Aquila Pacis

Well, that's part of his method: trying to read Mark differently than it has been read before. His approach is the view from the West toward the East, from Rome into the eastern mirror. From your point of view it's logical that he misunderstands Mark. Carotta of course will say the opposite.

Because it's a fucking great read, that's why. Thrilling books in these fields of research are very scarce. But don't be afraid: your "astronauts-from-space crap" was my first reaction too. But it's still a "rejection on a personal basis". Understandable, yes, but only as long as one hasn't read the book.

[Now quoting an earlier post] I will try to answer as best as I can, but it should be clear that the citations (taken from Carotta's website) are terribly reduced excerpts of some of his findings. Some of what is quoted here simply must turn out wrong because it is so condensed.

Yes, the many saviors of antiquity. With Caesar it's different, and it's not about the oak wreath etc., it's about Caesar's soteriology which anticipates that of the Christ: Caesar was the first to show this new conception of the Mercy and Graciousness of God, humility, service and mission on the one hand, charismatic leadership on the other. This Julian form of divinity had some roots in earlier divinized rulers (cf. Weinstock: "Divus Julius" et al.), but was also based on strong autocratical politics and new religious concepts including a cultural and aesthetic revolution, which was achieved by the Divi Filius, Gaius Caesar Augustus, who was the driving force behind the consolidation of the Julian religion throughout the Empire. If one looks very closely, the cultural blueprint underneath Jesus turns out to be Roman. At least there's a big chance. As a matter of fact, even when one ignores Carotta's theory as well as several smaller elements that evoke a Roman flair (like the entry into Jerusalem on horseback), the structure, the drama and stylistic elements of the Gospel of Mark correlate in many points with Plutarch's biography of Caesar, which had been written in a hitherto unknown biographical genre style, a Roman variation of the hellenistic biographies.

You are right. But that's not what Carotta's book is about. (A misunderstanding because of the reduction; and maybe it is not phrased too well on the website.) The story is restricted to the times after the war in Gaul and starts with the beginning of the Civil War, which means that Caesar - like Jesus - enters Italy - and Iudaea respectively - from the north. Caesar's politically significant career, his rise to power, begins at exactly this point. The crossing of the Rubicon is a decisive moment for Rome, also for the City of Rome, but also for Caesar: he had been away for a long time, for many Romans he wasn't a real Roman anymore. In a way, he had to start from scratch. The man from Gallia...and the man from Galilaea.

Caesar could have taken the roads along the south coast of Northern Italy, crossed to the East, south of the river which today is called Po, and approached Rome from the North East. But this is not the point here.

You are right again, but again it's also an error through reduction: Caesar crosses the Rubicon, but it's not explicitly mentioned. It says only that he crosses the river. (We know that it's the Rubicon, because it is mentioned earlier.) This episode is transformed into Jesus' walk by the Sea of Galilee. Jesus' crossing of the Jordan is later, as you correctly stated. I guess that Carotta merged the two pericopes to gain maximum effect for this quick overview on his website, since he doesn't produce this error in his book. (Which is not very professional, I might add. Sure, both cross a river and both crossings are mentioned in literature, but that's pointless, because in this form there is no structural parallel.)

Jesus himself often enough journeyed into the desert, where he stayed etc., so this is not a valid argument.

Right after the episode at the Sea of Galilee, "they went into Capernaum". Then follows the healing of the possessed. Caesar, after crossing the Rubicon, goes to Ariminum, Iguium, Auximum, Camerinum, Asculum and a few other minor cities before reaching Corfinium. You are absolutely right there. But your conclusions are wrong: judging from the cities that you name, you have been reading Caesar's Commentariorum Belli Civilis, which is a war report, and Caesar and his scribes were keen on being as accurate as possible. The commentariorum however is not the source for the Gospel of Mark. It's an autonomous report. According to Carotta, Mark's source were Asinius Pollio's Historiae (and a hypothetical Praetexta, a passion play) which can be distilled from Sueton, Plutarch and Appian. Sueton e.g. only mentions Corfinium (34.1). For a good reason, I might add: all the cities mentioned above were taken without a siege, without battle, many of their inhabitants and Pompeius' soldiers changed sides to Caesar's army without taking a fight, some fled etc. Corfinium was the first decisive battle, the first major siege in the Civil War, which is why the town ended up in history books in such a prominent way.

