Upon this Josephus stood in such a place where he might be heard, not by John only, but by many more, and then declared to them what Caesar had given him in charge, and this in the Hebrew language.
So he earnestly prayed them to spare their own city, and to prevent that fire which was just ready to seize upon the temple, and to offer their usual sacrifices to God therein.
At these words of his a great sadness and silence were observed among the people. But the tyrant himself cast many reproaches upon Josephus, with imprecations besides; and at last added this withal, that he did never fear the taking of the city, because it was God’s own city.
In answer to which Josephus said thus with a loud voice: “To be sure thou hast kept this city wonderfully pure for God’s sake; the temple also continues entirely unpolluted! Nor hast thou been guilty of all impiety against him for whose assistance thou hopest! He still receives his accustomed sacrifices!
“Vile wretch that thou art! if any one should deprive thee of thy daily food, thou wouldst esteem him to be an enemy to thee; but thou hopest to have that God for thy supporter in this war whom thou hast deprived of his everlasting worship;
“and thou imputest those sins to the Romans, who to this very time take care to have our laws observed, and almost compel these sacrifices to be still offered to God, which have by thy means been intermitted!
“Who is there that can avoid groans and lamentations at the amazing change that is made in this city? since very foreigners and enemies do now correct that impiety which thou hast occasioned; while thou, who art a Jew, and wast educated in our laws, art become a greater enemy to them than the others.” 176
Josephus is attempting at this point in the passage to twist Judaism against itself. He tries to convince “John,” the rebel leader, in a manner reminiscent of Jesus, of the wisdom of “repentance.” To do this he points out that Jechoniah, a former king of the Jews, surrendered to the Babylonians rather than risk having the temple destroyed, an act for which Jews will forever revere him. Notice also that Josephus is speaking directly to John, the rebel leader, who was the basis for the New Testament character, the Apostle John.
Josephus, in effect, is using the Jews’ own religious convictions to bring them to surrender, or, as Jesus would say, “to turn the other cheek.”
“But still, John, it is never dishonorable to repent, and amend what hath been done amiss, even at the last extremity. Thou hast an instance before thee in Jechoniah, the king of the Jews, if thou hast a mind to save the city,
“who, when the king of Babylon made war against him, did of his own accord go out of this city before it was taken, and did undergo a voluntary captivity with his family, that the sanctuary might not be delivered up to the enemy, and that he might not see the house of God set on fire;
“on which account he is celebrated among all the Jews, in their sacred memorials, and his memory is become immortal, and will be conveyed fresh down to our posterity through all ages.
“This, John, is an excellent example in such a time of danger, and I dare venture to promise that the Romans shall still forgive thee.
“And take notice that I, who make this exhortation to thee, am one of thine own nation; I, who am a Jew, do make this promise to thee. And it will become thee to consider who I am that give thee this counsel, and whence I am derived; for while I am alive I shall never be in such slavery, as to forego my own kindred, or forget the laws of our forefathers.
“Thou hast indignation at me again, and makest a clamor at me, and reproachest me; indeed I cannot deny but I am worthy of worse treatment than all this amounts to, because, in opposition to fate, I make this kind invitation to thee, and endeavor to force deliverance upon those whom God hath condemned.
“And who is there that does not know what the writings of the ancient prophets contain in them—and particularly that oracle which is just now going to be fulfilled upon this miserable city? For they foretold that this city should be then taken when somebody shall begin the slaughter of his own countrymen!
“And are not both the city and the entire temple now full of the dead bodies of your countrymen? It is God, therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions.”
Wars of the Jews, 6, 2, 103-110
Returning to my analysis of Josephus’ use of the Book of Daniel, I have included Whiston’s two footnotes to the passage above.
As the footnotes show, Whiston understood the relationship between Daniel’s prophecies and Josephus’ dating of the events of the Jewish war. A devout Christian, he accepted that Josephus was faithfully recording supernatural occurrences.
In the first footnote below, Whiston recognizes that the siege of Jerusalem began exactly “three years and a half” after Vespasian began the war. This time span shows that Daniel’s prophecy, “in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,” had come to pass. This was either, as Whiston believed, an example of Josephus’ witnessing of the supernatural or, as I prefer, an example of his deliberate falsification of history to create the impression that Daniel had envisioned the 70 C.E. destruction of Jerusalem.
This was a remarkable day indeed, the seventeenth of Paneruns [Tammuz], A.D. 70, when, according to Daniel’s prediction, six hundred and six years before, the Romans “in half a week caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” Daniel 9:27. For from the month of February, A.D. 66, about which time Vespasian entered on this war, to this very time, was just three years and a half.
Whiston’s second footnote is even more remarkable. In it Whiston comes to show the exact conclusion that Josephus intended. Since Whiston could not consider the possibility of a nonsupernatural explanation for what he read in Josephus, he concludes that God was aligned with the Romans, that the Jews were wicked, and that Jesus and Daniel shared the same prophetic vision.
