Joe Atwill

Though Carrier claims in his above post to be producing “actual truth” and to show “how our conversation really proceeded”, in fact he edited out my most important comments.

As an example, I cite his post concerning the “fishing for men’ parallel between Jesus and Titus’ I show in Caesar’s Messiah.

He wrote:

“These are inevitable parallels--they are true of hundreds of people in history. It's like the scores of "parallels" between Lincoln and Kennedy that circulate on the web. We need good examples, not questionable ones. Not because Josephus couldn't have intended these parallels, but because we have no way of knowing whether he did from all-too-common attributes like these.”

My response is below. Carrier not only did not contest my analysis, but edited it out of his post claiming to show “how our conversation really proceeded”. By doing so, however, he falsely created the impression that I was the one - not he - that had no response. In fact I responded:

“Your position that the parallels are “inevitable” is clearly incorrect. Here I believe your claim can be shown to be false to almost a mathematical certainty. We do have a way of knowing if Josephus intended these parallels.

First, I challenge you to find even a single person who experienced even one half the plausible typologically related events with Jesus as those I show exist between him and Titus. And trust me, Richard, when I say that you would spend the rest of your life without finding these sorts of parallels to Jesus' ministry in the life of any other person. A few minutes of thought about the project should be all it takes to convince you of this. However, even if you did, amazingly, find in, say, a campaign of Napoleon, a cannibalized ‘son of Mary’, a fishing for men incident, and a crucifixion of three people that one somehow survived etc. are you really arguing that these parallels could have occurred in the same order? I will be happy to calculate the probability of that having happened if you like. The famous Lincoln - Kennedy parallels that you cite - I'm sure you will admit - while interesting did not occur in the same order. Such parallels do not occur in the same order accidentally because they can not. For example, ignoring the Gospels, you will not even be able to cite a single example – in all of human history - of such sequential parallelism that occurred accidentally between two individuals.

I would like to repeat this point as it is key: "you will not even be able to cite a single example – in all of human history - of such sequential parallelism that occurred accidentally". Or, do you have a single example?”

Carrier also edited out my communication which showed the inaccuracy of his methodology in critiquing the Gospels’ typology.

I wrote:

“You have shown that there are ways to tear apart the linkages I present. But this is not important as the same approach would beget the same results with the typology between Jesus and Moses. Thus, your methodology is incorrect. To understand if deliberate typological linkage is occurring between Jesus and Titus we must use the ‘instructions’ left for us by the authors of the Gospels themselves, nothing else can be considered. Therefore, first looks for conceptual parallels - and all of the parallels I present, obviously, meet this criterion - next check location and then compare sequence. If everything matches you are either looking at the work of God in the lives of men, or someone is pulling your leg.”

As shown below Carrier does not understand my thesis, which is not surprising in that he has not read the book. My thesis maintains that the precise typology used to show that events from Moses’ life ‘foresaw’ Jesus was extended from Jesus to Titus. In other words, the method that the authors of the Gospels used to show that events from the life of the first savior of Israel, Moses, ‘foresaw’ events in the life of the second, Jesus, was also used by the authors of the Gospels to show that events from the life of Jesus ‘foresaw’ events from the life of the final ‘savior’ of Israel, Titus. As readers can ascertain for themselves, Carrier’s methodology – of merely looking for differences - would never recognize the typological relationship between Jesus and Moses, which can only be recognized by seeing their similarities.

For clarification here is the Moses/Jesus typology.

Old Testament

Gen 45-50 Joseph takes old Israel down to Egypt
Ex. 1 Pharaoh massacres boys
Ex. 4 “All the men are dead…”
Ex. 12 From Egypt to Israel
Ex. 14 Passing through water
(Baptism)
Ex. 16 Tempted by bread
Ex. 17 Do not tempt God
Ex. 32 Worship only God

Matthew

2.21 From Egypt to Israel
2.13 Joseph brings ‘new Israel’ down to Egypt
2.16 Herod massacres boys
2.20 ‘They are dead…”
3.13 Baptism
4.4 Tempted by bread
4.7 Do not tempt God
4.10 Worship only God

Notice that each of the parallels is ‘imperfect. Most do not share the same location or verbatim statements and the reader is required to comprehend the overall pattern before t the author’s ‘secret’ or ‘Raz’ is ‘revealed’. Carrier’s methodology of looking solely for differences, rather than similarities, would not uncover many of the above parallels and certainly not the overall pattern. For example, the “baptism” parallel between Ex. 14 and Matt: 3:13 can only be seen within the overall mapping and can easily be torn apart by someone using a methodology that focuses solely upon the difference between the two episodes. However, we are able to be certain that the author of Matthew deliberately created a typological link between Jesus and Moses because a number of the parallels are ‘clear’, and these then provide a framework that allows all of the parallels to become visible.