Caesar expels Domitius, the Pompeian commander who occupies Corfinium, from the city. Jesus expels the unclean spirit of a possessed man. Now you are the one reading information backwards and upside down. There is a parallel, and it's crystal clear.

Probably...and it could be the reason why the authors of Mark readily accepted a transition from a "military obsessus" to a "demonic obsessus". Ever thought about that? The argument that Mark was written in Greek is not valid here, because Mark doesn't use the Greek word for "possessed", not even a related one. 1.23 reads "pneumati akatartho", similar in 1.26 and 1.27. In concordance, the Vulgate has a "spiritus inmundus", both mean unclean, impure, foul. So this seems to be a take on the evangelists' perception of the original source, not the words themselves. Maybe the source for this pericope was written in Latin - Pollio's Historiae for instance were, sometimes the books were written in two languages, e.g. Latin on the left page, Greek on the right - and the authors of Mark only new little of the Latin language. Then they could have misunderstood the word "obsessus", but only as a description of what Jesus finds in the city, i.e. in what state Caesar finds the city. If the Markan pericope had been based on a Greek version of the Historiae, we would have to know the Greek translation of "obsessus", and we would have to know if it can also have the same two meanings in Greek. So here we are not dealing with a direct mistranslation, but a misconception of the source, resulting indirectly in a different re-telling of the story.

You are answering your own question here, by which you are evading the argument at hand. But according to Carotta, it's more than that: it's a pattern.

Rome, as the capital, turns into Jerusalem, but not often. In addition, Rome undergoes other mutations like eremo, the desert etc.

It is very clear that there is a betrayal. Mark 14: "And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, to betray him to them." (10) Further cf. 11, 18, 21, 41-44 Carotta gives an evaluation of Judas' and Brutus' actions; that's why he calls it "betrayal". The same goes for the Bible translation and the way we ourselves interpret the action: what we read is conceived as a betrayal. Of course the word "betray" isn't mentioned by Mark: "handed over" is the Greek word. You are absolutely right. But in his book, Carotta says absolutely the same thing and also explains, why "to hand over" is a very good description of what happened in Gethsemane. The fact of "betrayal" is situated in the superstructure.

There were two Bruti, which I stated in one of my earlier posts: one of them is the traitor, the other one is seen as the murderer. (But not Judas. Brutus, the murderer, mutates into Barrabas.)

Yes. Maybe, but it's a different theory. From Carotta's point of view, its inclusion is unnecessary, because he found another, maybe better source. In his book he acknolewdges other theories and the specific literature, but merely as an overview of what was and what currently is written in the mainstream.

Another error through reduction made by Carotta. Cleopatra and Mary Magdalene do not always run parallel. Cleopatra pops up in several disguises. But it's clear that there is a special relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene as well as other women. We just have to look into the pericopes following the crucifixion.

Well, I don't think Carotta is claiming any credit for this specific disclosure...and if you look at the literature that Carotta uses, you will find enough books and articles by "modern" scholars. The difference to other authors is of course that a lot of modern scholarship turns out to be useless for Carotta, for the approach that he chose. He may have read all of those wonderful books, but I doubt that he was able to use any of them. After all he is presenting us with an absolutely unusual and hitherto unknown point of view.

"not King" and "no king" (negation); "Caesar" (in both cases: affirmative) ... the meaning is the same. The main problem here might only be that Carotta quotes the Gospel of John, not Mark.

"sudden" and "quickly" match, so does the aspect of death; although "death" in Mark has to be filtered out from the context, but that was not unusual in those times.

"save them" is similar to "save others", both have objects ("them" can be the "others"); someone who "cannot save himself" (in the context of war, battles and fights) will be destroyed. So we do have a parallel here. It's not as strong as the others, but it's there.

Yes. Again a different theory. From Carotta's point of view, its inclusion is unnecessary. If Carotta hadn't found a Caesarean source, he would have run into serious problems. But he has a very strong source in this case, and the alea-aleeis parallel is intensively clarified in the book.

Just a prolo LOL? "enikisa" to "enipsa" is a probable mutational variant. These sentences are about 90% the same!

Well, as I have shown, Carotta - at least in the cases above - didn't "rewrite" history. The shorthand form of the internet presentation may have resulted in one or the other distortion, but that was due to the condensed form (and maybe Carotta's tendency towards bold advertising), and not due to a mean spirit.