Of this oracle … Josephus, both here and in many places elsewhere, speaks so, that it is most evident he was fully satisfied that God was on the Romans’ side, and made use of them now for the destruction of that wicked nation of the Jews; which was for certain the true state of this matter, as the prophet Daniel first, and our Savior himself afterwards, had clearly foretold.
If we accept what Josephus has recorded above as true, then the prophet foreseen by Daniel can only have been Jesus. Likewise, Jesus’ “doomsday” prophecies must have foreseen the 70 C.E. destruction of Jerusalem, because it is the only destruction of Jerusalem that Daniel’s prophet could have envisioned had he lived in the first century. Further cinching this knot of logic is the fact that it would have been impossible for Josephus to record this perfect manifestation of Daniel’s visions had it not, in fact, come to pass in the war with the Jews.
Josephus recorded history to demonstrate that Daniel’s prophecies came to pass in 70 C.E. Josephus goes overboard to make certain that his readers come to this conclusion. This was one of the primary reasons the first Christians believed in Jesus’ divinity. Somehow this knowledge has been lost and is no longer understood today, even by New Testament scholars.
Scholars have debated whether the Testimonium was written by Josephus or added by later Christian redactors. In Chapter 11, I presented an analysis of the Testimonium that demonstrates that it is not separate from the two tales that follow it. However, for Josephus to remain consistent in his placing of first-century events in the context of Daniel’s prophecies, he would have to place a “Messiah” at the point in history that these prophecies called for. Because Josephus claims that the “end of the daily sacrifice” foreseen by Daniel’s prophecies came to pass during the 70 C.E. destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, one needs only to work backward from 70 C.E. to determine if the positioning of the “Christ” in Antiquities is consistent with this date. This is exactly what early Christian scholars did, using the relevant dates in Josephus and the New Testament to demonstrate that Jesus had
fulfilled the prophecies of Daniel. The following example by Tertullian, written circa 200 C.E., represents a complete victory for Josephus. Tertullian has completely adopted Josephus’ perspective and arranged history to show that Daniel foresaw Jesus and the 70 C.E. destruction of Jerusalem.
Let us see, therefore, how the years are filled up until the advent of the Christ: —
For Darius reigned … viiii years (9).
Artaxerxes reigned … xl and i years (41).
Then King Ochus (who is also called Cyrus) reigned … xxiiii years (24).
Argus … one year.
Another Darius, who is also named Melas … xxi years (21).
Alexander the Macedonian, xii years (12).
Then, after Alexander, who had reigned over both Medes and Persians, whom he had reconquered, and had established his kingdom firmly in Alexandria, when withal he called that (city) by his own name; (10) [ten] after him reigned, (there, in Alexandria)
Soter … xxxv years (35).
To whom succeeds
Philadelphus, reigning xxx and viii years (38).
To him succeeds Euergetes, xxv years (25).
Then Philopator … xvii years (17).
After him Epiphanes … xxiiii years (24).
Then another Euergetes … xxviiii years (29).
Then another Soter … xxxviii years (38).
Ptolemy … xxxvii years (37).
Cleopatra … xx years v months (20 5/12).
Yet again Cleopatra reigned jointly with Augustus … xiii years (13.)
After Cleopatra, Augustus reigned other … xliii years (43).
For all the years of the empire of Augustus were lvi years (56).
Let us see, moreover, how in the forty-first year of the empire of Augustus, when he has been reigning for xx and viii years (28) after the death of Cleopatra, the Christ is born. (And the same Augustus survived, after Christ is born, xv years (15); and the remaining times of years to the day of the birth of Christ will bring us to the xl first year (41st), which is the xx and viiith (28th) of Augustus after the death of Cleopatra.
There are (then) made up cccxxx and vii years, v months (337 5/12): (whence are filled up lxii (62) hebdomads and an half: which make up ccccxxxvii years, vi months (437 6/12) ): on the day of the birth of Christ. And (then) “righteousness eternal” was manifested, and “an Holy One of holy ones was anointed”—that is, Christ—and “sealed was vision and prophet,” and “sins” were remitted, which, through faith in the name of Christ, are washed away
(1) for all who believe on Him. But what does he mean by saying that “vision and prophecy are sealed?” That all prophets ever announced of Him that He was to come and had to suffer. Therefore, since the prophecy was fulfilled through His advent, for that reason he said that “vision and prophecy were sealed;” inasmuch as He is the signet of all prophets, fulfilling all things which in days bygone they had announced of Him.
(2) For after the advent of Christ and His passion there is no longer “vision or prophet” to announce Him as to come. In short, if this is not so, let the Jews exhibit, subsequently to Christ, any volumes of prophets, visible miracles wrought by any angels, (such as those) which in bygone days the patriarchs saw until the advent of Christ, who is now come; since which event “sealed is vision and prophecy,” that is, confirmed. And justly does the evangelist
(3) write, “The law and the prophets (were) until John” the Baptist. For, on Christ’s being baptized, that is, on His sanctifying the waters in His own baptism,
(4) all the plenitude of bygone spiritual grace-gifts ceased in Christ, sealing as He did all vision and prophecies, which by His advent He fulfilled. Whence most firmly does he assert that His advent “seals visions and prophecy.”
