|
|
Introductory Essay to the Works of
Josephus
By the
Rev. Henry Stebbing, D.D.
1842
"The fulfilment of our
Lord’s prophecy respecting Jerusalem.. is portrayed in the pages of Josephus with terrible exactness. We
may, perhaps, without presumption ascribe the existence of his works to
Divine Providence; for there are few persons who have read his narrative
that have not felt themselves more deeply impressed than ever with the
solemn truths of Scripture, and the tremendous certainty of the Divine
judgments."
Valuable as are the remains of classical antiquity, the Works of Josephus
may be placed, at least, on a level with the most esteemed monuments of
ancient learning.
While the historians of Greece and Rome inform us of
events connected with perishable states and polities, the annals of the
Jewish people enable us to trace the progress of dispensations, the
importance and stability of which, instead of diminishing, are perpetually
on the increase.
The writings of Josephus may be classed under the two heads of historical
and controversial; the former comprehending the Antiquities, and the Wars
of the Jews; and the latter, his treatise against Apion, and some essays of
minor character. His earliest production was the history or the memorable
and terrific war which ended in the downfall of his nation. This work seems
to have been commenced with no higher view than that of giving a general
and popular account of the scenes in which he had been engaged. It was,
therefore, originally written in Syro-chaldaic, or in the common language of
the Jews inhabiting Palestine. When Josephus arrived at Tome, he found
numerous accounts of the war in circulation. Some of these narratives were
by persons who had but limited means of learning the truth. Others were
the production of men who wrote in a spirit of bitter prejudice. Even
among those who had some portion of the ability and in formation
necessary to such an undertaking, none, perhaps, could be found so
thoroughly well prepared for the undertaking as Josephus. Greatly to the
benefit of posterity, therefore, he employed his first days of repose in the
preparation of his work for a more extended circulation. The Greek
language was, at that time understood by most persons of even an
ordinary degree of intelligence. It was read and spoken commonly among a
large portion of his own people. The Septuagint translation of the Bible
had rendered it venerable in their eyes, and must have obliged the priestly
order, to which Josephus belonged, to cultivate it with more than ordinary
diligence. In this popular and elegant language, therefore, he put forth his
work, and the admiration with which it was received confirmed, at once,
the opinion of his genius and merit entertained by the greatest men of his
time. His qualifications were the better estimated from the candour which
circumstances, as well as nature, taught him to cultivate. Faithful to the
duties of patriotism, he was yet sufficiently awake to the vices, to the
folly and obstinacy, of his countrymen. This enabled him to view and
speak of things with a liberal mind. He manifested a tender regret for the
fall of his nation, well calculated to conciliate the affections of the
people
whose sufferings he shared; but he had too much gratitude not to refrain
from violating the dignity of those by whom they had been conquered, for
he was in the daily habit of experiencing their bounty and their tolerance.
The real defects of his work, moreover, were not such as could be readily
detected by popular readers. They consisted chiefly of errors in the early
part of the narrative, and were confined to a period of Jewish history, the
interest of which would be greatly diminished by the awful grandeur of
that which described the fall of the commonwealth.
The second great work of Josephus occupies the first place in the modern
editions of his writings, but was not composed till about eighteen years
after the History of the Jewish Wars. This interesting production of his
matured mind was undertaken with the desire of giving to the world a
narrative which might remove the prejudices entertained against his nation.
He was evidently ambitious of imitating the celebrate classical historians,
and of relating the events, so dear to the memory of his people, in a style
which might render the subject acceptable to the learned and accomplished
of all nations. This feeling was natural, and in many respects laudable. But
it exposed him to dangers peculiar to the matters of which he had to treat.
There was one grand and authoritative source of information. It bore the
seal of Divine inspiration, and had been received, from generation to
generation, as the sublime record of God’s dealings with his people. To
this primary fountain of information an honest historian must necessarily
have turned with profound reverence. From this he must have felt it his
duty to draw the most important parts of his narrative; nor could he regard
it as allowable, we should have supposed, to place any other source of
intelligence in competition with one so superior to the ordinary
foundations of historical truth.
