Vorkosigan

Here I'll take a look at Carotta's opinion's on why Matthew wrote about a colt and an ass.

Carotta:

• Asinius Pollio
  
  He was with Caesar at the Rubicon and by his side during the civil war. After Pompeius—Corfinium having surrendered—had left Italy via Brundisium and crossed the sea to Epirus with part of the Senate, and while Caesar was on the verge of marching into Rome, Asinius went to Sicily by Caesar’s order to take the island from Cato, the governor appointed by the Pompeians. He accompanied the legate Curio who was to go to Africa from Sicily:
  
  ‘Eventually Asinius Pollio followed Caesar’s orders and went to Sicily, which at that time was under Cato’s leadership. When Cato asked if he came with an order of the Senate or the people in his pocket to invade a foreign area he received the following answer: “The Lord of Italy delegated this task to me!� Cato contented himself with the reply that he would not offer any resistance out of consideration for his subordinates. He then left for Kerkyra (Corfu) and from Kerkyra to Pompeius. In the meantime Caesar hurried towards Rome…’[393]

The kicker is here:

• Since Asinius sounds like the adjective to asinus, ‘ass’, and Pollio like pôlos or pullus, ‘colt’, our constant—the assumption that proper names turn into generic names—requires that Asinius Pollio appears as ‘ass’s colt’, with the requisites belonging to him—two envoys, a legate, verbal arguments, questions of authorization, orders of the Lord, taking over, etc.—creatively organized around the colt.

What's the assumption -- that proper names turn into generic names. But we move on....

• We do not have to search for long. Just as Asinius Pollio is mentioned immediately before Caesar enters Rome, so we find our ass’s colt just before Jesus enters Jerusalem. Here is Mark’s version [the most important variations of the other Evangelists have been placed in brackets]:
  
  ‘And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, [unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, (missing in John)] he sendeth forth two of his disciples, And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: [to the place opposite you (Luke)] and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, [(Matthew) an ass tied, and a colt with her / (John) an ass’s colt / a young ass] whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; [and straightway he will send him hither (missing in Luke)]. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him. And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go.’[394]
  
  Here we find our Asinius Pollio again, sometimes only as Pollio, ‘colt’, sometimes with the full name of ‘ass’s colt’ or ‘ass with colt’. ‘Tied’: is this legatus understood as ligatus, ‘legate’ as ‘ligated’? That makes sense.

"That makes sense." Whoa. Now look at this geographical boner.

• If Asinius Pollio is an ass’s colt then the legate Asinius Pollio can only be a ligated ass’s colt. The places are identical: before the entrance into the different capitals. Even the place they come from is
  there—Brundisium/Brentesion. The Gospel writers that actually name the place vary between Bethphage and Bethany and land not far from Bethsaida, which we found in the crossing of the stormy sea, there also in place of Brentesion.

Bethsaida is not even mentioned in this sequence, and for good reason. It's not "not far" from Bethphage and Bethany, it's on the other side of Palestine on the north shore of the sea of Galilee. Has Carotta ever looked at a map of Palestine?

But we already know where this comes from: Zech 9:9. This derivation is well known among exegetes. Matthew screwed it up when he copied Mark. The entrance of the king into the city on an ass is well known in biblical tradition. Duncan and Derret (Duncan, J., and Derret, M. 2001. Palin: The Ass Again (Mk 11,3d). Filologia Neotestamentaria 14 (2001) 121-130.) note:

• "Targum Onqelos speaks of the Messiah and of his people's building the Temple, with righteousness round about him and doers of the Law through his doctrine. The pseudo-Jonathan Targum speaks of the Messiah who girds his loins and arrays the battle against his adversaries. Improbably the ass is his war-horse, as it were. He cannot look at anything unclean... The Neofiti Targum is similarly un-Christian. The fragmentary Targum says the king Messiah will bind his loins and go forth to war against those that hate him. The targumic evidence is no doubt the most impressive: that is what the Synagogue heard on the Sabbath. From ancient times the "colt tied to the vine" symbolized the Messiah's style of warfare, and we can surmise that anyone tying up a colt, if he is addicted to messianism, hopes that the Messiah's outriders will come and untie it -no casual event for them, as Burkitt and Lightfoot imagined"(p128-9).

