Are we over-interpreting? The "reference works that treat..." being "emended" could imply as little as:GakuseiDon wrote:One criticism by O'Neill is how Dr Carrier ends his article “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200”
To which Carrier responds:
- Carrier is a polemicist and this article shows it. And his final paragraphs where he pompously declares that all future discussion on the topic must now bow before his mighty findings are are hilarious as they are fatuous.
This was the pertinent passage at the end of Carrier's article that O'Neill was criticising. Carrier wrote:
- The closing joke is when O’Neil complains of my article’s closing section, concluding “his final paragraphs where he pompously declares that all future discussion on the topic must now bow before his mighty findings are are hilarious as they are fatuous.” This is quite funny. Because it proves O’Neil is an amateur. Many journals require us to write these statements. And indeed this was one such case: the article I submitted had no such section. The peer reviewers insisted that I write it. To oblige them, I did.
Is Carrier's response reasonable? Are such statements framed that way required by peer-reviewers? In peer-reviewed articles, I've seen statements at the end summarizing the impact of the findings in the field, but "All reference works that treat 'James the brother of Jesus' MUST be emended to reflect this finding" (my highlighting) seems over-the-top. But is Carrier's impact statement above typical?
- The significance of this finding is manifold, but principally it removes this passage from the body of reliable evidence for the fate of Jesus’ family, the treatment of Christians in the first century, or Josephus’s attitude toward or knowledge of Christians. Likewise, future commentaries on the relevant texts of Origen and Josephus must take this finding into account, as must any treatments of the evidence for the historical Jesus. Most pressingly, all reference works that treat “James the brother of Jesus” must be emended to reflect this finding, particularly as this passage is the only evidence by which a date for this James’ death has been derived.
Scholarly texts that purport to provide in-depth coverage on the Ant. 20.200 reference need to footnote this article or reflect its information in its arguments.
(i.e., whether they ultimately agree or not -- which arguably is implied by responsible scholarship taking into account previously-published relevant research...)
Whether it could be worded better is a different question (... most things can be worded better). The question is:
Did Carrier demand that all future discussion "must now bow before his mighty findings"?