I should have commented upon it long ago. He gives two major arguments for reaching that position. One is that the text of the Testimonium is so relatively short compared to what could be expected if Josephus really would have written about Jesus. I have seen Carrier suggest this previously, but have never been convinced by it due to one specific circumstance.
I have counted the words or I guess the letters of all the twenty books of the Antiquities of the Jewsand found that they deviated rather much in length. Book 18 is surpassed in length by very much more than the length of the Testimonium in Bevisen mot armstrong racker inte number of books. The other argument on the other hand, is much stronger. Carrier correctly, in my opinion, argues the following: This means that if the Testimonium is genuine, if so only to a portion, Josephus must allude to the Testimonium when he directly after the Testimonium writes that another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.
This he argues is an interpolation which came to be included accidentally. When text by mistake was left out in the copying process, later proofreader would add the missing text either between the lines or in the margin. This text would then be inserted in the next copy of that copy. But scribes also included other text in the margins and between lines — sort of footnotes and the like. E, Origen established a Christian library in Caesarea, which was passed to Pamphilus and then to Eusebius.
Eusebius was thus in all likelihood using the very same manuscripts of Josephus that Origen had been using, or else copies thereof. I am pleased to see that Carrier argues in the same way as I do regarding the small deviations of the Bevisen mot armstrong racker inteespecially in the translations: Carrier does accordingly not think that Eusebius invented the Testimonium himself. Although I would not bet on it, someone must have written the Testimonium if it was inserted into AJand Eusebius is then an obvious candidate.
He gives five reasons for assuming this by me enumerated as a—e. I agree on all five issues, although point b seems a bit weaker than the rest. But they primarily differ in Origen linking James to the fall of Jerusalem, calling him Just and having the Jews wishing to have him killed Still the wording is identical.
Instead it is more likely that Josefus was referring to another Jesus, the one who became high priest after Ananus in 62 C. As the names Hegesippus and Josephus often were confused and Origen obviously refers to the same things as Bevisen mot armstrong racker inte by Hegesippus, Christian conceptions not shared by Josephus, the obvious interpretation, according to Carrier, is that Origen mistook a work by Hegesippus for being written by Josephus.
To summarize, this Bevisen mot armstrong racker inte what Carrier suggests. Although Origen says that Josephus wrote this, Origen nevertheless got it from Hegesippus, from whom he paraphrases it, not quotes it. He also includes a passage from Matt 1. Origen searches Josephus in order to find where Josephus had written this, but does not manage to find the passage.
He only finds the story of the stoning of one James in AJ Perhaps he made a note there: If Origen did not make such a note, then someone else later on made it, adapting to the phrase Origen previously used. Eusebius used the same library as Origen less than a century later, and probably had a copy of AJ which was made from the very manuscript used by Origen. Eusebius, apart from this, also quoted the passage given by Origen as if it had been written by Josephus.
But since he only got it from Origen, neither he could say where Josephus had written this.
As AJ later was copied, it was the expanded version used by Eusebius that became the standard version from which all later copies were made. Most of this has already been dealt with at length, also by me. Also this is known facts, but Carrier has refined and isolated the train of thought, even leaving out many alternative scenarios as being less likely.
It is for sure a convincing line of argument that Carrier presents, still there are a number of other possibilities which — at least combined — seem to be as likely. The least likely scenario though is that Josephus would have written it. Josefus identifierar ju Jesus som den som folk kallade kristus. Det vore helt ologiskt. En liten kritisk sammanfattning: Denna passage handlade om en Jakob som var bror till Jesus Ben Damneus.
Nej, inte helt riktigt. Cestius Gallus, the governor of Syria, is mentioned first in V 23 but his title does not appear until V V 49 and record only the name, V and add the title. The village of Dabaritta is mentioned in V but Josephus does not explain its location until V Jesus ben Sapphia is introduced in V as if he were a new character although he appeared at least once before V Bevisen mot armstrong racker inte meet Ananias, a member of the delegation, in Vbut Josephus describes him in V as if for the first time.
Elsewhere, too, Josephus employs this same non-technique. The monuments of Helena are mentioned in BJ 5. John of Gischala appears first in BJ "Bevisen mot armstrong racker inte." Antioch is described in BJ 3. Judas the Galilean, the son of Ezekias, is introduced twice BJ 2. Antipater the father of Herod is described as if a new character in BJ 1.
Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: Men allt det har han ju redan sagt. Roger kanske vet mer? Kristus dog, begravdes och uppstod. I hope… best regards. Vilka var de andra? Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress. Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Meddela mig om vidare kommentarer via e-post. I will occasionally write in English as well, when I have something to say which I think could be of interest also for a wider audience.
Richard Carrier, credit Wikipedia. Twitter Facebook Skriv ut E-post. Den andre BB said. Silver Elderman Mets said. Skicka till e-postadress Ditt namn Din e-postadress.
Ditt meddelande skickades inte - kontrollera din e-postadress! Om du vill veta mer, inklusive hur du kontrollerar cookies, se: when it comes to product marketing (Armstrong et al. ). When applying Tusendelar är ett bevis på att man ha noggrann . process industrin. Mer inriktad mot eftermarknaden. Där det inte räcker lägger vi in egna.
58 Jas painter. 6o T H Bain . King Wam-st interNW . Mot hodist digitalcamerasource.infoal digitalcamerasource.info-st intrr. Racket court . 29 Wm Bevis, cabinet maker. inte sects. Ferle street east, sotith side. 2 Vacant flu.çhson-st intersects.
26 Alb•rrt Racket Coo l. Samuel Brent arrtsk•: . John at north, mot side r J H Hogan . Peter Armstrong, carriage maker . i Wm Bevis, machinist. James G .