Amaleq13

How does "highly questionable" make sense given your apparent acceptance that the author was at least as familiar with Hebrew Scripture as Pollio? I completely agree that the Gospel story offers "considerable evidence" for the author's "interest in and knowledge of Judaism".

Are you seriously trying to deny that a simple reading of Mark doesn't suggest that the author considered Hebrew Scriptures a valuable and reliable source of knowledge about the Jesus in his story? If that is the case, I suggest you reread it as though you had never heard of Carotta and only understood the "surface" story.

What is the evidence that leads the author to this conclusion?

On what scale does one measure how "mentally close" the thinking of one group is to another?

How does an apparently late text inform us about early Christianity?

That doesn't surprise me. I consider the story to be mythical rather than history.

Why are you describing a myth while claiming to look for history?

What "Jewish community"? What, specifically, would have "resonated" with them?

I think Mark is neither a biography nor history.

Vorkosigan

well, my Fannie Farmer went AWOL, but I do have my study Good Housekeeping, and that one is chock full of thematic and linguistic parallels. Consider, for example, the opening section on roast poultry. It's an opening section, just like the beginning of Chapter 15 in Mark. And lo and behold, what's the first event: trussing a chicken. What could be more parallel to Jesus being delivered bound to Pilate? Further, the English text says "push drumsticks under band of skin". The author of Mark, who was obviously working with a reader who mumbled, clearly thought the reader was saying presbuterwn, which we find -- what a coincidence, eh? -- right there in Mark 15:1. It can't just be chance -- clearly the Good Housekeeping cookbook was transported back in time to a mumbling slave, who confused the poor author of Mark, whose Greek wasn't very good, poor lad.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Wow! A cross-lingual pun. The tribune Publius Servilius Casca was stabbed in the arm by Caesar, just as Jesus attacks the servant of the High Priest and stabs him in the arm...hey wait.

14:47 eis de [tis] twn paresthkotwn spasamenos thn macairan epaisen ton doulon tou arcierews kai afeilen autou to wtarion

But is easy to see how Casca got into Mk: 14:47. Why if you mistake the "a" in autou for a "c", and then both the "u" in autou for an "a", and then the "t" for an "s", and the "o" for a "c", why, there's no question that autou=casca. Plain as the nose on your face.

Vorkosigan

The usual warping of the meaning, as Kim interpreted the Greek of Mk 15:39 as a challenge to the Caesar cult. Kim thought Christians were aware of the Julian cult the way McCarthyites were aware of Communism. In any case the linguistic evidence, as Johnson outlines in an article the following year, won't support Kim's conclusion.

All

spin

Well, umm, I don't think you really quite have a full grasp on it yet there, Vork. It's a bit too rough at the edges. But I think I have an insight: when the writer says to crush the garlic, this is veiled reference to Caesar's conquest of Gaul and that's really an allusion to Jesus's victory over the Pharisees who had the gall to oppose him. And again when the chef talks about tenderizing the meat, this is the softening up of the gladiators the night before they fight. This is of course really the gospel gladiator, who on the night before going to meet his maker, he had his various parts oiled when he was anointed, ie his meat was made tender for the big event. The more I think about it, the more I think you're onto something, or at least on something.


spin

Chris Weimer

:rolling: :thumbs: Too funny, M.

Juliana

Dear Vorkosigan,

unfortunately I cannot participate in this discussion, being the author of "Jesus was Caesar" and thus biased.

But I have a question to you. You wrote:

#257: "…Carotta is wrong. That is why, ultimately, he has/will be rejected. The worst part is that he will simply provide more fodder for the right-Christians who want to claim that mythicism is shit. "Just look at Carotta," they will say, and be absolutely right."

Maybe. Although, if you are right, the right-Christians will have an interest to prevent the book from being rejected.

But this is not important to me. Whether people read the book or not, accept or reject the insights contained in it, I do not mind. I have written it only because friends told me I should because some people might be interested to know this. You are not one of them. I understand you. If I had not written it myself I probably would not read it either, and say like you: what a bs! So, do not worry: I will not try to change your mind.

I ask you only to help me to understand something.

Look: my mother was a believing Catholic, but not a bigot, believing in God but not in his ground crew, and my father was an atheist. So, I myself believe in nothing, not even in myself or in the results of my research. I prefer to try to know, but knowledge is perfectible.

So I do not believe in the results of other people either. I had sympathies for Bruno Bauer, for instance, and his hypothesis that the Gospel may be a literary product, invented by somebody near to Seneca, or whoever. I understood also that Marx adopted this hypothesis and the idea of religion as opium of the people. I was never really convinced, I must confess, but only because, as a well-mannered boy, I thought that the truth will out, or, as we say in Europe: lies have short legs (and in this case the legs are two millenniums long). But, if they were right, if the gospels were the biggest historical lie, I would not have problems with it - except maybe some admiration for such a successful liar . And I would appreciate it if such an obscurantism ceased.

Consequently: If the forger invented it using Seneca, the Old Covenant, Flavius Josephus or whomever, I would not care. Why not?

Even now, having ascertained a lot of similarities between Divus Julius and Jesus, it seems to me that these similarities are too numerous and too striking for attributing them to chance, however, if that were the case, if they were coincidental, I would not have problems with it.

What I do not understand - and this is my question - is why you seem to believe that a mythical, forged Jesus should be easier to combat than a Jesus born as Divus Julius and mutated over the centuries, during the process of tradition. In both cases he would be man-made - not transcendent, not so transcendent. Furthermore Caesar was himself an agnostic if not an atheist: as his speech during the trial of the Catilinarians shows (as reported by Sallust), he did not believe in life after death. So he should be more likable to "infidels" than the mythical Jesus, at least in this point.

What I understand even less is that you seem to be prepared to reject the hypothesis even if it were true, a priori, paradoxically accepting possibly to obscure the truth in order to combat obscurantism.

Can you explain this contradiction to me?

Again: I do not ask this in order to argue with you. I am really interested in an honest and illuminating answer.

If you convince me, I will pulp the stocks of my book.

Francesco Carotta

Amaleq13

This is simply not true. Mr. Carotta is welcome to become a member and participate in any discussion here, including those about his book, regardless of any preconceptions or alleged biases.

Juliana

Mr. Carotta thanks the moderator for the invitation.
However, it is his decision not to participate because he feels biased and thus prefers that the readers discuss freely among themselves. People interested in his research are welcome to visit his forum.
Mr. Carotta has made an exception with the letter above only because he has not understood the motivation of Vorkosigan, simply asking for elucidation.

Vorkosigan

I have explained this countless times. Carotta's thesis is not supported by either consistent methodology or powerful evidence. That is why I reject it. It's not a true hypothesis -- it IS the very obscurantism it seeks to combat. We don't gain anything by substituting one unsupportable theory (Divine Intervention) for another unsupportable theory (Divine Julius).

I don't support ideas simply because they accord with my theological politics. I reject your hypothesis because it is wrong. That simple. Note that I cast no slur on your integrity; I do not believe you are playing some game -- as far as I know you are a man who has been honestly misled by an epiphany.

Up until I saw this I was willing to ignore your book. If some misguided idiot deconverts because of you, more power to ya. But now: I promise you I will read it and post a very thorough review of it on my blog later this year. Accuse me of being closeminded! Harumph!

Vorkosigan