Juliana

You might be mistaken there, Sir! You can read big parts of Carotta's work online (soon the complete book), I haven't seen that Atwill does that. Maybe you first want to read both and then judge. I just got a copy of Atwill's messiah and it's worse than I thought.

I don't know who put Carotta's great work together with that cheap--and I mean cheap in every sense of the word--botch. But whoever did it probably did it for a reason. There are other strange things to be noticed on Amazon and elsewhere. If e.g. you enter "Carotta" in the search field of Amazon you get his book and the second in the list is that unspeakable tripe. When, however you enter "Atwill" you don't see 'Jesus was Caesar'. On other websites information concerning the book is missing or wrong (publication date, number of pages, etc.) or the author is "unknown".
Yes, there is something fishy, but it is not with Carotta.

Juliana

-DM-

That is the very reason that I qualified my assertions with "probably."

I did when I entered the title of Atwill's book.

You might be mistaken there, Mam!--but i don't see a "probably" in your assertion.

-DM-

P.S. "Jesus was Caesar" is a bit of an overstatement, in my opinion.

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

spin

What exactly is bad about it and Atwill's thesis in your view?

Juliana

Okay, I'll try to explain the title to you. You can either read it as saying:

"Jesus never existed, but there was Caesar" or you can say
"Jesus really existed and in his lifetime he was called Gaius Julius Caesar".

You may choose which reading you prefer. But if you want to suggest another title I'd like to hear it, perhaps the title of the Italian journal would be better:

The unknown Caesar. From Divus Iulius to Jesus

Or perhaps:

The crucified Caesar

?
Further suggestions are welcome.

Juliana

Juliana

Logical circles en masse, petitio principii, non sequitur, etc. The "Selected Bibliography" lists 11 titles but he says he "studied hundreds of books", the introduction, the diction, the whole style of it is hard to bear...
But I want to read the complete book first before I make my judgement.
See for yourself and you will soon find out what kind of book that is...

Juliana

spin

A few examples of these might be nice...

And the Atwill thesis?

Juliana

Patience.

...is ridiculous.

:rolling:

-DM-

I suggest the title as it is in English, Jesus was Caesar. And that is the way that I choose to read it. In my opinion, if the author did not intend it to be read that way, then he should have seen to it that it did not read that way. If he intended it to be read either one of the ways that you suggest, then he should have chosen one of those titles--in English.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

Juliana

Well, if the author chose that title, he probably meant it that way. But consider that the publisher finally decides on that. I don't know who finally decided in the English edition but that was the case with the German edition where Carotta did not want to have the subtitle "2000 years of adoration of a copy" but the publisher insisted on this.

Anyway, later in the book the title is specified:
"And thus we have to restrict the assertion of the title of this book: ‘Jesus was Caesar’. He was—as a man. As a God he is not: Jesus is Divus Iulius."

Juliana

spin

I thought you had examples. Too bad.

This is not a particularly profound analysis there, Joseph. It's as meaningful as saying, "and the Carotta thesis?" "Jesus was Caesar? ...It's ridiculous."

Not a very helpful response now, is it? We are used to more in depth analyses here.


spin