Clivedurdle

Nazarenus .

Seneca?

How many more theories are there about the Romans and Jesus?

Juliana

But don't forget that Gaius Iulius and Diuus Filius can end up as Iesus also.
Gaius Iulius > Gais-jus > Iêsus >
Diuus Filius > Iuus-fius > Iuusius > Iêsus
cf. JWC p. 55 and notes #90 and 92 (p. 372-373)

Juliana

We have only considered some examples yes, but I don't think they are the more complicated explanation. Since you seem to take Vorkosigan's "refutations" as the measure of things here there is no way of making you look at this objectively, and you already said that you don't want to read JWC, no problem.

But apart from the linguistic, numismatic, iconographic, etc. evidence there is another big argument that clearly speaks for Carotta's solution:
A cult with it's particular rituals, liturgy, saints etc. simply does not evolve without an actual person, a historical figure. So in order to lend credibility to the Jewish scripture solution you would have to provide an historical Jesus in Galilaea, something that has been impossible to do - for a good reason: there never was a miracle-doing wanderpreacher named Jesus of Nazareth.

Now your response will be that this is irrelevant to your question, I know, but I'm not going to go into that kind of discussion again, especially considering how it was conducted. After all it is not my intention to convince you, the moderator. I'd like to have a discussion about this with people who are interested. Also the implications and consequences of this discovery once it has been understood are very interesting. I think they would be beneficial, just look e.g. at the growing Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. That doesn't look healthy, does it?

Aquila Pacis

Wow! What is this? Thanks for the link. I never heard about this. Care to give some information on the background of the reconstruction?

I guess there a bazillions of theories on Jesus...some of them should be Roman...after all, the whole world was Roman at that time.

Apart from the intermediate form "iuus-fius", the divus-filius-mutation is a minor variant of "divus iulius", since the syllables that one uses are in both cases the same, assuming one follows the basic rules of contraction (1st strong syllable of the 1st word with the last syllable of the second word.) The problem here is that the contraction relies upon the undeclined form "divus filius", meaning "God-son" or "divine son", and not the form that was used thoughout the empire: "divi filius", meaning "son of God". So, although the contraction is highly probable, the source name is not.

The contraction of "Gaius Iulius" is secondary from the outset, for one thing because it is a special case relying on special rules (intermediate "Gais-ius"), for another thing because Caesar AFAIK was seldomly named "Gaius Iulius" (without Caesar).

"Gaius Caesar" seems to have been the primary name. (cf. the young Caesar adopting the name "Gaius Caesar". The official one was "Gaius Iulius Caesar Divi Filius", but in most cases I have only come across the form "Gaius Caesar".) "Gaius Caesar" is named in Appian's incipit (BC).

So actually the original incipit of the Gospel of Mark should have read: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus", not "Jesus Christ", since Christos stems from a contraction of (ar)CHieR(eus) (meg)ISTOS. Since the greek word for pontifex maximus is not in the original source, the "Christ" in the incipit would be a later revision or based on an unknown source (praetexta; apocryphal Pollio etc.)

An alternative would have been: "The beginning of the Gospel of the Son of Man from Nazareth" ("Gaius" > "Gai us"; "Kaisara" > "Nazara")

This is a good point, but I would add "most probably there never was a miracle-doing wanderpreacher named Jesus of Nazareth".

EDIT: I think Amaleq13 has a good point here and there, but it's too late for me to answer...will do that tomorrow.

EDIT 2: completely forgot to answer your question, Clive. Seneca was born around 4 BC. At that time the Julian religion including cults for the Divus Iulius and the Divi Filius (in Augustus' case at least in the Eastern colonies) was already in full effect, Caesareae and Augusteae, temples, shrines had been built, coins minted, liturgical texts, prayers, sermon rules spread around the empire, veterans (re)settled etc.

Seneca must have grown up at the peak of the Augustean revolution and the Julian cult as well. If the new religion knew not only liturgical texts but also a praetexta, a play, the passion divi iulii, he will have surely seen it, and maybe based his own passion play, the "Nazarenus" on the original praetexta, although the title is probably wrong..."Caesariana" maybe? The original play could very well have been written in the weeks or months after the Ides of March....again of course: wild speculation here.

Amaleq13

Does Carotta ever provide known examples of these same errors by scribes? IOW, are there any examples of the same mistakes Carotta suggests have taken place in contemporary works? Or are these mistakes unique to the creation of the Gospels?

Amaleq13

We must have very different understandings of what constitutes "complicated". As I asked before, could you offer a specific example or two where Carotta's explanation for the origin of a given passage is clearly more simple than the generally accepted understanding? Pick the best two comparisons that demonstrate this greater simplicity.

You are operating under somewhat of a misconception. I was more convinced by your (Carotta's) lack of substantive response to Vorkosigan's specific questions/observations than I was by the questions/observations, themselves. Many of his questions/observations seemed pretty obvious so I was suprised that, based on your replies, Carotta didn't anticipate and specifically address them.

That said, I do find Vorkosigan's explanation of the origins of Mark far more credible than I do Carotta's but I certainly don't consider his conclusions to be beyond criticism. I am entirely willing to accept a better explanation but I'm not willing to change my definition of "better".

That was my conclusion based on the discussions in this thread. This conclusion is always provisional and open to change given sufficient evidence.

