aa5874

So, now, not all of the members are atheists. Can I see the stats?

I think the population of the USA is far greater than the people who respond to polls.

aa5874

As I go through "Church History" by Eusebius, I see a pattern developing, where Eusebius quotes accepted credible authors but either adds or omits words to distort their actual writings in order to fabricate the early history of the Church.

This is Eusebius on the so-called brother of the Lord in "Church History" 2.23.19-20 But, this quote by Eusebius of Josephus cannot be found anywhere in all of Josephus extant writings. Josephus, however, gave another reason for the War and he never mentioned that the death of James or James the Just had anything to do with the War.

"Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 So, it is the coming of the Messiah or the prediction, as written by Daniel, that was a catalyst in the War and not any James, or James the Just. Even Suetonius and Tacitus make mention of this prediction believed by the Jews that should have occurred around 70 CE.

Again, we see Eusebius appearing to distort the writings of Josephus to fabricate a history of the early Church which appears to be fictitious.

Ben C Smith

Correct.

But Eusebius did not make those words up himself. He found them, verbatim or very nearly so, in another author who had already attributed them to Josephus. For 10 points, can you tell us who that author was?

Ben.

aa5874

I already told you to keep on reading my posts and you'll find out what I know.

I'll give you 100 points just for asking me that question.

Ben C Smith

Boldly assuming that these 28 words constitute a no (which would have saved you time to type ), here is the author from whom Eusebius got this (apparently incorrect) information about Josephus. Origen, Against Celsus 1.47:

[Josephus says that] these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just.

Compare Eusebius, History of the Church 3.23.20:

[Josephus says:] These things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since the Jews killed him who was most just.

I have underlined the only substantial difference between these two passages; there is also one difference of a nonsubstantial nature, namely that Origen has these words in indirect difference whereas Eusebius has them in direct discourse.

Ben.

aa5874

This is Eusebius in "Church History" 2.23.20 Now, Eusebius clearly did not say he got the passage from Origen. If the passage shows up in Origen, there are more than one option.

For another 100 points, name all the possible options.

Ben C Smith

Agreed. He did not tell us this.

Please sort them out for yourself. I just wanted to get the Origenic text on the record for those who actually care about tracing the evidence.

Thanks.

Ben.

aa5874

Whether or not a person assumes Eusebius copied the passage about "James" from Origen, we still have the serious consistent pattern where Eusebius makes erroneous claims about the contents, not only of Josephus, but also of Philo, which I have pointed out previously.

It is a fact that the passage as recorded by Eusebius in "Church History" 2.23.20 does not appear anywhere in any extant writing of Josephus whatsoever.

And this fact introduces other serious and overlooked scenarios or questions.

Was there a rigged "special" copy of Josephus' writings only in the hands of Eusebius and/or Origen?

Did anyone really read "Church History" 2.23.20 or "Against Celsus" 1.47 and noticed that the passages, as mentioned previously, were not in the writings of Josephus?

How could all these blatant errors be in 'Church History' until today, when these errors could have been easily corrected, hundreds of years ago, by simply reading the writings of Philo or Josephus?

The history of the early Church is extremely dubious.

Amaleq13

Is it accurate to call it an error, let alone "blatant", if it was only a paraphrase of Josephus rather than a direct quote?

aa5874

Well, are you going to answer your question? I call them blatant errors. What do you call them?

And whatever you call them, does not eliminate or prevent me from stating my position.

In fact, based on my reading of "Church History", I consider Eusebius to be a blatant liar.