But what does it mean to claim that a parallel is “clear”? It means that they contain sufficient conceptual parallelism to be ‘recognized’ as being parallel. Moreover, this claim – that they can be ‘recognized’ - is testable. In other words, if one gave a series of individuals Matt: 4:4 and thirty other passages from the Gospels taken at random, and then asked each individual to select from these thirty one Gospel passages the one that was most parallel to Ex: 16, a majority would select Jesus’s ‘temptation in the wilderness’ experience.

Further, the overall parallel storylines between Moses in Genesis and Exodus and Jesus in Matthew would also be selected by such a group as the most parallel when compared to any other thirty storylines selected at random. In fact, the storyline in Matthew the parallels create would be selected as the most parallel to that of Moses when compared to any other storyline in literature. Again this preposition is completely testable.

Now if one conducts the same tests upon the parallels between Jesus and Titus I show below, the same results will occur. For example, if one gives to a number of individuals thirty random passages taken from Wars of the Jews and Josephus’s ‘fishing for men at the Sea of Galilee’ passage -Wars 3, x, 526-528 - and then asks each individual to select the one passage from the group that is most parallel to Matt: 4: 18-19, a majority will select Josephus’s ‘fishing for men at the Sea of Galilee’ passage. The same result will occur if any of the other Jesus/Titus parallels given below are so tested. Further, as with Moses and Jesus the overall storyline between Jesus and Titus the parallels create would clearly be selected as the most parallel when compared to any other storyline in literature.

Of course, one can contest that the Jesus/Titus parallels were deliberately created and cite other ‘recognizable’ parallels that were accidental – the famous Lincoln/Kennedy parallels Carrier mentioned in his post, for example. To digress, however, notice that Carrier’s claim that there are “hundreds” of such parallels is inaccurate. ‘Recognizable’ parallels like those between Kennedy and Lincoln are relatively rare, which is why they are famous. Moreover, ‘recognizable’ conceptual parallels that are accidental – like the Lincoln/Kennedy parallels - are subject to the rules of probability concerning random events. Therefore, if they are `accidental’ they will virtually never occur in the same sequence.

This is why I challenged Carrier to produce a single example of a group of parallels clear enough to be ‘recognizable’ that occurred in the same order accidentally. He had no response - though one would not know this from his post.

Perhaps Carrier did not try and answer my challenge because it is impossible to do so. There are virtually no parallels clear enough so that they are ‘recognizable’ as defined above that occur in the same sequence accidentally. Exactly as it does in DNA strands found at different locations, parallel sequences of improbable events – like the ‘recognizable’ parallels between Moses and Jesus and those between Jesus and Titus – strongly suggests a non-circumstantial linkage.

Here are some of the parallels between Jesus and Titus that can both be tested as ‘recognizable’ and occur in the same sequence. Be aware that some of the typological links between the parallels are subtle and one should at least be aware of my analysis n Caesar’s Messiah to evaluate actually how they relate to my thesis.

Jesus
1) Fishing for men Matt: 4: 18-19
2) Demon of Gadara Mark 5: 1-20
3) Escape of naked man at Gethsemane Mark 14: 51
4) The `root' is carried away from the Mount of olives Mark 14, 53
5) Son of Mary who is Passover lamb Matt: 23, 26
6) Three crucified, one survives Matt 27& 28, 38-6
7) Simon condemned,
8) John spared John 21: 18-22

Titus
1) Fishing for men at Sea of Galilee Wars 3, x, 526-528
2) Demon of Gadara, Wars 4, vii, 389-435
3) Escape of naked man at Gethsemane Wars 5,ii, 54-65
4) The `root' is carried away from Mount of olives Wars 6,ii,161-163
5) Son of Mary who is Passover lamb Wars 6,iii, 201-210
6) Three crucified, one survives, Life 75, 420 421
7) Simon condemned, Wars 6, ix, 433-434
8) John spared Wars 6, ix, 433-434

In terms of my thesis, once the relationship between the parallels between the Gospels and Wars of the Jews is established, simple logic is all that is needed to learn the truth. Titus was the only individual in history – other then Jesus - who could have been the `son of man' foreseen by Jesus, as he was the only individual who fulfilled Jesus’s prophecies concerning that individual. The claim that this unique individual also waged the only campaign in history that can be coherently seen as having been `foreseen' by Jesus's ministry accidentally is, just on its face, far fetched.

