But isn't that true of all the documents? Bits were added and bits - including whole books - were missed out, when The Bible as we know it today was compiled. The only parts which were used were the parts that fitted in with the belief system as the church authorities wanted it. What has always puzzled me is why either Jesus or one of his followers didn't write things down at the time. Could you remember second or third hand information, and would you pass it off as verbatum conversation? I would like to know what is written in all the unpublished manuscripts that have been squirreled away by the vatican.

You have picked on the work of Josephus, but this is only a small part of the man's research. Most of the book is based on the bible, with the references included. I find it difficult to believe that a man in Tabor's position, who had spent more than 25 years studying such texts, would jeopardize his reputation by basing his work on obvious untruths.

So, we look at Eustabius. Actually, there is quite a lot of information that refers to Jesus in the documents of Josephus. If Eustabius was a priest, working for the church, why would he include statements that contradicted what is accepted as truth in the bible? As an educated man, forging a document, surely he would copy the style of the original writer, not make it glaringly obvious by writing in his own style. It all sounds a bit suspicious to me.

Anyway, as I said earlier, it has made Jesus the man much more believable. If you can get a copy, I would recommend it as an interesting read.

Growing old gracefully is O.K. but growing old disgracefully is much more fun.