Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 6:31 pmBut 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).