Dartmistress wrote:
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 I would like to know what is written in all the unpublished manuscripts that have been squirreled away by the vatican.
Well, we obviously can't study the books which are missing or hidden away, but there are ways to demonstrate forgery.

As you also point to, neither Jesus or one of his followers wrote anything down during the lifetime of Jesus, which some would see as evidence that he may not have existed. Even if he did exist (I do not deny the possibility) with the texts being written decades after he died, we could only be left with a fictionalization of the man. Word of mouth has not exactly shown to be an entirely objective or precise method of passing on history. In the Bible, there are no details about the life of Jesus from when he was 12 to when he was thirty years of age. There are varying interpretations as tp why that is, but this is why I tend to think of Jesus as the fictionalization of two individuals, one being a child and the other being the adult Jesus.

As to the apocryphal books which the Vatican keeps hidden, well, one has to wonder why they hide them.


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.
Using the Bible to 'prove' the existence of Jesus, to me, would be on par with using Flemming's novels to demonstrate that James Bond factually existed. I'm sure an equally credible case could made to this effect, in theory, but the Bond novels were published when most people were literate and mass publication had begun as books no longer had to be transcribed by hand, and they were written relatively recently, so everyone understands that they are fiction. For all we know, the Bible could be an equally ficticious work.

I'm not sure anyone can tarnish his reputation by working from the premise that Jesus actually lived. That is what a vast majority of people already believe. Personally? I don't think we'll ever really know.


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.

Jesus was a fairly common name at the time. The question is - Does Josephus refer to Jesus the Christ? There is more than one Jesus documented in the manuscripts of Josephus, so it would make sense that such references may very well contradict the Bible.

Why would Eusabius not write in the style of Josephus? Perhaps he simply could not, and at that time, how many would have been able to tell? Only those who could read and cared to analyze such things, and there weren't that many.

This reminds me that many are convinced that Jesus Christ is a prophet in the Islam, and that he is the Prophet Isa in th Qu'ran. That conclusion can also be challenged. For one, the Prophet Isa was never crucified.

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.


I'm sure it is an interesting read.