Скачать книгу
does not mention the year, as Eusebius does.
3 See the previous chapter.
4 Eusebius’ reckoning would make Christ’s birthday synchronize with the beginning of our Christian era, which is at least three years out of the way.
5 Luke iii. 2 compared with John xi. 49 and 51, and xviii. 13. Stroth remarks: “Had I not feared acting contrary to the duty of a translator, I should gladly, for the sake of Eusebius’ honor, have left out this entire chapter, which is full of historical inaccuracies and contradictions. Eusebius deduces from Josephus himself that the Procurator Gratus, whom Pilate succeeded, appointed Caiaphas high priest. Therefore Caiaphas became high priest before the twelfth year of Tiberius, for in that year Pilate became procurator. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Christ began his work when Caiaphas had already been high priest three years and according to the false account of our author he became high priest for the first time in the nineteenth year of Tiberius. The whole structure of this chapter, therefore, falls to the ground. It is almost inconceivable how so prudent a man could have committed so great a mistake of the same sort as that which he had denounced a little before in connection with the
Acts of Pilate.” The whole confusion is due to Eusebius’ mistaken interpretation of the Gospel account, which he gives in this sentence. It is now universally assumed that Annas is named by the evangelists as ex-high-priest, but Eusebius, not understanding this, supposed that a part of Christ’s ministry must have fallen during the active administration of Annas, a part during that of Caiaphas, and therefore his ministry must have run from the one to the other, embracing the intermediate administrations of Ishmael, Eleazer, and Simon, and covering less than four years. In order to make this out he interprets the “not long after” in connection with Ishmael as meaning “one year,” which is incorrect, as shown below in note 9. How Eusebius could have overlooked the plain fact that all this occurred under Valerius Gratus instead of Pilate, and therefore many years too early (when he himself states the fact), is almost incomprehensible. Absorbed in making out his interpretation, he must have thoughtlessly confounded the names of Gratus and Pilate while reading the account. He cannot have acted knowingly, with the intention to deceive, for he must have seen that anybody reading his account would discover the glaring discrepancy at once.
6 It is true that under the Roman governors the high priests were frequently changed (cf. above, chap. 6, note 19), but there was no regularly prescribed interval, and some continued in office for many years; for instance, Caiaphas was high priest for more than ten years, during the whole of Pilate’s administration, having been appointed by Valerius Gratus, Pilate’s predecessor, and his successor being appointed by the Proconsul Vitellius in 37 a.d. (
vid. Josephus,
Ant. XVIII. 2. 2 and 4. 3).
7 Josephus,
Ant. XVIII. 2.2.
8 This Valerius Gratus was made procurator by Tiberius, soon after his accession, and ruled about eleven years, when he was succeeded by Pilate in 26 a.d.
9 Ananus (or Annas) was appointed high priest by Quirinius, governor of Syria, in 6 or 7 a.d. (Josephus,
Ant. XVIII. 2. 1), and remained in office until a.d. 14 or 15, when he was deposed by Valerius Gratus (
ib. §2). This forms another instance, therefore, of a term of office more than one year in length. Annas is a familiar personage from his connection with the Gospel history; but the exact position which he occupied during Christ’s ministry is difficult to determine (cf. Wieseler’s
Chronology of the Life of Christ
). 10 Either this Ishmael must have held the office eight or ten years, or else Caiaphas that long before Pilate’s time, for otherwise Gratus’ period is not filled up. Josephus’ statement is indefinite in regard to Ishmael, and Eusebius is wrong in confining his term of office to one year.
11 According to Josephus,
Ant. XX. 9. 1, five of the sons of Annas became high priests.
12 This Simon is an otherwise unknown personage.
13 Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, is well known from his connection with the Gospel history.
14 See Matt. x. 1–4; Mark iii. 14–19; Luke vi. 13–16
15 See Luke x. 1
Chapter XI.—Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ.
Table of Contents
1. Not long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger Herod,1 as is stated in the Gospels.2 Josephus also records the same fact,3 making mention of Herodias4 by name, and stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the daughter of Aretas,5 king of Petra, and separating Herodias from her husband while he was still alive.
2. It was on her account also that he slew John, and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of the latter. Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to battle, Herod’s entire army was destroyed,6 and that he suffered this calamity on account of his crime against John.
3. The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of the same Herodias, and that he was driven into banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul.7
4. He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the following words:8 “It seemed to some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who most justly avenged John called the Baptist.
5. For Herod slew him, a good man and one who exhorted the Jews to come and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising righteousness toward each other and toward God; for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness.
6. And when others gathered about him (for they found much pleasure in listening to his words), Herod feared that his great influence might lead to some sedition, for they appeared ready to do whatever he might advise. He therefore considered it much better, before any new thing should be done under John’s influence, to anticipate it by slaying him, than to repent after revolution had come, and when he found himself in the midst of difficulties.9 On account of Herod’s suspicion John was sent in bonds to the above-mentioned citadel of Machæra,10 and there slain.”
7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words:11 “And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and
Скачать книгу
