Juliana

Just to correct this. I am not selling Carotta's book. Do you think this would be a worthwhile undertaking in this forum? I wanted to discuss it, but that requires interest on both sides which obviously is not given. And perhaps another problem is that we in Europe are used to a different conversation style.
Be that as it may, essential parts of the book are online and I've heard from the author that the rest will be in a few months. I don't know exactly when, depends on the publisher, I guess, but you don't have to buy it. And maybe it's better you don't read it at all, it might shatter some of your prejudices.

spin

I've looked at what's online and very little of it is essential. The Quaderni italiani, which are online but not accessible to most because they are in Italian, are a little more useful.

You haven't responded to any of my comments, the most important being, how can one show that the theory is wrong?


spin

Amaleq13

You are not a co-translator of the book? You did not deny the claim when kaas made it in this post.

Absolutely, if you were able to provide an adequate defense of his theory. That includes answering direct questions instead of offering conspiracy theories or insulting the person offering criticisms of the theory.

As Toto has already pointed out, a discussion would involve you attempting to answer the questions that have been posed. If there were no interest in your claims, the number of people responding to and reading the thread would be much smaller.

This is exactly the sort of ridiculous response that makes it difficult to take you seriously. My only "prejudice" is against your failure to respond to direct questions and specific critiques. You've wasted far too much space exchanging barbs with Vorkosigan than substantively addressing the questions he has raised.

I continue to be interested in your answers to two at least two specific questions:

1) Why should we consider the clearly more complicated and less obvious explanation of Mark's origins offered by Carotta to be better than the less complicated and more obvious explanation that Mark's author used Hebrew Scripture as a primary source for the text?

2) What specific evidence might suggest Carotta's theory is wrong?

Juliana

So it's not a "boiata"? Do you know a lot about linguistics, Greek, Aramaic etc.?
Actually there is more material in English on the website than in that article.

Coming back to your question of Pi and My. They are confusable in handwritings, especially when the copyist doesn't understand the pyra anymore, the story having been corrupted and delocalized to an area where cremation is not the custom but a burial "as the manner of the Jews is to burry" (Jn. 19:40).

How can one show the theory is wrong? That's a hard one for me to answer because I know that the "theory" is correct. Reminds one of Poppers' falsification principle, is that applicable here? For me the matter is as clear as the fact that 2+2=4. How can I disprove that?
Disprove the hundreds of facts in the book, and more and more are coming up. In mathematical terms: with every further "coincidence" the probability that the historical Jesus was Caesar increases exponentially.
It seems with this discovery it's simply like this:
You study it and then you either see and know it or you don't. Most actually look the other way and don't even investigate the matter, not wanting to see it. If you prefer biblical terms for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the matter is clear. There are several psychological factors involved in this, the most significant being fear, I guess.

Juliana

Is it important who I am? I am a friend of one of the translators.
<deleted> Since the Dutch edition of the book appeared Anton van Hooff and later kaas, his employee as it seems, has been harassing Carotta. He kept posting contorting disparaging articles filled with profanity in Carotta's forum under different names. Finally Carotta had to close the Forum and moderate it because of that. Kaas furthermore denigrates prominent scholars from the Netherlands who endorse this work, especially Prof. Cliteur and van der Dunk. He does the same in a Dutch Forum
I'm wondering whether and when they will file a lawsuit against him for a smear campaign. His identity is known. If you read Dutch you can find articles on van Hooff (and him) written by Dutchmen on Carotta's website.


For the second question see previous post. The first one later.

Amaleq13

Who you are is only relevant to your claim that you have nothing to gain by increasing sales of the book. Thank you for the clarification.

spin

The information you quote to which I responded "che boiata" was certainly a boiata.

What would you like to know about specifically?

Actually, I said I had a look at what's online.

Would you like to cite a few examples, say in specific papyri? As I've looked at a few recently to see what you were talking about, I found two basic Mu shapes neither of which is particularly like a Pi. So example needed.

Certainly is, Juliana.

By working with separate items to get four then comparing the results with two and two. If the results are not the same, you have falsified the theory.

If you cannot show a way for an unprovable theory to be wrong then the theory has no value at all.

I haven't seen one single fact that demonstrates the theory. From what I've seen it is undemonstrable. If that's the case, how can someone show it's wrong?

Constructed parallels mean next to nothing, like the contorted relationship between the Pacuvius line and Ps 22:1. (Have you actually thought about the material? It simply doesn't make sense. As I said in a previous post, you'd think the Marcan writer had dyslexia.)

Carotta claims that Jesus died on the 15th of Nisan, but you and I know that the gospels indicate that he died the day before, ie the 14th. Gosh, there goes a parallel.

This one's cute: Jesus had his Paul just as Caesar had his, Paulus Aemilius Lepidus. Pretty funny. (And who gets called by their praenomen in public??) Jesus has a father Joseph, did Julius have a parallel? Let's see, his father's name was Gaius Julius, just like him. He was probably not called Gaius, just 'Ius and the nearest Hebrew name was Yusef. Hmmm. Maybe there's something in this. What about his mother, Aurelia? Ummm, that's the road in Rome which goes to the sea, "sea" in Latin is "mare", oh wow, Mary!!

Crap.

This is empty rhetoric. Please try again. You seem big on rhetoric and non-existent on fact. So far, with all the Carotta material I've looked at, my reaction is "so what?"

Sull'origine giuliana del cristianesimo... Gosh I'm slow,... Juliana.


spin

Vorkosigan

giuliana ... Juliana.

Can it be coincidence?

spin

Paulus Aemilius Lepidus, indeed. I was naughty to trust Carotta's Sull'origine giuliana del christianesimo. Perhaps he meant to refer to the aedile L. Aemilius Paullus who Caesar gave money to to rebuild the Basilica Aemilia.


spin

(giuliana is the Italian adjective from Giulio, ie Julius, whose Latin form is Juliana.)

Vorkosigan

...just as Paul brought money to Jerusalem to give to the pillars.