Carotta burbles on:

• Sicily as place of the mission remains on the other side of the sea: katenanti, ‘over against / opposite’[395]—while the name of the ‘opposite’, Cato(n), the one to be replaced, blatantly echoes: anti Katônos, ‘in place of Cato’. Both Caesar and Jesus have two envoys. The question of authority appears when Caesar’s envoys want to replace the legate of the Senate and is also directed to the disciples of Jesus, ‘What do ye, loosing the colt?’ The same answer, ‘The Lord of Italy delegated this task to me’ and ‘the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither’. The second part of the sentence sounds like Cato giving up the province as well as announcing his withdrawal from Sicily.[396] And the giving in is there, which is also found in the final words, ‘and they let them go’.

Note how Carotta switches around. First the colt is Arsinus Pollio, now its Sicily. Basically, the parallels are whatever he needs them to be. Carotta does not deal with the well-known affinities for Zech 14 (see Duff, P. B. 1992. The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem. JBL 111(1992) 55-71.) and 1 Sam 9-10.

Carotta then skips the actual entrance. Recall that Carotta claims that Mark has few Septuagintisms. Alas, for him, for 11:9 is taken from the Septuagint versions of Ps 117 and 148. The Greek of the two texts is the same in both (Eulogemenos ho erchomenos en onomati Kuriou).

Carotta also fails to point that Bethphage is 'House of Unripe Figs' a clear allusion to the upcoming miracle. Carotta continues:

• The name Sicily is missing. Instead there is a fig tree with leaves:
  
  ‘And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves.’[397]
  
  ‘Fig tree’: sykê, pronounced siki. ‘Leaves’: phylla, pronounced filla. Sicilia is siki with filla, a ‘fig tree with leaves’.

How do we derive "sicilia" from siki/filla? Carotta doesn't make the connection. The reality is that this too is OT derived. Israel is often presented as a fig tree in the old testament. Jer 24 gives us two baskets of figs outside the temple, and several other passages also come to mind. Perhaps the scene is based on Psalm 37:35-6. More likely is Micah 7:1, where "the imagery of a search for figs is a figure for God's search for righteous Israelites, and the image of a barren or withered fig tree is occasionally used to represent national failure as a manifestation of divine judgment" (Brown 2002).

Carotta needs to show why his explanation is more powerful than the scholarly one. He does not demonstrate any connection between Sicily and the Fig Tree here; just asserts it.

• Then a doublet appears. A few verses later the barren fig tree appears again.[398] This doublet too has its counterpart in the Caesar source, because there is a second trip to Sicily: first Asinius then Curio. Observe the sequence:[399] In one text there is Asinius Pollio’s mission to Sicily, in the other there is the mission to fetch the ass’s colt and there is a fig tree with leaves; here, a brief description of Caesar’s entrance into Rome; there a brief description of Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem; here, Curio(n)’s appointment as governor of Sicily with the orders to cross over to Africa, there a second passing beside the fig tree, which is now xêron, ‘barren’; xêron = Curio(n) (XHRON = KOURION).[400]

• Conclusion: As expected, we found Asinius Pollio as an ‘ass’s colt’, and as expected the context and requisites are identical except that they are creatively rearranged around the mutated leading actor, and adequately adapted if necessary.

The problem is that the creative re-arranging is done by Carotta, not the authors. They are actually sticking to an entirely different script, the Elijah-Elisha sequence in kings. See Brodie A Crucial Bridge. But then, that is post 1950.......

• And once again we have an explanation for the differences between the Evangelists! The one says ‘colt’ only and the other says ‘ass’s colt’ or ‘ass with colt’ instead, becomes understandable if it is assumed that one found only Pollio in his exemplar whereas the other found Asinius Pollio.

No, as any scholar could tell you, it's because Matthew misread Zech 9:9. That's basic knowledge, and Carotta can't make his case until he deals with it.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Carotta comically continues:

• The healing of the leper[420] appearing in Mark is, sensibly enough, located directly before the healing of our paralytic, and in its structure it seems to be a summary of the following story and could be seen as a doublet, if a leper had not replaced the paralytic here:
  
  ‘And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, moved with compassion [some manuscripts: And he was incensed], put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean. And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed. And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away; And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.’
  
