From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion,nz.soc.religion
Subject: Re: News: Persecution / Human Rights
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 22:26:40 GMT

On 5 Mar 1999 02:51:15 GMT, Chris Ho-Stuart
<> wrote:

>OK. I agree that there are better reasons for thinking it didn't
>happen than Josephus' silence on the matter. But the question you
>actually asked is "How do you decide that Josephus is a reliable
>witness and Matthew is not?"
>
>So: with respect to Matthew's description of Herod's deeds and
>Josephus' description of Herod's deeds, who do _you_ think is
>more reliable?

You are inviting me to move from the specific to the general
here. 

In reference to the specific question of the slaughter of the
innocents:

Matthew recounts the story.
Josephus does not recount the story, but presents Herod's
character in such a way that the slaughter of the innocents would
be quite consistent with his other actions.
My judgement would be that the fact that Josephus does not
recount this specific story is not evidence that it did not
happen. I guess that makes Matthew the more reliable witness,
because the Josephus argument is from silence.

In general, however, Josephus the historian is more likely to be
historically accurate than Matthew the evangelist. In fact,
AFAIK, where they do mention the same incidents and people (eg
John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, the early Christian
movement) they do agree.

>Quibble: the word "witness" -- which you introduced into this
>discussion -- is not really appropriate for either writer. I've
>phrased my question accordingly.

?
In common usage, a witness is someone we consult to find out what
happened.
Etymologically, a witness is someone who gives an account of
themselves or an event.

I would have thought that the word was entirely appropriate for
both Josephus and Matthew in the context of this discussion.

Cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell