Joe Atwill

Stephan:

Bob’s comments above are reflective of his entire critique. They combine an absence of a sequential train of thought with unproven assertions. For example, how can one “surely” claim that Mark ‘borrowed’ a story about a ‘Jesus’ who is a lunatic? As far as the ‘rest of my parallels not being similarly compelling this is both incorrect – some can be demonstrated to be more ‘compelling’, and irrelevant.

The real problem with Price’s critique is that he does not have any methodology to determine if typological mapping is occurring between the Gospels and Josephus. To start to create such methodologies please return to my prior post regarding the ‘incontrovertible’ Moses/Jesus typological mapping in Matthew. How would one either prove that it exists, or falsify the claim?

Since the Jesus/Titus typology uses the same system, scholars should base their criticism of it within methodologies that would be relevant to understanding the Moses/Jesus mapping. Bob (and Carrier’s) technique is incorrect in that it has as a premise that any significant differences between the related passages demonstrate that they were not deliberately linked. Simply stepping through the Moses/Jesus typology (posted below) reveals that such an approach would falsify the obviously deliberate mapping and is therefore incorrect.

For example, Josephus, Life 75 shares the following similarities with the Gospels story of Jesus’s crucifixion.

Group of three being crucified.
Joseph takes down from cross
Roman commander begged
One survives
Similar job description – counselor
Similar last name

Are these parallels sufficient – like those in the passages that make up the Moses/Jesus typology - to operate within a pattern of typological mapping? If not why?

Joe

Joe Atwill

Stephan:

Here is the Moses/Jesus typolgy:

Gen 45-50 Joseph to Egypt - Matt 2.13 Joseph to Egypt

Ex. 1 Pharaoh massacres boys – Matt 2.16 Herod massacres
boys

Ex. 4 "All the men are dead…" Matt 2.20 `They are dead…"

Ex. 12 From Egypt to Israel- Matt 2.21 From Egypt to Israel

Ex. 14 Passing through water (Baptism) – Matt 3.13 Baptism

Ex. 16 Tempted by bread- Matt 4.4 Tempted by bread

Ex. 17 Do not tempt God – Matt 4.7 Do not tempt God

Ex. 32 Worship only God- Matt 4.10 Worship only God

Joe

jgibson000

Do you expect us to understand this comparison and its import without first having read your book? Or is your comparison intelligible on its own?

Is this comparison a conjecture or is it a statement of fact?

JG

Chris Weimer

Joe,

So you're saying that not only does Jesus look like Titus, but also that Titus' life is taken from Moses??

I think we're stretching things a bit here.

Joe Atwill

Chris:

lol, This is an absurb misunderstanding of my work. Why don't you become familar with the thesis before you critique. This often improves criticism.

Joe



Joe

Joe Atwill

JG:

Do you expect us to understand this comparison and its import without first having read your book?

No

Or is your comparison intelligible on its own?

Yes

Is this comparison a conjecture or is it a statement of fact?

It is a comparison.

Joe

Chris Weimer

Joe,

Is this website accurate in describing your theory?

Joe Atwill

Chris:

No.

Joe

Joe Atwill

Chris:

A question. Why would you even wish to comment on a thesis you haven't read? What is the point/

Joe

Chris Weimer

Sometimes you don't need to read a thesis to know it's baloney. Please, Joe, if your theory has any merit, instead of hiding it in a book, spill the beans on its details.