  Just as the paralytic is forgiven his sins so here the leper is cleansed. Jesus is moved with compassion or is incensed, without reason, but Caesar has reason to feel resentful towards Clodius. Jesus stretches out his hand and cleanses the leper just as Caesar stretches out his protective hand over Clodius. Noticeable is that Jesus straitly charges the leper, forthwith sends him away and says to him: ‘See thou say nothing to any man.’ Caesar did the same: he pushed his wife away and Clodius had to deny everything in order to be cleansed. The fact that the paralytic shows himself to the priest also has its pendant: Clodius first justified himself before the pontifex maximus[421] Caesar and then Caesar has to appear as a witness himself.
  
  The interesting point here is that for the priest the cleansing is about what Moses has commanded: Môsês. Mos: the ‘customs’, the ‘mores’, were what the pontifex maximus had to keep watch over.[422]

Brodie (2000, p91-2) finds the clear fingerprint of the Elijah-Elisha cycle in this as well. From 2 Kings 5:

*the action begins with the leper; and with the motion toward Elisha/Jesus:
*the healer should/does extend his hand;
*the leprosy is cleansed immediately;
*there is an aftermath concerning worship (a Temple, the priest)

We might also note that Numbers 5:1-2 directs:

1: The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Command the Israelites to send away from the camp anyone who has an infectious skin disease or a discharge of any kind, or who is ceremonially unclean because of a dead body.(RSV)

Note how in Mark 1 Jesus heals a "leper" (skin disease) and then in Mk 5:21-43 Jesus heals a woman with a discharge, followed by the raising of a dead girl (ceremonially unclean due to contact with a dead body). All of these are contagious impurities (Fletcher-Louis 2003) that affect others who touch them.

The entire context is OT (HINT: why is the leper to show himself to the priest?). This is well known among exegetes, at least those who read scholarship. It may be wrong, but Carotta needs to deal with it; nothing shows, however, that he is even aware of it.

Vorkosigan

More later. Have other fish to fry.

Juliana

Yes, I suspect that is one of the personal motives. There might be others like enviousness, vanity and other all too human motivations, perhaps being afraid of losing one's reputation in the community or even losing one's job. Carotta's work constitutes a paradigm shift.
There are scholars who endorse Carotta's work, however, mainly in the Netherlands.

Despite Vorkosigan's verbose claims and belittlements of Carotta's great work, not one scholar has come up with any valid objection whatsoever. Vorkosigan's trick is quite simple. As Aquitaine stated, he simply uses and refers to the "scholarship" he knows and personally prefers, and chooses to ignore everything else of which he maybe has no idea, then stating his sources are those generally acknowledged, the "consensus". I'm wondering why he doesn't address the author with his "refutations". Why, he knows it better, obviously!
Sentences like "Mark is a thoroughly Jewish gospel." say it all, this is ideology, not scholarship.

The work has been published in the Italian specialist journal Quaderni di Storia

There were several reviews, especially in the Netherlands where the book is a success. The English edition has only been available since February this year. See a list of reviews here (some with English translation):
http://www.carotta.de/subseite/echo.html
http://www.carotta.de/nova.html

Juliana

For an overview of some of the main points I post this summary here.
I'm beginning to wonder, was Caesar actually also a figure made up out of the Jewish scriptures? And "veni, vidi, vici" is actually from 'Kings' ?
:rolling:

-----------------------
© Francesco Carotta, 1988–2005.
The spreading of these texts is free, except for commercial purposes.


SUMMARY

The question is:

IS JESUS DIVUS JULIUS?
(IS JESUS THE HISTORICAL FIGURE OF DIVUS JULIUS, THE GOD TO WHICH JULIUS CAESAR WAS ELEVATED?)

Framework of the argumentation:

A) ICONOGRAPHY OF CAESAR DO NOT FIT OUR IDEA OF HIM.
In our minds Caesar is a field marshall and a dictator. However, authentic images (statues and coins) portray the idea of the clementia Caesaris, a clement Caesar. The bust of Caesar in the Torlonia Museum resembles Jesus significantly. Even the wreath he wears, the oak wreath of the soter, the Savior, corresponds in form and significance to the crown of thorns worn by the Holy One.