As I said, some of the scholarship simply doesn't fit into Carotta's approach. Elijah and Elisha would be an alien element in the theory of a Roman origin. It's as simple as that: Carotta doesn't need Elijah and Elisha to come to his conclusion. Two theories that ATM seem to be incompatible, probably forever and a day. If you say: "Jesus? Jewish? Nope! Jesus? Roman? Yup!" it would actually be a hindrance looking for roots in the OT or the Septuagint. There may be judaisations on top of all the Gospels, a later redactional/editorial level - which is why Marcion didn't give a shit about the propagated canon I guess. And BTW: since Caesar became a God, his victories became miracles with the people, even before his cult was officially installed by Augustus.

To bring this up again: a lot of Carotta's book is all about "mistakes" that were made...and again (Isa 35): another theory; probably incompatible; BTW: a misreading of "metellus" as "mutilus" is probable. According to Carotta there is a pattern of transferring names into attributes, which of course was also used as a form of mockery by the Romans themselves. So these mutations are highly probable.

Yes. Another theory. But it's of no avail for Carotta's approach. He manages - so it seems - to embed the complete Mark into a Roman origin, including the sources.

Yes. As a singular aspect it would be nothing but an ironical footnote of history. But in Carotta's book, it becomes part of a grand design.

Oh, man, yeah. You apparently love to ride that horse. But I have had my problems as well with this pericope. I guess you are right with the increase-vs.-decrease thing. Carotta himself says that nothing grows, suddenly it does...but why percent? ...and percent of WHAT? Maximum sustained yield? I think this looks like a blackout...a plain error, like his calculations concerning the calendar, which he clumsily tries to conceal in the errata on his website. But the whole chapter on the Parable of the Sower seems a little muddled, a lot of maybes, a lot of bridges, too many assumptions...I will have to read into it again.

@Juliana: if you really are one of the translators of the book, you could ask Mr. Carotta, what the percentage-thing is all about.

That's true, from the point of what's written. But what we conceive is a betrayal. Everyone sees Brutus and Judas as traitors. It's of course hard to argue with that. But you are right with one thing: one should look closer into scripture...and "to betray" is not in there.

There were four key players (M. Brutus, D. Brutus, Cassius Longinus, Casca) and two languages (Latin and Greek, but primarily Greek with latinisms). Carotta extensively shows how these four ended up in the Gospel of Mark.

see above: irrelevant for Carotta's approach. We have to grab a theory by the balls, not throw incompatible coordinates at it.

see above: most probably incompatible for Carotta's approach.

I'm not sure if Carotta is uncapable of meeting modern "academic styles". As he writes in his book, he chose a different, "unscholarly" form. I still think this a disadvantage. He probably is familiar with a lot of relevant literature, but - as I stated above - much of it would simply be incompatible. Everything he needs for his approach is Sueton, Appian, Plutarch, V. Paterculus, Nikolaos, Strabo etc. pp.

This remark is nonsense.

PS: take a harmless piece of information like: "On Friday Prime Minister Tony Blair attended the world premiere of The Blair Witch Project Part Two"

Imagine back in the days, i.e. make it a little more difficult:
ONFRIDAYPRIMEMINISTERTONYBLAIRATTENDEDTHEWORLDPREM IEREOFTHE
BLAIRWITCHPROJECTPARTTWO

Imagine someone who lives over one hundred years later, in a foreign culture, and who speaks little English. Then imagine him separating the letters pretty unconventionally. Mistranslate most parts into German, with a little imagination of course, and a re-translation into english would give us this:

"At ten on the first free day a little star in a lair of ivy parted the dead world in two. It was the price for the scheme to fight the magician inside the lair."

Of course this is hopelessly overexaggerated to make a clear point, but shit does happen with languages, if you ask me.

Juliana

The methodology of the study 'Jesus was Caesar' is perfectly explained in the book. Also, the sholarship used is listed in a 15 page bibliography. But you don't have to read a book in order to know what it's about because not only are you an "expert" on Mark, you are psychic, too. How did you gain that ability?

Aquila Pacis did a pretty good job in showing what your "objections" are.
I sure do hope you are a little bit more careful in your nursing education activities, for the sake of those who are being nursed there.