But Josephus had designed his work for the use of Gentile readers. He was
anxious to inspire them with respect for a faith hitherto despised. In order
to effect this, he deemed it necessary to modify certain parts of his
narrative, lest the naked facts might strengthen, rather than allay, the
prejudices which it was his object to overcome. Such, at least, is one of
the
supposed reasons of those discrepancies which exist between the history
of Josephus and that of Scripture. That he was justified in even the
minutest departure from the plain statements of the Bible, few believers in
revelation would venture to assert. But he has had many apologist; and it
has been suggested that, in his time, there were other sacred books
existing,
besides those received into the canon of Scripture, and which, though not
of equal authority, were not withstanding held in great reverence by the
Jewish people. It is also observed, that the Rabbinical traditions were
regarded, at this period, as of indisputable weight; and, still further,
that it
is not known whether he took as his authority the original text of the
Hebrew Bible, or a version, or paraphrase.
These suggestions are worthy of attention, but they do not completely
exonerate the historian from the charge of having either weakly yielded too
much to the desire of conciliating his readers, or made a bad estimate of
the
value of the materials before him. It has been thought by some that he
might frequently write from mere memory. This could only be excused on
the supposition that he could not, at times, get access to the necessary
documents, a notion which seems plainly contradicted by the fact, that he
was the keeper of the sacred books, the possession of which must have
enabled him readily to correct any error admitted into the first impression
of his work.
It would be difficult, indeed, to advance an argument sufficiently strong to
clear him from the charge of not having given that constant attention to the
simple narrative of the Bible, which might have prevented those
discrepancies, and therefore errors, to be found in his Antiquities. But
while it must be acknowledged that his apologists have scarcely succeeded
in their plea, it is almost equally clear that he has been criticised by
others
with to great strictness and asperity. “Baronius,” says Casaubon, “never
omits any opportunity of abusing Josephus. But if all his errors, I do not
speak of those in which he departs from Scripture, and for which he
cannot be excused, were put together, they would scarcely amount to a
hundredth part of hose admitted by Eusebius alone, either into his
Chronicle, or other portions of his works.” [Fabricii Bibliotheca Graca, Art.
Jos.] Whatever construction, however, nay be put upon the fact, that the
uninspired writer is wanting in a close adherence to the Bible narrative,
there is this valuable lesson to be drawn from such discrepancies, Scripture
remains alone, in its separate and sublime authority. A part from, and
infinitely exalted above, all other sources of information, the very pride
and imperfections of those who would imitate or rival it, serve but the
more to prove its Divine excellence. But for the variations in Josephus, he
might imperceptibly have been set up as equal to writers chosen by God
to describe his ways and doings. The Antiquities would have become a
substitute for the Bible; and some men would probably have rejoiced to
exchange the plain and succinct account, the exquisite beauty of which is
only completely visible to spiritual understandings, for the classical and
brightly-coloured style of the mere historian. It is, perhaps, in the simple
circumstance, that he aimed only at being an historian, that he sought to
mitate models framed in a spirit, and fitted for materials, wholly different
to those peculiar to his subject, that we may most readily find the cause of
the errors with which his work may be fairly charged. He paraphrased and
adorned the general statement of facts, not with the desire of falsifying,
but by yielding to his literary tastes, and to those of the people for whom
he wrote. The temptation under which a writer labours, when detailing
sublime and mysterious occurrences, and which, though convinced of their
truth himself, he trembles lest others may doubt is of no ordinary kind. He
fears lest the mode of his relating the facts should be wanting in
earnestness and dignity. They have appeared to him bright and noble
under the shining light of his own imagination; and he easily yields to the
flattering suggestion, that by its use he may make the record, in this its
somewhat modified structure, more acceptable than it was likely to be in
its simpler form.
So far was Josephus from being regarded by ancient Christian writers as a wilful offender against the veracity of history, that he is commonly
honoured in their treatises with the name of Philalethes, or, the lover of
truth. [Fabricii Bibliotheca Graeca, Art. Jos. Eusebius, the ecclesiastical
historian, speaks of him as worthy of all credit, lib. iii. C. 9. Sozomen
names him as equally celebrated among the Romans and the Jews Hist.
Eccles. Lib. i. c. l. And Evagrius speaks of his history as copious, and
highly valuable, lib. v. c. 24] That he was not ignorant of the importance
of
fidelity, as the first characteristic of a good historian, is evident from
his
own remarks. Speaking, in his life, of one who had violated the truth, he
says, “I have a mind to say a few things to Justus, who hath himself
written a history concerning these affairs; as also to others who profess to
write history, but have little regard to truth, and are not afraid, either
out
of ill-will or good-will to some persons, to relate falsehoods. These men do
like those who compose forged deeds and conveyances, and because they
are not brought to the like punishment with them, care not for the truth.”