B) JESUS’ LIFE IS CONGRUENT TO THE LIFE OF CAESAR.

Both Julius Caesar and Jesus began their careers in northern countries: Caesar in Gaul, Jesus in Galilee; both cross a fatal river: the Rubicon and the Jordan; both then enter cities: Corfinium and Cafarnaum; Caesar finds Corfinium occupied by a man of Pompey and besieges him, while Jesus finds a man possessed by an impure spirit. There is similarity in structure as well as in place names: Gallia > Galilaea; Corfinium > Cafarnaum; occupied/besieged > possessed (both obsessus inLatin). The similarities remain consistent throughout (when occupation or besieging is referred to in the one text, possession is used in the other, etc.)
[ Extract from the book ‘Jesus was Caesar’, p. 47-50 ]
[ Extract from the book ‘Jesus was Caesar’, p.169-174 ]

C) PEOPLE IN THE STORIES OF CAESAR AND OF JESUS ARE STRUCTURALLY THE SAME PEOPLE, EVEN BY NAME AND LOCATION:

Caesar > Jesus
Pompey > John (the Baptist)
Antonius > Simon
Lepidus > Peter
(Decimus) Junius (Brutus) > Judas
(Marcus Junius) Brutus > Barabbas
Octavianus (Augustus) > John (the disciple)
Nicomedes of Bithynia > Nicodemus of Bethania
Cleopatra > (Mary) Magdalene
Julia (widow of Marius) > Mary
The Senate > The Sanhedrin
Gaul > Galilee
Rubicon > Jordan
Corfinium > Cafarnaum
Rome > Jerusalem
etc.

People and places have the same function in both stories:
Pompey is the political godfather of Caesar and competes with him in the same way John the Baptist does with Jesus.
Antony and Lepidus became Caesar’s successors, the first as flamen, high priest of the Divus Julius cult, the second as pontifex maximus, just as Simon and Peter do with Jesus (they both melt into one figure – Simon Peter).
Decimus Junius Brutus betrays Caesar as Judas betrays Jesus.
The other Brutus is Caesar’s murderer and Barabbas is a murderer.
Octavian is the young Caesar, his posthumously adopted son. John is adopted by Jesus as he is dying on the cross.
Nicomedes of Bithynia was said to have had nightly meetings with Caesar as did Nicodemus of Bethany with Jesus.
Cleopatra had a special relationship with Caesar as did Mary Magdalene with Jesus.
Julia, Caesar’s aunt and widow of Marius plays the same role as Mary, the mother of Jesus.
The Senate is Caesar’s enemy, just as the Council is Jesus’ Satan.
Caesar comes from Gaul, in the north, at the beginning of the Civil War, while Jesus also comes from the north, Galilee, at the beginning of his public life.
Corfinium is the first city Caesar occupies and Cafarnaum is the first city Jesus enters.
Rome is the capital, where Caesar first triumphs and later is assassinated. Jerusalem is the city where Jesus is celebrated on Palm Sunday and later put to death.

Names resemble each other in writing and phonetically – Gallia and Galilaia, Corfinium and Cafarnaum, (Julia) M�*ria and Marìa, Nicomedes of Bithynia and Nicodemus of Bethania, etc. Other examples are not as obvious but can still be recognized: Junius (Brutus) and Judas, Brutus and Barabbas, Senatus and Satanas, etc., or even ROMA and HieROsolyMA, Antonius and Simona (mirror images, from right to left, as if it were written in Aramaic), etc.

D) CAESAR’S MOST FAMOUS QUOTATIONS ARE FOUND IN THE GOSPELS – IN STRUCTURALLY SIGNIFICANT PLACES.
Most quotes are word for word, sometimes with insignificant differences:

«He who does not take sides is on my side» reoccurs as «For he that is not against us is for us.».
«I am not King, I am Caesar» appears as «We have no king but Caesar».
[ Extract from the book ‘Jesus was Caesar’, p. 182 ]
«The best death is sudden death» appears as «What you are going to do (lead me to death), do quickly».
«Did I save them, that they might destroy me?» is «He saved others; he cannot save himself.»