Juliana

P.S: There indeed is an error in the book, the calculations concerning the phase of the moon during Caesar's funeral. But Carotta does not "clumsily try to conceal [it] in the errata on his website", Aquila Pacis. He openly admits it: errare humanum est.

Juliana

Back to the beloved parabel of the sower. Read that passage in it's context here if you want to understand it.

[...] In truth it was Mark’s own doctrine or a sermon from the last wandering preacher to pass by, but then again it is not completely untrue because it was exactly these signs that Caesar himself enumerated. Now Mark has to somehow find a way to mention the palm—instead he speaks of seeds:


‘Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.’[458]


Here he has almost everything together: the rocky ground without deep soil—like the gaps in the tile floor; the impossibility of growing roots there and that the palm should have withered; that plants without light suffocate—whether under thorns or under the temple roof. And in spite of this they shot up as if on good land. Perhaps not one hundred percent, as on fertile land, but still sixty, or thirty percent. He is missing only one thing here: the palm that grew from the temple floor. Instead he has ‘fowls of the air that devour the seeds fallen by the way side’. Again he obviously confused phoinika, ‘palm’ with peteina, ‘fowls’ and as a result mistook epese, ‘fell’ for ephyse, ‘grew’: as the palm sprouted, so something fell for the birds. [...]

I think I've found the reason for the misunderstanding:
The sentence should read: "And in spite of this it [the palm which sprang up miraculously, not 'they', a mistake by the translators] shot up as if on good land. Perhaps not one hundred percent, as on fertile land, but still sixty, or thirty percent."

However, I think that if one really reads the book attentively and does not just pick out a passage here and there in order to blog out "Carotta is nonsense" etc. one might have understood the correct meaning.
Then again attacking a famous man (he will be, you bet) might also be a pathetic attempt of getting some attention...

Amaleq13

Don't you see that merely acknowledging the existence of "other theories" is simply not good enough? The explanations Vorkosigan mentions do not require various assumptions of linguistic gymnastics to be understood. They generally require little more than reading a particular passage from Hebrew Scripture in parallel with a passage from Mark. Sometimes background knowledge is required to understand the former but not always.

Also, the notion of a foundation in Hebrew Scripture is suggested by the context of the story told in Mark as well as explicit references in the text, itself. The notion of a Roman origin must be revealed and explained by someone who has looked beyond the allegedly superficial indications. (IIRC, you acknowledged earlier in this thread that Carotta's theory really requires one to start out assuming he is correct in order for the explanation to be considered persuasive. IOW, the evidence does not necessarily lead to the conclusion unless one assumes the conclusion prior to considering the evidence.)

Given this apparent disparity in complexity and transparency, Carotta really has to specifically explain why his theory offers a "better source" in comparision. It cannot just be a question of "Assume my conclusion and see if you don't find my book compelling". He has to call into question the apparent relative simplicity and transparency of the generally held view before trying to replace it.

Aquila Pacis

Well, for most parts it's an investigation report, which is usually not the case in this field. The second part ("Synoptic Comparison") is pretty straight-forward and could have been - as I stated earlier - the basis for a conventional scientific publication, but it lacks the density of the first half, falling a little short of the earlier revelations, because it deals in most parts with minor aspects of the transition from Divus Julius to Jesus. Sometimes it almost reads like an anti-climax.

Juliana, PLEASE!! But I'm not willing to give in to some kind of a good-cop-bad-cop game, so you should cool it a bit. This is unnecessary...and pretty mean, I might add.

Yes, he does, which in itself is not noteworthy however, because errata and corrige are a normal thing. With "clumsily" I meant this (original quote; Carotta): "However, since the future is, in a sense, already present at the beginning, the Jews among the Caesareans, respectively the Caesareans among the Jews, might very well have celebrated their Passover in Rome in the year 44 BC on the same date as the Romans did the Ides, which also included the ritual offering of a lamb—ovis Idulis—to Jupiter." I simply don't like the sentence: "However, since the future is, in a sense [!!!], already present at the beginning [...]" In what sense? How is the future present at the beginning? It should be explained. This is wishy-washy...he should at least present one independent other example, where - in a concrete sense - the future was already present at the beginning.

Well, I think this is wrong. One has to pick out certain passages and examine them. Carotta's book comprises a huge area, many fields of science, some of which have seldomly until now dealt with the same topic at the same time.

