John T wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:15 pm
No. I have not read your 2013 paper, nor will I.
I suspected you were going to be deliberately obstructive, but I was so hoping I was wrong and you really were interested in the merits of the case.
*Sigh*
Let's just proceed with the understanding that I have a sufficient basic understanding of the subject.
You don't. And you are demonstrating an unwillingness to learn about it.
If you still don't know what that is, I recommend you actually watch the short videos that I linked.
I've watched both of these before. I am familiar with the arguments. And I've answered them before. It might save time if you just read the paper and blog post. But okay let's go through them here.
Besides, Richard Carrier says not to bother with opinions before 2014, which of course nullifies your paper. If that makes you upset take it up with him.
I was not aware you regarded Carrier as an authority. I don't, and I disagree with him on a lot of issues, like the birth and crucifixion of Jesus having taken place on another plane. I think Paul is saying that Jesus existed as a human being on earth. But Carrier is a very intelligent guy, well read on the subject, and worth reading on this issue and others.
You have misunderstood his point about 2013. What he meant was you should not appeal to the authority of scholars who wrote before they had a chance to read my 2013 paper (and Hopper's paper on discourse) because they make arguments of the form: 'a Christian would not say X' because I've looked at the cases and documented that, in fact a Christian would say X (Carrier 2:23).
So how about you make your best argument here today in 2022 and let's see where that goes? Surely, you can win the argument with both hands tied behind your back. I will cry uncle when you do. I promise.
Your record to date suggests that you do not actually want to argue the merits and, when answered on one issue, will divert to another.
But let's start with the video of Chris Forbes being interviewed by John Dickson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9J599VBEZI
0:57 - Forbes: No historian suggests that one [the James passage] is forged.
Several have (though I would say interpolated or glossed, not forged). Around 1900 it was commonly thought to be interpolated. Emil Schürer in his classic History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ thought so, and Albert Schweitzer in his Quest of the Historical Jesus also considered it unreliable. More recently, Josephan scholar Tessa Rajak considers it inauthentic in Josephus (2e 2002). And of course me, in my CBQ article, but I suspect you won't hold it against Forbes that he wasn't counting me. Chris Hansen on this forum has documented other scholars who reject the passage. This does not prove the passage is forged, but that Forbes' claim is mistaken.
1:37 - Forbes: some monk copying his manuscript in the medieval period somewhere
This could not have been added in the medieval period. The entire Testimonium is in three works of Eusebius in the early 4th century (we have Syriac MSS of two of them from the 5th). One could possibly suggest that Forbes has a peculiar understanding of when the medieval period is, except that he then specifies the 8th-9th centuries at 4:30.
2:10 - Forbes: "He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks' No early Christian is going to say that because Jesus of course didn't, but Josephus may have thought that.
I have documented that Eusebius did think that Jesus won over many Greeks (or Hellennes or Polytheists - the word has all those senses for Eusebius and other Christian writers) in the paper John T has refused to read. I have copied and pasted the pertinent excerpt below in the hopes that he will be willing to read it rather than refuse to look at the evidence. Forbes contention that Josephus may have thought Jesus won over Greeks is, of course, possible, but only speculation.
2:50 Dickson: Would Christians say that the people responsible for Jesus' death were men of highest standing? Forbes: Clearly, they wouldn't want to think that at all.
Why not? Men of the highest standing (more literally first men or principal men) refers to their social standing, not their moral character. In Acts 25.2-3 the chief priests and principal (same word as in the TF) men of the Jews inform against Paul and plan to kill him. Forbes' speculation is baseless.
4:30 The consensus is simply that there is a historical nucleus, but that it's been edited by a christian scribe somewhere in the 8th-9th century or possibly a little bit earlier.
(Time tracks may be off by a few seconds; they varied while I was writing this).
Yes, the majority think there's a Josephan nucleus (whether they have good reasons to think this is another matter). But no one familiar with the issue thinks it was interpolated in the 8th-9th century. The Testimonium existed in its current form in the time of Eusebius. (It is possible that the Testimonium was interpolated into Josephus Antiquities as late as the 6th century, when the Latin translation of Josephus was made, but that is certainly not what Forbes is arguing).
So in at least several cases, Forbes is wrong on the facts. In most cases, he's just repeating common opinions (but the medieval things is just weird).
Best,
Ken
PS The Eusebian Reading paper linked above is free online and about 16 pages (19 with title page and footnotes).
Jesus winning over Greeks/Hellenes/Gentiles/Ploytheists:
The statement that “he won over both many Jews and also many from the Gentiles,” has been one of the main points brought in support of the position that the text is partially authentic. A number of scholars contend that a Christian would not have said that Jesus won over many Jews and Gentiles because the gospels portray Jesus’ mission as being only to the Jews and that the mission to the Gentiles did not begin until after his death. [31] But here we have to acknowledge that what the gospels say to modern readers is not necessarily what they said to ancient interpreters. [32]
Eusebius introduces the Testimonium in the course of his defense of the witness of the disciples as given in the gospels. Following his citation of the Testimonium and brief mentions of Acts and the Jewish bishops of Jerusalem, he says:
Thus the whole slander against his disciples is destroyed, when by their evidence, and also apart from their evidence, it has to be confessed that many myriads of Jews and Gentiles were brought under His yoke by Jesus the Christ of God through the miracles that he performed.
Demonstration 3.5.109 (emphasis mine) [33]
Eusebius not only accepts the Testimonium’s claim that Jesus won over many Gentiles, but exaggerates the number—“many myriads”—and claims that this is the testimony of the evangelists as well. Nor is this the only context in which Eusebius claims that Jesus attracted Gentiles during his ministry. In Demonstration IV, 10, Eusebius lists among other deeds of Jesus during his incarnation: “He set all that came to Him free from age-long superstition and the fears of polytheistic error” (4.10.14). [34] He is presumably not referring to Jews. In Demonstration 8.2, Eusebius claims that “by teaching and miracles He revealed the powers of His Godhead to all equally whether Greeks or Jews” (8.2.109). [35] In the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius introduces the story of the conversion of King Abgar and the city of Edessa by saying: “The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ became famous among all men because of his wonder-working power, and led to him myriads even of those who in foreign lands were far remote from Judea, in the hope of healing from diseases and from all kinds of suffering” (1.13.1). [36] In Book VII, he also tells of a statue of Jesus in Caesarea Philippi erected to honor Jesus’ healing of the woman with a flow of blood. Eusebius comments: “And it is not at at all surprising that those Gentiles, who long ago received benefits from our Savior, should have made these things” (7.18.4). Whatever we may suppose as to whether Jesus attracted Gentiles during his ministry, we should allow that Eusebius thought he did. Further, Eusebius devotes the entirety of Book II of the Demonstration to answering the charge that the Christ was promised to the Jews. Eusebius argues, to the contrary, that the hope of the Christ was promised equally to the Jews and Gentiles and that the Christian church contains both Gentiles and the remnant of the Jews.