Only in two cases are there slight, yet meaningful distortions:
«Alea iacta est(o)», «The die is cast», became «… casting (a net into the sea): for they were fishers» (confusion of lat. alea, die, and gr. (h)aleeis, fishers) – the miraculous netting of fish).
«Veni vidi vici», «I came, I saw, I conquered�, changed to «I came, I washed and I saw.» (confusion of enikisa, I won, and enipsa, I washed) – the healing of the blind.

An additional confirmation is that the words as well as actions of Caesar and Jesus reoccur in the same place and in the same sequence, while preserving the same chronology. This is easily demonstrated by comparing the different chapter and verse (paragraph) numbers of the quotes used above:

alea/aleeis (the die / fishers):
App. BC 2.35; Plut. Caes. 32 / Mk 1:16
no side / not against us:
App. BC 2.37; Plut. Caes. 33; Caes. Civ. 1.33, 1.85 / Mk 9:40
veni vidi vici / I came, washed and saw:
App. BC 2.91; Plut. Caes. 50 / Jh 9:7-11 =ca. Mk 8:24
not King / no king:
App. BC 2.108; Plut. Caes. 60 / Jh 19:15 (=ca. Mk 15:15)
sudden/quickly:
App. BC 2.115; Plut. Caes. 63 / Jh 13:27 (=ca. Mk 14:21)
save/save:
App. BC 2.146; (=ca. Plut. Caes. 68)/ Mk 15:31

The only apparent inconsistency is in the second example. That quote, however, in general repeated by Caesar as proof of strategical focus also appears in different places in classical historians (twice in Caesar’s own report of the Civil War, 1.33 and 1.85, while Sueton, who uses the quote a total of 89 times, uses it for the first time in Chapter 75 of his biography of Caesar). The sequence inversion in the 4th and 5th example is not relevant because their position in Mark is only hypothetically determined by John who is known for not taking chronology too exactly (even so, both quotes are closely aligned)

There is an easily recognized pattern: the miraculous victories of Caesar become the victorious miracles of Jesus.
Accordingly Caesar’s clashes with the Caecilii, Claudii and Metelli mutate into the healing of the blind (lat. caecilius = blind), lame (lat. claudius = the lame) and crippled (metellus mistakenly from mutilus = mutilated)

There appear to be alterations in the text which must have taken place during the long copy process: the Gospel would therefore have originated from a mis-copying of a report on the Roman Civil War – first from cumulative copying mistakes and then a final «logical» editing.
[ Extract from the book ‘Jesus was Caesar’, p. 209-211 ]

Other observations confirm these results. Ex:

E) THE EASTER LITURGY DOES NOT FOLLOW THE GOSPEL, BUT THE BURIAL RITUAL OF CAESAR (as Ethelbert Stauffer proved, cf. Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, Bern 1957, p. 21).
[ Extract from the book ‘Jesus was Caesar’, p. 59-63 ]
Fire does not appear in the Gospels, but it is of utmost importance in the Easter Vigil as it is in the cremation of Caesar. Nevertheless in the Gospels fire does not disappear completely: the PYRA mutates into MYRA, the stake into myrrh (which is given to Jesus with wine and vinegar respectively).
Consequently, the suit of armor of Vercingetorix, which should have hung at the trophy, the cruciform memorial of victory, at the head of Caesar’s bier, was replaced by Anthony with a wax representation of the assassinated body of Caesar, stripped of his blood splattered toga and exposed to all the mourning who perceived it as a cross.
The corresponding dates of death, the Ides of March and the 15th day of Nizan are a further chronological confirmation of the Easter Vigil representing Caesar’s death.

What emerges from the comparison is the fact that no matter what the comparison the same structures and sequences are found and differences are reduced to the simple mix up of letters. What really changes is the perception.

All of these similarities—there is a complete synopsis of Caesar’s biography and Mark’s gospel in the German text;
[ Extract from the book ‘Jesus was Caesar’, p. 281-285 ]
the lectures stress the gems found in writing mistakes and mutations; the iconography studied stresses the fact that typical Jesuanic traits, such as the Pieta-face, the crown of thorns, the long hair, the beard, the clothing, the crosier, the aureole, all variations of the cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, etc. previously occur on coins with Caesar’s likeness and are still evident in those minted by Antony and Octavian Augustus – cannot be attributed to pure chance and require an explanation.
The most convincing one is:

