Roland

Was Josephus "lying" when he said that a cow gave birth to a lamb in the temple? And does such a statement call into question his reliability as a historian?

Vinnie

No. Unless he claims to have been an eyewitness.

We already know all this before we use Josephus. He was an ancient author. Ancient authors believed such a thing was possible. Some modern ones do too. But unless you have religious or apologetical reasons, we will usually disregard such stories in ancient literature as false//unbelievable.

Josphus also supplemented his materials, as did ancient authors especially with speeches. Josephus lied about always being a Pharisee, toned down//spun certain things given his audience and his works contains material without any real solid lines of transmission. Not to mention first century practices being attributed to Moses (as mentioned above).

We know all this. No onee blind trusts what Josephus says.

Vinnie

Toto

Bede/Alexis : I prefer to avoid the emotionally charged word, "lie" myself.

You demonstrate my point - that your reasoning was circular. Eusebius could not have condoned lying because you refuse to believe that he would have condoned lying. But is he not endorsing a form of Plato's "royal lie"?

All of which does not show that he actually wrote lies, which is where Ken Olson's work comes in.

Toto

By the way, Bede, moderation has tightened up a bit since you were last here. The new standards tend to disapprove of calling a fellow poster a liar. I'm glad that the subsequent discussion rose above that, and I encourage posters to continue in that vein.

You will notice from the thread referenced above that no one changed their opinion in the face of the evidence. I think you should assume that means that there is room for honest disagreement.

GakuseiDon

Toto, what is Ken Olson's work on this?

Layman

Mr. Olson theorizes that not only was the entire TF fabricated, but that he has discovered who the culprit was. And that culprit was none other than Eusebius himself. Olson has also stated that he suspects that Eusebius invented other sources, but he has so far failed to produce any evidence of that assertion. Of course, I also think he's failed to produce any credible evidence of his first assertion.

Paget, J. Carleton refuted Olson's assertions in, "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," Journal of Theological Studies, 52.2 (2001).

I wrote my own article responding to Mr. Olson's assertions, here:

http://www.geocities.com/christianca..._josephus.html

Peter Kirby

I would be really interested in hearing which passages--other than those on John the Baptist, Jesus, and his brother James--are contended to be inauthentic by anyone, including Ken Olson. What else might be interpolated?

(Or are we talking about stuff like the Abgarus correspondence?)

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Just to be clear, I have not heard that Olson contends Eusebius invented the JtB reference or the James reference. Perhaps he has, but I was unaware of it. And like I said above, I've only heard vague comments from Olson about other sources being completely invented by Eusebius.

Johann_Kaspar

There is nothing really convincing in the above link.
For instance:
At one time everybody was thinking that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, or that the Earth is flat, or that the continents were static, etc. Who are those scholars? xians? Most scholars still think that Yeshu is born from a virgin or is resurrected...

I am admiring the stupidity of that "argument". Of course an interpolator would surely keep its own style. :banghead:

From your article it is obvious that xians interpolated as much as they could this phrase: "he was called the messiah". One more argument for the interpolation in AJ 20.

To sum it all up: only one thing is sure: xians feeled completely free to edit the texts they had.

We have the JW testimony and it is overwhelming as far as the dishonesty of xians is concerned. Lie is a second nature for them.

GakuseiDon

Thanks Layman, that is interesting.