4 ms·
The Testimonium Flavianum is clearly questionable, no one accepts it as genuine, though the question of whence it came is interesting and ultimately IMO slightl
by nemo 2y ago
The Testimonium Flavianum is clearly questionable, no one accepts it as genuine, though the question of whence it came is interesting and ultimately IMO slightly strengthens the historicist case, but since it's clearly not a reliable passage it's not worth dwelling on.
The only really significant question is the account of James. He dismisses it because he has to, so claiming it's a forgery is another attempt to dismiss evidence. He's not a real philologist, it's great that he managed to get a peer reviewed journal to accept his work, but it's still a crank conspiracy theory attempting to wave away evidence. If denying evidence to prop up a conspiracy theory is your thing, then Carrier is great, but in truth all his work is weak and a waste of any serious person's time and you'd be better off dropping the conspiracies and fringe scholars and learning about the evidence objectively. The truth is more interesting than Carrier's conspiracies once you learn it.
- azangru 2y ago> The only really significant question is the account of James. One passage. One. In a text, where the other passage is accepted to be forgery, and which comes to us as a copy by Christian scribes. And if it is specifically Carrier that you dismiss, take a look at Nicholas Allen's recent book that I referenced in my previous comment. Allen uses arguments that are independent from Carrier's and comes to a conclusion that is even more radical than his — while Carrier accepts the James passage on the whole and only suggests that the "who was called Christ" line started as a marginal note by a Christian peruser of the text, Allen argues that the whole James passage is a forgery. And he seems to be a modern mainstream scholar trained in philology and ancient and classical history.
- nemo 2y agoI haven't kept up, sounds dubious to me. You and Carrier are both far more invested in the conspiracy theory than the evidence, trying to discredit sources rather than actually read and understand them, more like a religious apologist than a scholar. It's a bad look.