Concerning the Parable of the Sower: I will reply later; I have to read it again. I still don't get the percentage-thing...sorry

Concerning your previous question on a publication in a journal...ready for a laugh? What about "Transactions of the American Philological Association"? This is the ivory tower par excellence. But seriously, it should be a professional journal...he should mind the field they are publishing in, i.e. no extensive numismatics in a philological magazine etc., and he shouldn't go like a bull at the gate, i.e. leave out the crucifixion, no pseudonym, pick out a neat little pericope that can easily show Carotta's point, stay humble and use a low profile. I'm not exactly sure, but sounds like nearly impossible, if you want to go for the big journals.

Juliana

I think the author is just jokingly referring to the 30- 60- and 100-fold.

Thanks. I'll forward that to him.

Juliana

Clivedurdle

How is it Carotta and Atwill both come up with parallels - different ones mind? And is Nazarenus creeping in with the reference to parts of Mark being based on a passion play?

Juliana

In reality it's exactly the other way around. The "disparity in complexity and transparency" falls on the modern attempts of trying to explain the gospel by gymnastics with the Jewish scriptures. Carotta's solution is much easier and it provides the key to understanding hitherto not understood inconsistencies in the gospels. It has everything a scientific paradigm shift requires and you don't have "to start out assuming he is correct in order for the explanation to be considered persuasive".
When I started reading that book in German I found the idea quite weird in the beginning. It was only when I had made my way through it that I saw how everything fell nicely into place. The riddle of Christianity was suddenly solved. If someone prefers to continue calculating the orbits of the planets on the basis of Ptolemaeus' model you can't stop them, of course. Modern astronomy prefers the Copernican approach, however.
It really is funny. Here is a revolutionary discovery and few have noticed yet. Even funnier, instead of just reading and examining it, they keep arguing around why everything is so much easier with the Jewish scriptures. Why?

Amaleq13

No offense intended but you seem to me to be denying something that is rather obvious. I really don't see how anyone could argue Carotta's theory is the less complicated explanation. It certainly doesn't appear to be true of the passages that have been discussed in this thread.

Could you offer a specific example or two where Carotta's explanation for the origin of a given passage is clearly more simple than the generally accepted understanding?

Perhaps because, for the examples that have been read and examined in this thread, the explanation appealing to the Hebrew Scriptures as the source appears to require fewer assumptions and fewer (unique?) linguistic transformations?

This thread does not appear to support your contention of greater simplicity. Have we only considered a minority of examples where Carotta's explanation is more complicated?

Aquila Pacis

I guess because they are presenting two very different points of view: Carotta mainly focuses on the Gospel of Mark, Atwill fires at everything that moves, including the War of the Jews. Maybe the two are compatible in a way, especially beyond the Gospel of Mark. But I would have to read Atwill again.

According to Carotta, "Nazara" in "the Nazarene" comes from "Caesar" via the Greek "Kaisar". (One also notices a "zar" in there, which in German comes from "Caesar" as well.) In addition "Nazara" (as a city, not as a name addition) can stem from "Ravenna" via "Navera". (But the name of the town itself isn't mentioned in Mark, so it's only about "Nazara" in the supplement context. But it's a much more probably mutation, since we can observe a very similar transition for German, Russian etc.)

The praetexta (passion play) has been proposed by Weinstock (1971, "Divus Julius", p.354) and was vigorously rejected by Alfoeldi (1974), which BTW Carotta doesn't mention, I think. There are many repetitive patterns in Appian's account of Caesar's passion that show a quasi-liturgical character, so there is at least a slight chance that his texts are based not only on Pollio but on a hypothetical praetexta called "Iulius Caesar" as well.

So "Nazara", "Nazarenus", "the Nazarene" may have been taken from the praetexta's title ("Caesar" > "Nazara"). But again, this is pure speculation. One could say this however: if Carotta is right, and the name "Jesus the Nazarene" stems from the passion play's title, the title can't have been "Iulius Caesar", but "Gaius Caesar" - maybe because it already contained accounts of the young Caesar, Gaius Caesar Divi Filius? - because the transition from "Iulius" to "Jesus", as shown by Carotta, is only possible through the addition of "Divus": (d)IU(u)S(iuli)US