it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies
with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But
Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (i., II), is the first who quotes
it, and our reliance on the judgment or even the honesty of this writer
is not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in his
works as undoubtedly genuine" ("Christian Records," by Rev. Dr. Giles,
p. 30. Ed. 1854).

On the other side the student should consult Hartwell Horne's
"Introduction." Ed. 1825, vol. i., p. 307-11. Renan observes that the
passage--in the authenticity of which he believes--is "in the style of
Josephus," but adds that "it has been retouched by a Christian hand."
The two statements seem scarcely consistent, as such "retouching" would
surely alter "the style" ("Vie de Jésus," Introduction, p. 10. Ed.
1863).

Paley argues that when the multitude of Christians living in the time of
Josephus is considered, it cannot "be believed that the religion, and
the transaction upon which it was founded, were too obscure to engage
the attention of Josephus, or to obtain a place in his history" ("Evid.
of Christianity," p. 73. Ed. 1845). We answer, it is plain, from the
fact that Josephus entirely ignores both, that the pretended story of
Jesus was not widely known among his contemporaries, and that the early
spread of Christianity is much exaggerated. But says Paley: "Be,
however, the fact, or the cause of the omission in Josephus, what it
may, no other or different history on the subject has been given by him
or is pretended to have been given" (Ibid, pp. 73, 74). Our contention
being that the supposed occurrences never took place at all, no history
of them is to be looked for in the pages of a writer who was relating