Accordingly, showing, (as we have done) both the number of the years, and the time of the lx two (62) and an half fulfilled hebdomads, on completion of which, (we have shown) that Christ is come, that is, has been born, let us see what (mean) other “vii (7) and an half hebdomads,” which have been subdivided in the abscision of
(5) the former hebdomads; (let us see, namely,) in what event they have been fulfilled:—
For, after Augustus who survived after the birth of Christ, are made up … xv years (15)
To whom succeeded Tiberius Caesar, and held the empire … xx years, vii months, xxviii days (20 yrs., 7 mos., 28 days).
(In the fiftieth year of his empire Christ suffered, being about xxx (30) years of age when he suffered.)
Again Caius Caesar, also called Caligula … iii years, viii months, xiii days (3 yrs., 8 mos., 13 days).
Nero Caesar … xi years, ix months, xiii days (11 yrs., 9 mos., 13 days).
Galba … vii months,vi days. (7 mos., 6 days).
Otho … iii days (3).
Vitellius …viii mos., xxvii days (8 mos., 27 days).
Vespasian, in the first year of his empire, subdues the Jews in war; and there are made lii years, vi months (52 6/12). For he reigned xi years (6). And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the lxx (70) hebdomads predicted in Daniel.
While the above chronology is difficult to comprehend and historically implausible, it is only necessary to be aware that Tertullian and all early church fathers believed that Daniel’s prophecies had come to pass in 70 C.E. This belief came from their reading the sole historian of the era, Josephus, in conjunction with the New Testament.
Another, less tortured, explanation of Daniel’s connection to Christianity was given by Sulpcius Severus (353–429 C.E.) in his book Sacred History (403 C.E.):
But from the restoration of the temple to its destruction, which was completed by Titus under Vespasian, when Augustus was consul, there was a period of four hundred and eighty-three years. That was formerly predicted by Daniel, who announced that from the restoration of the temple to its overthrow there would elapse seventy and nine weeks. Now, from the date of the captivity of the Jews until the time of the restoration of the city, there were two hundred and sixty years.
The Wars of the Jews, therefore, is entirely structured, from its first paragraph to its last, to document that Daniel’s prophecies had come to pass within the first century. This indicates that Josephus was aware that the “son of God” foreseen by Daniel had appeared earlier in the century and been “cut off.” Once Josephus had begun the alignment between his history and Daniel’s prophecies, there could be no stopping until Jerusalem was destroyed.
Thus, Josephus was not mildly conscious of some unimportant religious mystic wandering about the Galilean countryside. Josephus was keenly aware that his work demonstrated that Daniel’s prophecies had come to pass and that Jesus was the Messiah which the prophecies had envisioned. Since this was obviously the case, why then did Josephus take so little notice of Jesus?
It made the forgery less obvious.
If one wishes to “create” a prophet, it is easy enough—simply invent one who existed in the past. Then fabricate a work in his name dated from the time that you claim he lived. In the book, describe the prophet predicting events that you know have already occurred. Inventing the prophet and his predictions is not the hard part. The hard part is not having the forgery discovered. In order for the New Testament/Josephus fabrication to be believable, the two works had to be seen as independent of one another. Therefore, Josephus focused on the events that Daniel had predicted and not on the “son of God” himself.
Josephus’ successful effort in overlaying Daniel on events in the first century, in a way, provides support for my theory. It does so by being such an obvious ruse. The “wickedness” of the Jews of the first century was their refusal to compromise Judaism and submit to Rome; they did exactly what the religion of Moses and Daniel required. Josephus’ use of the prophecies of Daniel to substantiate the events of the first century was, clearly, an effort to manipulate Judaism into alignment with Roman interests—exactly as was the case with the creation of Christianity.
If the Romans were the creators of Christian
ity and the works of Josephus, why did they portray their fictitious Messiah as the one foreseen by Daniel? Among the Dead Sea Scrolls are many relating to the Book of Daniel. They show that at least some of the Jews of that era were using the dating system within the Book of Daniel to try to determine when the Messiah would appear to lead them in their holy war against Rome.
The Romans understood that the messianic Jewish rebels interpreted passages from Daniel and others of their prophets in a way that justified their own militaristic theology. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were found numerous examples of this type of interpretation. Roman intellectuals, no doubt, analyzed these works and realized that it was just as possible to interpret the passages in order to create an entirely different, pro-Roman theology. Rome’s solution to these militaristic anti-Roman interpretations of the Book of Daniel was to create a literature that interpreted Daniel’s prophecies in a way acceptable to Rome—the New Testament and Wars of the Jews.
Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus:Flavian Signature Edition Page 37