At the conclusion of the eleventh chapter of the tenth book of the
Antiquities, he says, “Now as to myself, I have so described these matters
as I have found them and read them. But if any one is inclined to another
opinion about them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any
blame from me.” But the personal character of a writer must not be
passed over in the estimate taken of the honesty of his narrative. In this
respect Josephus may claim honourable attention. The predominant
sentiment of his writings is veneration for God and his providence, nor
does he omit any opportunity of showing the value of integrity, or the
supreme beauty of holiness. His faults may, therefore, fairly be ascribed to
somewhat of timidity on the one side, and of literary vanity on the other.
Most of the errors with which he has been charged are clearly referable to
these sources. Of the others, which cannot be so accounted for, there are
some that appear to have originated in the different opinions which
prevailed among the Jews of his time, and threw no small obscurity over
portions of the Scripture narrative; while the remainder, whether
omissions or statements plainly opposed to the inspired history, must be
left without conjecture, and are better disposed of by the acknowledgment
that such discrepancies cannot be accounted for, unless by suppositions
which involve us in new difficulties.
It is somewhat curious that the two severest critics of Josephus should be
the Romanist historian Baronius, and the sceptic Bayle; the one little
attentive to the rules of historical evidence, and readily admitting into
his
11
work whatever the flood of common tradition cast up; the other anxious
only to discover differences in the language of those who acknowledged
the divinity of revelation, that he might, by attacking them separately,
destroy the treasure equally dear to both. The latter, in a pretended fit of
zeal, observes, “I have been long indignant against Josephus, and those
who spare him on this subject. A man who made open profession of
Judaism, the law of which was founded on the divinity of Scripture, dares
to recount things otherwise than he read of them in the book of Genesis.
He changes, he adds, he suppresses circumstances; in a work, he puts
himself in opposition to Moses in such a manner that one of them must be
a false historian.” This statement involves a gross injustice, and is as
illogical as it is unjust. Two writers may assuredly disagree in some
points, without exposing themselves to the sweeping charge of falsehood
as their general character. If disagreement in a few instances should oblige
us to consider, that of the writers so differing only one can be worthy of
credit, and that, consequently, the rest ought to be regarded as undeserving
of any attention, the number of historical references would soon be
diminished to such a degree, that the nest step would be the annihilation of
history altogether. The fact is, that wherever human inquiry begins, human
error will be introduced, in greater or less proportions. There will,
accordingly, be discrepancies in the statement of witnesses; but, except in
the points where they precisely differ, they may be in such general
harmony, that each may strengthen the cause of each, and neither the one
nor the other notwithstanding their occasional contradictions, merit the
charge of injustice or dishonesty. A very slight comparison of the most
esteemed historians will afford ample illustrations of this fact. The
experience gathered in the collection of evidence of any kind tends to the
same purpose, and plainly shows that several witnesses to a narrative may
differ in many minor points, yet be highly deserving of credit as to the
main and more important facts.
Such are the two great historical works of Josephus. They are followed by
his celebrated treatise on the Antiquities of the Jews, a production not
less
admired than his former volumes for elegance of style and copiousness of
learning. [Eusebius speaks of this work as worthy of great esteem, and as
containing answers to the calumnies of Apion, the grammarian, and others
who had endeavoured to cast doubts upon the origin of the Jews. Eccles.
12
Hist. lib. iii. c. 9.] Jerome speaks of it with astonishment, and declares
himself unable to tell how a Jew, confined as the learned of his nation were
to the study of their own books, should have become so extensively
acquainted with Grecian literature. The object of the work was to defend
the Jews against the scorn of Gentile Philosophers and infidels. Apion,
and others, had attempted to throw ridicule on their high pretensions to
antiquity. Their history, it was said, occupied no place in the records of
those great writers to whom the world looked for information. It was
almost unknown: while that of the Egyptians, Carthaginians, Greeks, and
others, filled the volumes of authors read and admired in every corner of
the earth. Josephus produced facts, as well as arguments, in confutation of
this species of attack. The nations, he contended, to whose writers the
appeal had been made against his own, were indebted for all their learning
to those more ancient countries with which the Jews had early intercourse.
