Nothing is more certain than that Joseplms was no Christian (eureo-rc2n, Incroi, Xpto-74, Orig. c. Cels. 35) ; the whole tone of his mind was alien from the noble simplicity of Christian belief, and, as we have seen already, he was not even a good Jew. Whatever, therefore, may be thought about the passages alluding to JChn the Baptist * (Antiq. xviii. 5. 2), and James, the Lord's brother' (Id. xx. 9. 1), which may possibly'. be genuine, there can be no reasonable doubt that the famous allusion to our Lord (Antiq. xviii. 3, 3), is cither absolutely spurious, or largely inter polated. The silence of Josephus on a subject of such importance, and with which he must have been so thoroughly acquainted, is easily explicable, and it is intrinsically much more probable that he should have passed over the subject altogether (as is done also by his cotemporary Justus of Tiberia, Phot. Cod. Bib4 33), than that he should only have devoted to it a few utterly inadequate lines ; and even if he had been induced to do this by some vague hope of getting something by it from Christians like Flavius Clemens, he certainly would not have expressed himself in language so strong as er-ye bapa cuirdv XP1), and still less would he have vouched for the Messiahship, the miracles, or the resurrection. Justin, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Origen, and even Photius, knew nothing of the passage, nor does it appear till the time of Eusebius (Hist. Ecc., 2 ; Dem. Evang., iii. 5), a man for whom Niebuhr can find no better name than a detestable falsifier,' and whose historical credibility is well nigh given up. Whether Euscbius forged it himself, or borrowed it from the marginalia of some Christian reader, cannot be determined, but that Josephus did not write it may be regarded as settled. Nay, the very next section (Antiq. xvii. 3. 4) is a disgusting story,
wholly irrelevant to the tenor of the narrative, and introduced in all probability for the sole purpose of a blasphemous parody on the miraculous con ception, such as was attempted by various rabbini cal writers (e. g., Sepher Toledoth Jeshua ; see Wagenseil, Tela Ign. Satan. ; Winer, s. v. Yoseph.) That Josephus intended obliquely to discredit some of the chief Christian doctrines, by representing them as having been anticipated by the Essenes, seems by no means improbable (De Quincey's Works, ix., The Esse:2es). For a compendium of the abundant literature on those questions, see Gieseler, Eccl. Hist., sec. 34. The chief treatises are, Daubuz, Pro testimonio Fl. 7os. a'e yesu Christ, Loud. 1706 ; reprinted in IIavercamp. Bohmert, fiber der F4 Yos. Zeugniss von Christ°, Leipz. 1823 ; Le Moyne, Var. Sacr. 931; Heinichen, Excurs. i. ad Euseb, H. E. vol. iii. p. 331.
The works of Josephus are—I. De Bello yu dale°, or r Ept ead•crecus, in seven books, translated by himself from the Syro-Chaldee. 2. 'Iouoaan 'ApxatoXo-yfa, in twenty books (A. D. 95),'an apolo getic paraphrase of Scripture history for Gentiles. 3. The Autobiography, in seventy-six chapters. 4. Against Apion, a treatise of immense learning (Jer., ael Magn. Orat., Ep. 83) on the antiquity and nobility of the Jews. The Fourth of Maccabees (els Maricapatous Xlryos) is doubted, and the vept ros. is spurious. Other books which he contem plated writing (On Cod, On the Laws, On Ceistams, Antiq. xx. II. 2 ; Viii. TO ; iv. 8. 2, etc.) were either never written or have been lost. The best editions of Josephus are—Hudson's, 172o ; Haver camp's, 1726 ; Richter, 1827 ; Dindorf, 1845 ; Bekker, 1855. There are English translations by Whiston, Lodge, L'Estrange, and Traill.— F. W. F.