Tristan Scott

Great posts, Sojourner!

Actually I think the best evidence in Josephus for the existence of Jesus would be his referrence to James, the brother of Jesus in book 20 of Antiquities. IMO this would probably nort be an early Christian redaction as they were obviously trying to downplay James role anyway. James was clearly the most Jewish of the Jerusalem Christians after the crucifixion, dead set against Paul's desire to include gentiles in their church. Also just the fact that he was Jesus' brother was also problematic. There just doesn't seem to be a logical reason for them to have added this piece.

Also, I have often wondered why so many would be surprised that there would be no contemporary writings about Jesus.

1. Jesus' ministry took place during a short period, 1-3 years, in an area that was far from any cultural centers. Writing, and copying at the time was all done by hand and the materials needed were somewhat rare and expensive. Most of Jesus' followers were evidently poor.

2. What few contemporary writings there may have been were most likely not have been compatable with Early Church dogma, so would have been destroyed, or redacted.

However, it is possible that what is now known as Q was a book of sayings that was written while Jesus was still alive in Galilee.

Alexis Comnenus

I tried to check the providence of the Eusebius quote and came up with something quite interesting. The Eusebius saying lies are OK appears to be a bit of a myth. Has anyone seen this article:

<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/index.htm</a>

Regards

Alex

Toto

This article has been noted here before. It tries its best to rehabilitate Eusebius, claiming that the most common quote from Eusebius was actually a prejudiced misstatement from Gibbon. But it is still undeniable that Eusebius said:

The author of your article wants us to believe that Eusebius was only indicating that he would use normal editorial discretion. I think this is bending over backwards to give him every benefit of the doubt. There is other evidence in Eusebius' writings that he practiced a high level of spin doctoring, if not outright fraud Go back to my first post in this thread for quotes from Carrier on this matter (which have mysteriously reappeared in Sojourner's post without attribution ??)

edited for spelling

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Toto

Sojourner - I have been assuming that you are Lynn Winters, the author of the web pages you keep quoting from. Is there a way of communicating with you by email or private message? (You could change your profile to accept private messages.)

Alexis Comnenus

Toto, I found your post rather disturbing. The article shows that the Eusebius quote is a fake. Instead of ignoring this and still insinuating he was a forger, a freethinker given new evidence would admit she made a mistake and change their views. Richard Carrier's work is based on a false quotation so isn't of any value until he revises it (perhaps someone should tell him).

It seems there is no evidence that Eusebius forged anything. All ancient and modern historians select the material to use so as to make their point. The honest ones (like Eusebius) admit they are doing this. Eusebius was spinning but so what? Who isn't?

Your attitude reminds me of those nuts on the Turin Shroud thread weaving through all the evidence and somehow clinging onto their idea the cloth is not a fake despite the evidence against them.

Regards

Alex

Toto

Alexis - go back and read the quotes. Carrier has cited a completely different quote from the allegedly fake one, about which there is no dispute that I know of.

edited to say: I have emailed Richard Carrier on this matter.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Alexis Comnenus

Toto, I cannot agree with you. The Carrier quote is:

Now, that part in bold is a chapter and is not part of Eusebius's text. Remove that and you have a thoroughly inoccuous text that refers to figurative language not outright falsehood. The only reference to falsehood is in Plato not Eusebius himself who does not condone it but merely compares the use of figurative language. Consequently I think my point stands and we have no evidence that Eusebius thought forgery was OK.

Regards

Alex

(edited for formatting and distinguishing Plato from Eusebius)

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Alexis Comnenus ]</p>

Brian63

I'd just like to thank all that have contributed to this thread. It's been very informative!

Brian

Toto

I am not convinced with your attempt to distinguish lying from "figurative language". Eusebius quotes Plato's defense of lying with approval. I think you are trying to reinterpret this as figurative language, because we have all had the idea drummed into our heads that the obvious absurdities in the Bible (which would be lies if interpreted literally) are just "figurative". But Eusebius himself is listing this "figurative language" as an example of the sort of "lies" that Plato is talking about.

So perhaps Eusebius felt justified in inserting some "figurative" language into Josephus - pure speculation on my part, of course.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Eusebius announced that it was okay to forge documents. That would be too blatant. But it appears that he felt salvation was more important than literal accuracy. (Why else quote Plato, list some examples from the Bible to illustrate what Plato is talking about and which are not literally true, and say that some "need that approach"?)

I am not an expert on Eusebius. I hope that Richard Carrier, who does have some expertise in this area of history, will add some enlightenment.

Alexis Comnenus

Toto, I think you are reading this the wrong way. Let me explain. You say:

But in fact the only evidence we have of how Eusebius interpreted the Plato is his examples of God sleeping or being angry - that is using figurative language. We are therefore unable to say that he was approving of any other sort of 'falsehood'. Certainly, to say he was justifying inserting spurious passages is totally wrong on the evidence available. Yes, Eusebius selected material. Yes, he quoted from material we now know to be forgery, but he was no critical scholar and cannot be blamed for these mistakes without evidence.

I hope you regret this passage as it is simply a case of 'poisoning the well'. Anyone can see there is no relationship between the examples of figurative language Eusebius gives and inserting all too literal details into Josephus.

Actually they are saying he was an 'arch forger', started a 'lying for christ campaign' etc. all of which are totally unsupported by historical evidence. But even Mr Carrier insinuates in this direction in his article.

Neither am I an expert so I hope so too - although he'll need to admit his mistake of including a chapter heading in the body of the text before we can progress. Example number 4539 of why you should always check references...

Regards

Alex