They were known, moreover, to have been singularly inattentive to the
careful chronicling of events. This is abundantly proved by the contrary,
in regard to the Jews, there were but twenty-two books acknowledged by
the nation, and these had the seal of remote antiquity, and the authority of
works written by men in high public offices, and endowed with the richest
gifts of Divine wisdom. The whole argument is worked out in a masterly
and lucid style; nor could even the modern reader find a more powerful
statement in favour of the authenticity of the ancient Scriptures, or of the
great truths of Jewish history.
In the second part of the treatise, the writer enters upon the task of
answering those more general accusations against the Jews, which
contributed so greatly to render them objects of hatred among the proud
and ignorant Gentiles. Their laws and customs, the ordinary conduct of
their affairs, the most conspicuous features of their personal character,
had
all afforded topics of insulting comment. Josephus answers his assailants
with a keen and comprehensive view of the odious follies of which they
were themselves guilty, and then shows that the customs which had
provoked their scorn rested upon principles which merited the most
profound respect.
The writings of which we have given this brief account must have
exercised, in ancient times, no slight degree of influence on the minds of
inquiring men. This is sufficiently evidenced by the high position which
their author continued to hold, for many years, in the court of the most
accomplished of Roman emperors. [He was, says Sozomen, as highly
honoured, by the Romans as the Jews. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. i.] The style
again in which he writes shows not only his confidence in the importance
of the subjects handled, but his expectation of the most profitable results
from his labours. Rome, at the period when he wrote, was filled with men
deeply engaged in religious speculation. The spirit of the ancient times,
when war only furnished employment for active minds, was rapidly
departing, or submitting itself to the influence of a change destined to
present every principle of society under a new form. Superstition and
philosophy had joined hands. Hosts of theories, of creeds, and rites, from
the farthest corners of the earth, had begun to establish themselves in the
midst of cities and provinces celebrated for their refinement. It was no
longer beneath the dignity of the sternest man to inquire, if not openly,
yet
secretly, into the pretensions of these novel systems, and to try whether
they might not present some hitherto neglected means of warding off
approaching ills.
In such a state of the public mind, the common rumours afloat respecting
the religion of the Jews could scarcely fail to attract attention. However
despised the people, and despised especially they were at this period, so
ancient a faith, and one the fundamental doctrine of which was in
accordance with the most approved philosophers, must still have claimed
at least a share of the awakened curiosity. But as yet no work existed from
which information might be gained as to the real origin and institutions of
this remarkable nation. The notions commonly entertained respecting them
were derived from sources utterly undeserving of credit. Some portions of
the Scriptures had been brought before the notice of a few diligent
students; but they were altogether a sealed volume to the great mass of
those who might notwithstanding, have a very sincere desire to become
acquainted with Jewish antiquities. There were, moreover, floating
traditions which had no small weight with the mass of the people, and the
origin of which could easily be traced to Palestine, and the mysterious
oracles of its inhabitants. This would furnish still stronger motives for
inquiry into their real doctrines and history. That a mighty Deliverer, a
lofty Renovator of the human race, was to arise out of the East, had long
been a well-known report among heathen nations. The boastful claims of
the Jews, whose devotion and patriotism would never allow them to keep
silence on this point; the increasing importance of the Christians, speaking
a similar language, and referring their own hopes and triumphs to a Leader
sprung from this race; would yet further increase the curiosity of mankind
respecting the Jews, and render the want of some work of authority every
day more perceptibly understood.
Josephus had thus an open field for literary exertion. There was scarcely a
subject in that age better calculated to excite attention, or reward the
writer
for his labour. It is not, therefore, as an obscure author, known only to
his
own people, and owing his limited success to the accidental interest taken
in his work by Christians, that Josephus is to be viewed; but as a writer
highly esteemed and popular in his age through a vast portion of the
civilized world, and most probably, therefore, exercising considerable
influence on religious opinion. It is almost impossible for us in these days
to estimate the value or assign the rank of such a writer in times and
countries like those in which he lived. Our Bibles make us intimate from
childhood with the sublimest passages of ancient lore, with the most
wonderful manifestations of Divine power and grace. We become familiar
with the possession of this wealth, and can scarcely persuade ourselves to
think of periods when the smallest portion of such spiritual treasures
would have been viewed as a benefaction of marvellous worth. The
information supplied by Josephus is now, as far as his Antiquities are
concerned, already given to the most unlearned from the first and purest
source of sacred erudition; but when no such means of instruction were
open, and men had been left for ages in the dark perplexities of heathen
fable, the publication of a work like his on the origin of the only
religious
system that could secure the admiration of thoughtful Men, must have
tended materially to stimulate, while it in part satisfied, the new desire
of
intelligence.
