and importance of veracity to the historian (Antiy. XIV. I. I ; Bell. yud. 1; c. Ap. 19), yet he is often untrue, and his archxology abounds in distortions of historical facts, and in ialsifications which arise from his inordinate na tional pride ; and wherever he deals in numbers, he shews his Oriental love of exaggeration' (Nie buhr, Lect. Rom. Hist.,1. c.). IIence his narra
tive, even of events sufficiently near his own times, requires constant correction (Prideaux, Connection, 44, 341, 542, ii. passim). Yet he has received very hard measure at the hands of Baronius and other writers, and we must agree with Casaubon (Exerc. xx. 2), that his works have been preserved to us by a singular providence, and throw a flood of light on Jewish affairs.
It is hardly possible to overrate the importance of Josephus to the theologian. The numberless references to all his writings in this volume will shew how indispensable he is, and how constantly his works elucidate the history, geography, and archology of Scripture. Yet, in spite of his con stant assertions (A ntiy. x. II), he can have had no real respect for the writings which he so largely illustrates. If he had felt, as a Jew, any deep or religious appreciation of the O. T. history, which Ile professes to follow (obnv rpoOcis raptc North°, Antiy. proann), he would not have tam pered with it as he does, mixing it with pseudo philosophical fancies (c. Ap. 10), with groundless Jewish Agadoth or traditions (such as the three years' war of Moses with the Ethiopians, the love of Tharbis for him, etc.—An/7'g. io. 2), and with quotations from heathen writers of vely a'azibtfill authority (Antig. viii. 5. 3, etc. ; see Van Dale, De Aristea, p. 211). Moreover, he con stantly varies from the sacred text in numbers (e.g., in his entire chronology), and in names, so that in his. genealogy of the high-priests, scarce five of the names agree with anything that we have in Scripture ' (Prideaux, Connect. i. 44). The worst charge, however, against him, is his constant attempt, by alterations and suppressions (and espe cially by a rationalistic method of dealing with miracles, which contrasts stranoely with his credo , 6 loos fancies), to make Jewish history palatable to Greeks and Romans, to such an extent that J. Ludolfus calls him 'fabulator sapitts quain hist°. rictis' (Hist. Ethiop., p. 230). Thus he omits all the most important Messianic prophecies ; Ile manipulates the book of Daniel in a most unsatis factory manner (Antig. ix. r) ; he speaks in a very loose way about Moses and Abraham (Atitig.
S. ; c. .4p. ii. x5) ; and though he can swallow the romance of the pseudo-Aristeas, he rationalises the account of the Exodus and Jonah's whale (///dig. ii. 16. 5 ; ix. to. 2). On the whole sub ject of his credibility as a writer, his omissions, his variations, and his panderings to ethnic taste, see J. A. Fabricius, De Yoseph. et ejus Scriptu, in Hud son's ed.; Van Dale, De Aristed, x., xi. ; De Idolo vii. ; Brinell, Examen Hist. Flay. Yosepho, in Havercamp, 309, sq. ; Ottius, Spicilegium ex yosepho ; Ittigius, Prolegomena ; Usher, Epist. ad Lud. Cappellum, p. , Whiston's Disserta tions, etc.