no more doubt whether these writings were theirs, than there is concerning the acknowledged works of Josephus or Philo; that is, there would have been no doubt at all” ("Evidences,” pp. 105, 106).  There is a certain amount of truth in this argument.  We do—­openly, however, and not secretly—­doubt any and every book which is said to be a record of miracles, written by an eye-witness of them; the more important the contents of a book, the more keenly are its credentials scrutinised; the more extraordinary the story it contains, the more carefully are its evidences sifted.  In dealing with Josephus, we examine his authenticity before relying at all on his history; finding there is little doubt that the book was written by him, we value it as the account of an apparently careful writer.  When we come to passages like one in “Wars of the Jews,” bk. vi. ch. 5, sec. 3—­which tells us among the portents which forewarned the Jews of the fall of the temple:  “A heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple”—­we do not believe it, any more than we believe that the devils went into the swine.  If such fables, instead of forming excrescences here and there on the history of Josephus, which may be cut off without injury to the main record, were so interwoven with the history as to be part and parcel of it, so that no history would remain if they were all taken away, then we should reject Josephus as a teller of fables, and not a writer of history.  If it were urged that Josephus was an eye-witness, and recorded what he saw, then we should answer:  Either your history is not written by Josephus at all, but is falsely assigned to him in order to give it the credit of being written by a contemporary and an eye-witness; or else your Josephus is a charlatan, who pretended to have seen miracles in order to increase his prestige.  If this supposed history of Josephus were widely spread and exercised much influence over mankind, then its authenticity would be very carefully examined and every weak point in the evidences for it tested, just as the Gospels are to-day.  We may add, that it is absurd to parallel the Evangelists and Josephus, as though we knew of the one no more than we do of the others.  Josephus relates his own life, giving us an account of his family, his childhood, and his education; he then tells us of his travels, of all he did, and of the books he wrote, and the books themselves bear his own announcement of his authorship; for instance, we read:  “I, Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth an Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, am the author of this work” ("Wars of the Jews,” Preface, sec.  I).  To which of the Gospels is such an announcement prefixed? even in Luke, where the historian writes a preface, it is not said:  “I, Luke,” and anonymous writings must be of doubtful authenticity.  Which of the Evangelists has related