Though Carrier had not read the book, nevertheless, he felt free to be able to simply conjecture as to its thesis and then criticize his conjectures. For example, he wrote concerning the ‘son of Mary who was eaten as a Passover lamb passage in Josephus:

“Had the baby been called Jesus, then Atwill might have had something. Or if the Gospels identified the mother of Jesus as "Mary the daughter of Eleazar" or "from the town of Bethezob," as the Mary in Josephus is. Or had any gospel identified any other Mary as being the actual daughter of Lazarus ("Eleazar"), instead of his sister, as they actually do (Jn. 11:2). But alas, no such connections are there.”

Anyone who has actually read Caesar’s Messiah will recognize that Carrier is attacking his conjectures here and not my analysis, which goes into the relationship between Josephus’ Mary and her child in such detail. This type of blunder is inevitable when someone ‘critiques’ a work that they haven’t read. Further, the criteria Carrier establishes for having “something” is demonstrably incorrect. The type of overt parallelism is he looking for is not used in the creation of the Jesus/Moses typology, which lay undiscovered for centuries and therefore can not be the standard used elsewhere in the Gospels.

Bear in mind that Carrier’s above ‘critique’ is regarding a son of Mary who is eaten as a Passover lamb at Jerusalem. Though this ‘connection’ to Jesus is without duplication in literature and simply demands an explanation, he is somehow able to breeze past it because the Mary in the Gospels is only the ‘sister’ of Eleazar and not his mother. Those wishing to see the actual standards for Jewish typological connections during the era – the one that the Gospels are mocking - should read 1QpHab.

Notice above that Carrier sees the absence of the ‘town of Bethezob’ in the Gospels as a reason to believe that there is no connection between Josephus’s son of Mary who is a Passover lamb, and the one in the Gospels. However, as ‘Bethezob’ means ‘house of hyssop’, a phrase with obvious metaphorical linkage to the Passover, failing to at least consider the possibility that within a story regarding a son of Mary who is eaten as a roasted sacrifice at Jerusalem the author is using the expression to link to the Gospels’ symbolic Passover lamb is weak methodology.

Carrier’s myopia is particularity glaring in light of the fact that the technique to identity Jesus in the Gospels as a symbolic Passover lamb was to combine one of the God’s instructions as to how to prepare the Passover lamb – that his bones should not be broken – with ‘hyssop’. Therefore to ignore that Josephus has also combined one of instructions for the preparation of the Passover lamb – that it should be roasted – with ‘hyssop’ in a passage describing a son of Mary who is eaten as a “sacrifice” suggests a limited future for Carrier as a literary analyst.

Far from showing a lack of connection to the Gospels’ Passover lamb, ‘Bethezob’ can be seen as linking directly to Jesus - in the OT story the houses of those who would be spared from the angel of death had there houses marked with hyssop. Readers wishing to read the passage in Josephus that Carrier does not see as possibly linked to the Gospels will find it at Wars 6, 201-213.

Beyond methodological weaknesses, Carrier’s logic also fails him. He wrote concerning Josephus’ ‘son of Mary who was a symbolic Passover lamb:

“In fact, every opportunity for setting up a parallel here was missed by Josephus, making the hypothesis that such a parallel was intended improbable.”

But then he wrote:

“It is certainly very likely that Josephus did craft this story as an inversion of the Passover”, and: “All these conjoining factors do suggest a play on Passover was intended,”

What can I say? For Carrier to recognize that Josephus’ passage establishes ‘a son of Mary at Jerusalem as a symbolic Passover lamb, while at the same time claiming that Josephus missed “every opportunity for setting up a parallel” to the Gospels is not just contradictory but ludicrous.