THE CULT SURROUNDING JESUS IS ACTUALLY THE CULT OF DIVUS JULIUS,
[ Extract from the book ‘Jesus was Caesar’, p. 325-329 ]
MODIFIED OVER THE COURSE OF CENTURIES IN VETERAN COLONIES IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE EMPIRE.
The proximity of languages offered a convenient breeding ground for this change with the Latin of the colonies slowly giving way to the Greek of the surroundings (with occasional emergence of the Aramaic substratum).
The political changes which occurred with Vespasian and Titus after the Jewish war, such as the necessity of integrating Jews into the empire, led to the development of a cult and texts ad usum Iudaeorum: Divus Julius became the Messiah. Adding quotes from the Biblia Iudaica, which replaced the classical one, helped to make the most Roman of all histories a Jewish story.
[ Extract from the book ‘Jesus was Caesar’, p.125-131 ]
[ Extract from the book ‘Jesus was Caesar’, p.166-168 ]

SUMMATION: The protoevangelium seems to be the historiae of Asinius Pollio, which were not only the basis for the works of future historians (particularly Appian and Plutarch), but also the basis for liturgical texts used throughout the entire empire in the caesarea, the temples of Divus Julius.

This popular version, anchored in the daily and religious life of the people, was transformed by the cult and changed during the copying and translation process – traduttore traditore – and eventually became our Gospel. The fact that the Church always claimed that St. Mark’s Gospel was written in Latin, in Rome twelve years after the Lord departed is confirmed in an impressive way.

RESULT: The century long debate as to whether the Gospels are history or literature, a product of tradition or editing, is traced back to objective and verifiable proofs and proven. The question as to whether Jesus was actually a historical figure is also solved: Jesus is the historically transmitted figure of Divus Julius.

Zeichman

Scholars? The only people with PhD's on there who actually "endorse" his thesis seem to have gotten them in law or economics.

Want my logic professor with a PhD to diagnose your illness?

Well, she IS a doctor, and by that web site's standards, that's enough to make her an expert.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

Juliana

Well, then go to your doctor and ask her for a pair of glasses. Your eyes seem a little weak. And, btw, I know the fallacy of an appeal to authority, that was not the point here. It was only to show that there are scholars who endorse it. Jesus wouldn't stop being Divus Iulius if none did.

What about those:

Fotis Kavoukopoulos, Ph.D., a well known specialist on Greek linguistics from Athens, Greece

Erika Simon, Ph.D., an internationally recognized archaeologist from Würzburg, Germany,

Prof. PAUL B. CLITEUR, Ph.D. professor at the Universities of Leiden and Delft, philosophy and law

Rev. Willem J. Ouweneel, Ph.D. D.D. , doctor of theology

Thomas von der Dunk, Ph.D., historian of culture

Andreas Kinneging, Ph.D, professor of philosophy of law

W.J. de Ridder, Ph.D., economics

Rev. Stephan Ch. Kessler S J, Dr. theol., a high-ranking Jesuit from Germany

and more without a PhD... e.g. a Spanish priest who is working on the Spanish edition...

Toto

. . . that later Christians borrowed art and images from the earlier Romans.

You realize that there are no likenesses of Jesus from the first 3 centuries. When later Christians finally decided to create art and images about Jesus, they borrowed their imagery from the Romans and other pagans. But this was well after the gospels were written.

Additionally, I don't see any relationship - especially linguistic - between Cleopatra (a monarch of another country and a noted orator and politician) and Mary Magdalene (a mere follower of Jesus) nor between Pompey and John the Baptist, except that both were beheaded, although under rather different circumstances (the gospels portray JtB as a forerunner, not as a competitor of Jesus.)

Zeichman

How many of the quotes of them actually endorse the thesis, though?

I can say something nice about JD Crossan's book, but that doesn't mean I agree with the conclusion, the methodology, his arguments, etc.

And why bold "philosophy"? How is that at all related to the book? Historical Jesus books should, ideally, be free of philisophical opinion.

Juliana

If I had not read the book I wouldn't see those relationships either. If you are interested, read it, if not, leave it, it's that simple.
What I detest is, when so-called Gospel experts blog "Carotta is nonsense" etc. when they haven't even read the book, only excerpts.
That is not only bad style but also casts a very special light on the "scholarliness" of those people.