Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 05-01-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

Who wants to waste their time explaining complex ideas in a book to someone when he is ALREADY expressing VERY STRONG opinions against it, without even reading it?!

Are you saying that understanding the basis for Carotta's changing of MUR- into PUR- requires one to read the entire book?

Zeichman · 05-01-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

[ the bolded stuff: "He claims to attack it as a scholar, and yet how scholarly are his arguments if he has not actually read all that Carotta has to say on the subject, and he bases his arguments on a reading of excerpts only?" ]

It certainly wasn't "ad hominem". I don't attack him based on emotional grounds, or attack him personally. I merely explain my logic in questioning how valuable or accurate his attacks are if he doesn't even adequately research or read what he attacks!

I'm not going to waste additional bandwidth in this thread by defining what "ad hominem" means and arguing about it publicly with you. Check your PMs if you want to continue.

Juliana · 05-01-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

It's on his website. Clearly he hasn't done his homework.

May I ask who you are to judge that. Let me give you my understanding of a scholarly attitude. You take the book and read it, and read it completely. Then in a second reading you make notes of parts you have issues with or want to comment on. Just picking out passages here and there, which you do not understand (perhaps due to lack of knowledge of the pertinent scholarship) and then shouting out comments like "Carotta is nonsense" or "Carotta hasn't done his homework" is not scholarship, not even dilettantism, it's just ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Why not? And if not there, we can try Gaul, Galatia, or Gavelston.

I'm not sure about Gavelston, but in the cases of Gaul (Gallia) and Galatia, Mark shows consistency in the confusion. He sometimes calls Galatia Galilaea, as he initially called Gallia Galilaea. Now, it is no accident that there is a resemblance in the sound, because in both cases Galli, ‘Gauls’, lived there, the veterans of Caesar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Juliana, what is Simon of Cyrene carrying in 15:21? Stakes and palisades? and in Mk 8:34, do you think that Jesus wants his followers to carry his stakes and palisades?

Do you expect me to paste the book here for you? For Mark 15:21 go page 64 and for Mk 8:34 go to page 249.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Simple question. What is the rule by which we can transpose MURA to get PURA? Can Carotta specify one?
Vorkosigan

Simple answer. You want rules, here is one for you: Read the entire book so that you know what you are talking about before you blog your nonsense (remember this is your word). This would be the honest approach.
As for linguistic rules there are many like the metathesis of the liquidae and there are others (some are explained in the notes). The point here, however, is that mostly you don't need rules to understand the corruptions which took place with the vita Divi Iulii. As Professor Erika Simon (an internationally acknowledged archaeologist) states in the afterword the circles in which Christianity spread, of course had not studied the subject of linguistics which emerged in the 19th century.

Just to give you an idea of what kind of texts we are talking about here see the illustrations on pages pages 144 and 145. A facsimile of the Codex D, Bezae Cantabrigiensis. Reproduced is Mark 1:38-2:5. On the left is the Greek text and on the right the corresponding Latin one. Here the following should be observed and noted. [...]

Juliana · 05-01-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Vork is making my day with this thread. I love how rather than actually addressing his arguments or questions, the mythicists resort to ad hominem attacks.

Maybe you, too, should read Carotta's book before giving us your "wisdom". Who are the "mythicists" here? Carotta clearly states there was a historical Jesus. He just lived one hundered years earlier in another place and in his time was called Gaius Iulius Caesar, then Divus Iulius and later Jesus.
What is your problem?

Juliana · 05-01-2005, 01:53 PM

Mr JohnHud,

do you happen to know when Mr. At Wills book will be available through Amazon?

Juliana

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnHud

I have actually read both Carotta and Atwill's books so unlike the others on this forum I can comment on both. Both books use systems of parallels. The criterion for deciding whether a parallel is legitimate or not should
should take into account the considerations James R. Davila in his paper 'The Perils of Parallels', University of St Andrews Divinity School, (April 2001). Davila stated that “patterns of parallels are more important than individual parallels�? and “the larger and more complex the pattern of parallels, the more we should take them seriously.�? Atwill's work has three advantages;

