I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting
somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of
John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one
who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th
book of his _Antiquities of the Jews_, Josephus bears witness to John as
having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who
underwent the rite.[1194] Now this writer, although not believing in
Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem
and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that
the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling
the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says
nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the
truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the
death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),—the
Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished
for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he
regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of
their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as
because of his virtue and doctrine.[1195] If, then, he says that it was
on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to
overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason
to say that it happened on account [of the death] of Jesus Christ, of
whose divinity so many churches are witnesses, composed of those who
have been converted from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves
to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure?
Footnote 1194:
Cf. Joseph. _Antiq._ book xviii. c. x. sec. 2.
Footnote 1195:
Cf. Gal. i. 19.