My thesis is that the author’s of the Gospels created a ‘Raz’ or secret concerning Titus in the same way as they had concerning Jesus and Moses. Thus Carrier’s methodology is not simply inaccurate but absurd in that the type of overt parallels he is requiring to have “something” could not even create a ‘Raz’, or secret, as they would be too transparent. Carrier’s plight is instructive in that it so clearly demonstrates the difficulty ‘historians’ have in engaging in literary analysis and why they have made so little progress in comprehending the Gospels. Carrier’s confusion over what he is analyzing reaches an almost absurd height when he asks questions like:

“Again, why not simply say Barmathias? Why disguise the connection by spelling both names differently?” (In other words, Carrier is asking why the authors of the Gospels did not write ‘Joseph Barmathias instead of ‘Joseph Arimathia’.)

and:

“Except that the Gospel is not entitled "John." It was assigned "according to John" by later scribes (that is why it says "according to" rather than "by"). Again, why not put the name John here? Why the deliberate avoidance of naming the "beloved"?”

Such questions could also be asked, of course, concerning why the authors of the Gospels did not use verbatim quotations from Exodus in creating the Moses/Jesus ‘Raz’. The answer would be the same. Had they done so they would not have created a secret. To believe such questions are meaningful to my thesis demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Carrier simply has no idea as to what it is, let alone possesses any methodology for determining if a ‘Raz’ exists. I would also note that, given that it is a concrete fact that the authors of the Gospels created at least one secret or ‘Raz’ concerning Jesus, Carrier, and all NT scholars, should always attempt to determine if unusual parallels between the Gospels and other literature from the era are typologically linked. In Carrier’s defense this oversight is not unique to him but rather is epidemic in NT scholarship

My exchange with Carrier was also notable for his penchant for inventing facts, an odd habit for a ‘historian’. For example, his stated that “Hippos would certainly have had villages near the sea, but they would be between the sea and any villages held by Gadara”. As readers may ascertain for themselves, the claim is simply balloon gas and does not even permit a rational response, other than to say that it is untrue. There is no ‘certainty’ whatsoever for such a claim. The same can be said to his claim that since “Gadara was several hours away from the sea” it could not have been the site of the Gospel’s demoniac story, which, of course, is both unhistorical to begin with and symbolic, traits that preclude the need for geographical specificity.

The same can be said for his claim that “And why does Atwill think a legion is "too small for an army" when a legion was by definition an army?” A legion may be a component of an army, but an army can not be a component of a legion - the very essence of the relationship I maintain exists between the passages. To verify that Josephus held my understanding and not Carrier’s of the relationship between an ‘army’ and a ‘legion’ see Wars, 6, 4, 237. These examples give a clear picture of Carrier’s standard for accuracy.

Carrier’s above post to reveal the “actual truth” is strange in that even though we had routinely been sending our comments back and forth, for some reason he did not see fit to send this particular tome to me before posting it. He therefore did not allow me a chance to respond to his creative editing of my remarks before he released such a ‘critique’ and I only learned of its existence from a reader who had read it.

As I would like everyone to see an unedited exchange between us, I have challenged Carrier to a public debate concerning Caesar’s Messiah. I will post his response.

Joe Atwill

Doug Shaver

Notwithstanding your estimation of their importance, your restorations do nothing to undermine the gist of his post.

Richard Carrier

This is amusing. As my post said, I posted every email I sent Atwill (I never claimed to have posted his emails to me). In other words, he had numerous opportunities to tell me I was skipping or missing something and yet again and again never said a word--until suddenly he finds all sorts of things I left out only after I posted my emails in public. That he didn't make these points when I actually emailed him in the first place suggests to me this is just another quack tactic--ignoring what I say about one point and complaining that I didn't address another. This is all the more ridiculous, because it ignores the reason I posted those emails, which was to show how what Atwill said here was distorting what I had actually said in email. Funny how Atwill forgets all that and now starts in on a completely different issue.

This is hopeless. Atwill keeps ignoring every damn thing I say. I won't even bother reading the rest of anything he writes. And I'll give just one example to explain why. Atwill now introduces his email remark to me:

Anyone who actually reads what I wrote will see immediately why I didn't answer this, and will not. I have asked him for evidence. Instead, he shifts the burden onto me and asks me to engage a hundred hours of pointless work just to teach him the obvious. I said again and again I will not do this. I cannot justify spending even a single hour on anything he says until he convinces me I should. I have been very specific and clear and repeated myself many times as to what it will take to convince me to look further--and what I have asked for is amazingly easy and simple and perfectly reasonable. So why does Atwill constantly ignore what I am asking him for? It can't be because my request is unreasonable. It can only be because he cannot meet my request. And that is exactly why his thesis is not worth a minute more of my time.

I'm done.