The tone in which such of the early Christian writers as speak of Josephus
allude to his works, afford fair reason to conjecture that their circulation
had been found useful to the general cause of religion. It must indeed have
been difficult for a Gentile reader, of an active and honest mind, to have
studied his pages, and not felt disposed to inquire for the sequel of the
history. The Jew had his fatal prejudices to combat, his present, literal,
earthly patriotism, pointing to the soil where his beloved city lately
stood,
and bounding even the farthest future with visions of its recovered glory.
The Gentile, on the other hand, as he read Josephus, was free to inquire,
whether the sublime plans of Jehovah might not contemplate an end
commensurate with the happiness of universal man. His ignorance of
conventional interpretations was an advantage to him; and learning from
the uninspired historian the simple facts connected with the mightiest
dispensations of Providence, he had new motives for searching the original
records, and for employing his best efforts in securing to himself a name
among the people of God.
But the writings of Josephus have not lost their use, notwithstanding the
vast advantages now enjoyed in the general circulation of the Bible. They
may still be read with profit by the careful inquirer. Little need be said
respecting that portion which refers to the period subsequent to the
destruction of Jerusalem. In regard to this, it is evidently of great
importance to possess the account given by a contemporary and credible
witness. The knowledge of what took place in an age succeeding that in the
events of which we are more particularly interested, is often powerfully
illustrative of the earlier epoch. Thus what Josephus tells us in the
narrative of the Wars throws no small degree of light upon the character of
his countrymen, not only of the period when he wrote, but of that also
when every mode of thought, every custom and passion, derived
unspeakable importance from its connexions, near or remote, with the
awful complication of influences that brought the Redeemer to the cross.
The mind of the people is exhibited in many parts of the history with a
terrible distinctness of delineation. Its most striking features at that
time
were evidently not impressed by any sudden convulsion. The lines which
an age of suffering and remorse had more deeply furrowed had been traced
long before by struggles of heart and spirit, by pride and fear, by
mysterious hopes and apprehensions, the fruit of those inwardly
understood warnings which, finally despised, left them to unutterable
misery.
The account which Josephus gives of the Jewish wars has,
therefore, a manifest use beyond that of merely satisfying our curiosity as
to facts. It opens the path to inquiries closely connected with the history
of our religion, and brings to light many of the secret causes which
operated most powerfully to the degradation and ruin of God’s ancient
people.
Nor has time diminished the interest attached to other parts of this
author’s writings. “The Antiquities,” though of little value as history,
when compared with the authoritative accounts of Scripture, is a work
eminently calculated to assist an inquiring mind in the general
investigation
of ancient mysteries. Traditional evidence, traditional interpretations, and
the new facts which may be supplied from the full storehouses of national
memory, will never be despised by those who know how often an obscure
point is cleared up when it is discovered what were the ruling sentiments
of the period when the narrative was written. While, therefore, it is
utterly
subversive of the authority of the Bible to place tradition upon the same
level, nor less inconsistent with sound reason to modify plain declarations,
clearly stated doctrines, according to the uncertain temper of human
wisdom, it is surely unwise to reject those helps for the confirmation or
illustration of sacred history which are known to be profitably used in the
study of records of every other species. Hence the value of Josephus. He
was intimately acquainted with whatever had been taught by the learned of
his nation. He had been familiarized in childhood to its superstitions. The
spirit of popular Judaism was the chief instructor of his later years; and
as
a man of education, he knew well through what revolutions and by what
various trials his countrymen had been proved, instructed, and warned of
God. Though from his pages, therefore, it is not often that we can add to
our stock of positive knowledge, we may in many cases trace by their help
the progress of error, discover its origin, and estimate the relative force
of
those deplorable corruptions whereby it became at last so indissolubly
bound up with the national constitution.
However cautiously, moreover, we receive information from sources not
of the highest authority, where our doing so may modify our notions in
respect to the surer communications, it would be unreasonable to reject the
knowledge which, not coming within the intention of a divine witness to
render, may have been fairly the subject of interest to a human observer. It
is evident that there must have been numberless very curious
circumstances perpetually occurring in the period alluded to, but which
were not essential to the completeness of that succinct narrative of God’s
proceedings which the Bible gives. From these the uninspired historian
might readily gather an abundant store of remarkable incidents, and such as
would confer no slight value on his work in those distant ages when it
would be impossible to recover, through other means, any fragment of the
past.