I'm not sure that is true but I think the first apostles and Paul were actual people, historical figures so I'm not sure it matters.

How did you establish this to be the reason? How, for example, did you determine that the reason was not because the historical Jesus has been so obscured by mythology as to be rendered unrecoverable?

It should be your intention to convince me, the potential convert. My position as moderator is irrelevant.

Vorkosigan

No psychic power necessary. Your pal Carotta has all the earmarks of baloney, from the revolutionary theory that is unsupported by evidence or methodology, to the complaint that rejection at the hands of scholars is because they are small minded inhabitants of cloistered ivory towers. That's Van Daniken shit, not reality.

I've NEVER claimed to be an expert on Mark, so I have no idea why you keep accusing me of that. Although I certainly have a better handle on Mark than Carotta does, no question about that.

Probably because the various authors of Mark inform us again and again that they sourced their stories from Jewish scripture, through paralleling and citations of Septuagint. In many cases (the Crucifixion, for example, or the Raising of Jairus' daughter, or the Death of JBap), the source is cited right in the passage. In other places it is cited elsewhere. AP also makes this same error above.

• As I said, some of the scholarship simply doesn't fit into Carotta's approach. Elijah and Elisha would be an alien element in the theory of a Roman origin. It's as simple as that: Carotta doesn't need Elijah and Elisha to come to his conclusion. Two theories that ATM seem to be incompatible, probably forever and a day. If you say: "Jesus? Jewish? Nope! Jesus? Roman? Yup!" it would actually be a hindrance looking for roots in the OT or the Septuagint.

AP has identified the problem. Rather than analyzing Mark in its context, she has decided that we can't even look in the Septuagint because it is a hindrance -- the answer to the origin of Mark was decided by Carotta and so other ideas need not be explored.. Carotta's "methodology" is to organize everything around his central epiphany and simply ignore the evidence that points elsewhere and the arguments based on it. Elijah and Elisha may be alien to Carotta's theory, but he's going to have to explain why the Septuagint appears to be present at every level of the text, including about 30 direct citations and 150 citations and allusions, including many allusions to 2 Kings. Any evidence-based exploration with an objective methodology is going to come to that same conclusion, which is why the affinities between the Elijah tales and the Jesus tales have been known since at least the end of the 19th century. The Elijah stuff It also provides the framework for each section of the narrative. If Carotta wants to say that the Tale of Jairus daughter being raised comes from the Caesar myth, he will have to explain why the text cites the apparent source of the story, 2 kings 4, in the tale itself, along with parallels that have been noted by scholars for decades. I'd be curious to know what Caesar story Carotta thinks that is from, though.

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.

Transactions of the American Philological Association is a seriously professional journal which will probably die of laughter when Carotta attempts to publish in there. See, Carotta can't have any methodology other than free associating for his linguistic transformations, and I expect rejections from serious journals. I suggest you try a low ranking journal in a non-English speaking nation in the Far East, where standards are very low. I can recommend several if you like.

No, it's a serious attempt to make sure that none of Carotta's shit lands on me, since I am also trying to get published the idea that Mark is a fiction. And to make sure none of it lands on mythicism in general.

Vorkosigan

Juliana

Conduct a survey among practicing Christians about whether they believe Jesus was Jew. The result will be (let me be a prophet here, I've asked about ten so the result is not significant yet) that the majority will say:
"Nope, no way".
Ask Jewish authorities (and read what they have written) whether the concept of a Son of God is conceivable in the Jewish milieu and whether they think Jesus was a Jew.
Their answer is: "Nope, no way".

The reason why all that Jewish stuff landed in the gospel has been explained earlier in this thread, scroll back if you don't recall. Just in case you haven't realized yet: Theology has a strong political component.
The worst part of your activities around Mark is that you have not understood yet (or worse, maybe you have), whom and what you are supporting with your madness.
I think our respective positions are clear, Vorkosigan, there's no use in continuing this debate between the two of us.

Juliana

Vorkosigan

From Psalm 2:7, a coronation psalm:

7 I will proclaim the decree of the Lord : He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father/begotten you."

also found in 2 Sam 7:14, where the Lord promises to David:

I will be his father, and he will be my son. (NIV)

Them must be some pretty clewless Jewish authorities. They probably have never heard of 4Q246 or 4Q174 or 4 Ezra or read their own scriptures, in which, as John J. Collins notes, "the individual most often designated as 'the son of God' in the Hebrew Bible is undoubtedly the Davidic King, or his eschatological counterpart" and "But the notion that the messiah was Son of God in a special sense was rooted in Judaism."

But Collins is one of them Ivory Tower Skolers who hate new ideas, a leading authority on Jewish messianic thought. Do you think he'd want Carotta's book banned, or just burnt on sight? I can't decide which.

Mark may be a Jewish document, but that doesn't mean that it was conceived in a Jewish milieu -- it was conceived in a Hellenistic and Christian milieu. As I have stated.

No, really? Imagine that.

You mean this process where I slice Carotta into quivering chunks of pseudoscholarship is a debate? No, Juliana, "debating" is what I do with people who know their shit. "Target practice" is what goes on with yammerheads like Carotta. Go peddle your book elsewhere.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

There you go, spin, the long-sought origin of Nazara.

Vorkosigan