1.He has a large system of consistent parallels to a limited set of texts (in Josephus, not to random events in the life of Julius Caesar)
2.He supports them with a probability analysis
3.and several of Atwill's parallels are supported by other scholars. Namely
Chad Myers in his book on Mark noted the parallel to the Gadara battle and John Blunt in 1828 had spotted the parallel of the Samaritan woman to the Battle of Samaria. The parallel between the two crucifixion accounts involving Josephus bar Matthias and Joseph of Arimathea, had been spotted independently by Leidner, Carrington and Blackhirst . The latter pointed out that the spelling of the character's last name given in Gospel of Barnabas - 'Barimathea' - makes the pun especially clear. Chapman noted parallels between the 'Cannibal Mary passage' in Josephus and the symbolic Passover Lamb of the Gospels in her SBL seminar paper 'A Myth for the World', Early Christian Reception of Infanticide and Cannibalism in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum' (2000), She noted that the language in the passage “partly resembles the words attributed to Jesus at the last supper�?.

Aquitaine · 05-01-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnHud

I have actually read both Carotta and Atwill's books so unlike the others on this forum I can comment on both. Both books use systems of parallels. The criterion for deciding whether a parallel is legitimate or not should
should take into account the considerations James R. Davila in his paper 'The Perils of Parallels', University of St Andrews Divinity School, (April 2001). Davila stated that “patterns of parallels are more important than individual parallels�? and “the larger and more complex the pattern of parallels, the more we should take them seriously.�? Atwill's work has three advantages;

1.He has a large system of consistent parallels to a limited set of texts (in Josephus, not to random events in the life of Julius Caesar)
2.He supports them with a probability analysis
3.and several of Atwill's parallels are supported by other scholars. Namely
Chad Myers in his book on Mark noted the parallel to the Gadara battle and John Blunt in 1828 had spotted the parallel of the Samaritan woman to the Battle of Samaria. The parallel between the two crucifixion accounts involving Josephus bar Matthias and Joseph of Arimathea, had been spotted independently by Leidner, Carrington and Blackhirst . The latter pointed out that the spelling of the character's last name given in Gospel of Barnabas - 'Barimathea' - makes the pun especially clear. Chapman noted parallels between the 'Cannibal Mary passage' in Josephus and the symbolic Passover Lamb of the Gospels in her SBL seminar paper 'A Myth for the World', Early Christian Reception of Infanticide and Cannibalism in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum' (2000), She noted that the language in the passage “partly resembles the words attributed to Jesus at the last supper�?.

Hi John,

Among other things, I have to wonder about your three points.
1. "He has a large system of consistent parallels to a limited set of texts (in Josephus, not to random events in the life of Julius Caesar)" It doesn't appear that you read Carotta's work. He has much to say about Josephus, and his influence on Christianity. The "randomness" of what Carotta uses from the life of Julius Caesar actually fits well into a system, being as the texts that are handed down to us are a mish-mash of re-editing through the centuries and also there was an initial reordering of the text when it first translated from Latin into Greek.
2."He supports them with a probability analysis" ... Oh, please...
Statistics? ....

3. "and several of Atwill's parallels are supported by other scholars." Yeah? He knew of them already, and repeated what they said. It could very well prove that Atwill really doesn't say anything new at all...

Zeichman · 05-01-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juliana

Maybe you, too, should read Carotta's book before giving us your "wisdom". Who are the "mythicists" here? Carotta clearly states there was a historical Jesus. He just lived one hundered years earlier in another place and in his time was called Gaius Iulius Caesar, then Divus Iulius and later Jesus.
What is your problem?

What wisdom? Care to point some of it out?

If you're referring to me pointing out fallacious arguments, all that requires is a course in logic, rhetoric or a bit of reading.

Toto · 05-01-2005, 04:19 PM

Chili diversion and response split off here

Vorkosigan · 05-01-2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

If I had wanted to insult someone, surely I would have said far worse things than that...

All of this is dancing around the question. By what rule can we transpose MUR and PUR?

Vorkosigan

Juliana · 05-01-2005, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

All of this is dancing around the question. By what rule can we transpose MUR and PUR?

Vorkosigan

I don't believe this, is this comedy here?
Do you know the Greek alphabet? Look at a capital Pi and look at a capital My (can't display Greek fonts here) they are nearly identical and can easily be confused with each other especially in handwritings like the one depicted above.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2005, 04:19 PM	#78
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Chili diversion and response split off here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.