We cannot now tell whether Josephus employed to the best purpose the
advantages which his position afforded. It is fair to presume that his good
sense and ability led him to such an examination of evidence as prevented
the introduction of any thing into his narrative which had not the best
support that tradition could bestow. If in any case, therefore, we can
consult an ancient historian with respect and confidence, Josephus will be
read as a valuable guide to a most important branch of knowledge.
Separating him from the inspired writers by that impassable barrier which
a true reverence for Scripture will infallibly create, we may yet refresh
ourselves with his vivid descriptions, his often eloquent harangues, and his
not unfrequent detail of affecting incidents, which almost make us feel and
hear the strong pulsations of Israel’s proud and breaking heart.
The Memoir of this eminent writer, as given by himself, leaves us nothing
to desire in respect to his biography, but some authentic account of his
latter days. There is only a very vague tradition that he died in the reign
of Domitian, and shared the fate of his beloved friend and patron
Epaphroditus. But of Epaphroditus himself too little is known to give any
certainty to this report. It is possible, therefore, that Josephus was
allowed to spend the close of his life in some safe retreat, and in the
enjoyment of that ample provision for his wants supplied him by the
liberality of his earlier patrons.
Josephus, we have already seen, was esteemed in the first ages of
Christianity as an author deserving a high degree of respect for research
and integrity. Pious and learned men of later ages have continued to view
him in the same light. The care bestowed upon numerous editions of his
works in the original Greek proves that they have been deemed worthy of
the attention of the most erudite of modern scholars. Some passages in his
writings have engaged the attention of several acute critics, especially
that
in which he distinctly refers to the actions and character of Jesus Christ.
The controversy thence excited is one of more than ordinary interest, but,
like many others of a similar character, it is so intimately connected with
questions of history and opinion, that few persons are competent to form
a judgment of the relative worth of the arguments employed.
The works of Josephus were early translated into English. Thomas Lodge,
who combined in himself the several characters of poet and physician, was
the firs who attempted the task. His version was published about the year
1602, and another in the year 1609 and 1620. He died of the plague in
1625, and appears to have enjoyed among his contemporaries some
reputation both for talent and learning. His translation, however, did not,
it
appears, satisfy the next generation, as at the beginning of the following
century Sir Roger L’Estrange, a name better known by it connexion with
that of Seneca, published a new translation, which obtained sufficient
favour to secure the circulation of five editions in less than forty years.
The first of these was published at Oxford in 1700, and the second at
London in 1702. The last edition of this version appeared in 1733; but was
followed in the space of four years by the first edition of Whiston’s
translation, a work which speedily set aside the former versions, and
obtained for its author not only the approbation of mere general readers,
but the praise of the learned as well on the continent as in England.
That this translation is free from errors, or the best which could be made,
few competent judges will venture to affirm. But it would be an equal
violation of fair criticism to deny that it has great merits, or that it is
equal,
on the whole, to any of the translations from ancient authors which are
most popular among us. It has been well observed by an elegant and acute
scholar, that, whatever maybe the faults of Whiston, he has in most cases
caught the tone and feeling of his author, and that the want of this merit
would be but badly atoned for by a much superior degree of grace and
smoothness.
Readily allowing, however, that an improvement might be made in some
parts of Whiston’s translation, he richly deserves the gratitude of the
English reader for having put him in possession of an author so valuable as
Josephus, and with so little loss as to the more important objects of such a
writer. Though his version Josephus has been made familiar to tens of
thousands, who would otherwise have remained ignorant of some of the
most awful and edifying portions of Jewish history. The fulfilment of our
Lord’s prophecy respecting Jerusalem, and of earlier predictions setting
forth the lamentable events which would attend the final apostacy of
Israel, is portrayed in the pages of Josephus with terrible exactness. We
may, perhaps, without presumption ascribe the existence of his works to
Divine Providence; for there are few persons who have read his narrative
that have not felt themselves more deeply impressed than ever with the
solemn truths of Scripture, and the tremendous certainty of the Divine
judgments.
What do YOU think ?
Send an email with your comments to
todd @ preteristarchive.com
Be sure to include the article name.
They will be posted shortly
upon receipt
|
