Vorkosigan

You know, it's almost refreshing to be accused of closemindedness after so many years of being abused by people for being too open-minded. Bede, where are you?

Clivedurdle

About closemindedness, I wonder if the problem is more that we are in a situation that we have a very strong propagandised version - 2000 years of variations on a theme that Christ is a year zero for everything and is the key to the understanding of life, the universe and everything, in contrast to a real picture of muddle, arguments, wars, contrasting beliefs and ideas.

Because of the strength of this Christ view of history, we are forced to argue on the xians terms - and concentrate too much on a few documents as if they were more important than all the other documents we have.

Someone comes along and argues that there might be important underlying factors and they seem to be rejected out of hand, instead of sifting what they are arguing, and changing theories as needed.

The theory of evolution went through several versions, why shouldn't historical analysis of what was going on then?

Are we agreed on what were the key historical points? It looks to me as if Buddha, the switch from a republic to an empire, and the gradual falling apart of the Roman Empire may have been far more important than the antics of some one god worshippers.

A more interesting historical question might be how come these mumbo jumbo purveyors got so much power, and that means seriously looking at the relationships with the Roman Empire.

Vorkosigan

That comment is unbelievable. Not only did I log two long blog entries on Carotta's website, but I also covered in several long posts here, all which referenced relevant scholarship on the topics at hand. Others have also commented Everyone interested read them. Nothing was rejected "out of hand." A thread eight pages long with over 200 posts and 3,511 views is not "out of hand."

But Carotta's website is referenced in many places in the thread. Pick what you think is a strong argument and I'll be happy to show you where its problems lie.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

This is clearly a mischaracterization of what has taken place in this thread. What we have actually seen is a critical examination of a few specific claims made by Carotta that he believes support his overall thesis or conclusion. Rather than an "abundance of evidence" those specific claims have been shown to be founded on very little actual evidence and, instead, relying almost entirely on a great deal of complicated speculation.

There may have been cross-shaped tropaeums but there is apparently no good reason to assume that Caesar's effigy was displayed on one.

It might be possible for a scribe to confuse certain letters but there is apparently no evidence that anyone actually did.

Even though it doesn't appear until centuries later and in a known forgery, the name "Longinus" might be the name of the soldier the Gospels depict as stabbing Jesus in the side but there doesn't appear to be any good reason to assume it to be so.

Carotta makes all of these assumptions and the only apparent reason is because doing so supports his conclusion. That is clearly an example of circular reasoning and I cannot, in good conscience, accept any conclusion that is derived by such a demonstrably unreliable approach.

There might be some who continue to be interested despite the apparently flawed reasoning involved in the specifics examined but don't kid yourself that anyone here is "afraid" to read the book. I'm not putting this book on my "To be read" list because I've seen nothing in this thread that suggests the idea, as put forth by Carotta and as explained here by his fans, has any merit whatsoever. The arguments I've seen are, IMO, almost entirely speculative in nature with far too little connection to objective evidence and involving far too many complicated contortions of ultimately unsubstantiated "possibilities" to obtain the desired conclusion.

Amaleq13

I don't see how you can read this entire thread and think that any of the claims offered have been "rejected out of hand".

On the contrary, they were critically examined and found wanting.

I'm not rejecting the possibility of influence or even a direct connection. I'm rejecting the specific arguments presented and, under the assumption that they were offered as either fundamental or representative, choosing not to waste my time reading an entire book filled with the same sort of unsubstantiated speculation. As far as I can tell from the sample offered here, Carotta fails to offer a rationally compelling argument for influence and certainly not a direct connection.

Juliana

I could care less what you put on your "To be read" list.

Amaleq13

You cared enough to suggest that the choice to not read it is out of fear. I am simply correcting that assumption as applied to me.

Aquitaine

I understand your logic here.
Much like fishing with too fine of a net: you might catch what you want, but you also catch a lot of other stuff along with it.

Perhaps, when the 'fish' we are looking for are smaller than the other fish (let's say... when the remnants of a Caesarian narrative are buried under many layers of obscurity: some of them from the Augustan period of religio-politics; some resulting from later Judaeo-centric insertions when the narratives were mistranslated/creatively-reinterpreted; and then still other layers of medieval 'corrections' all of which combine to create 'large' fish and serve to obscure the 'original' smaller fish), we would then be forced to use such a fine net, but then a secondary process would be absolutely necessary: a selection or 'weeding-out' processto really find the 'original fish', the Caesarian remnants.

?

Yes, you are correct, there are no specific descriptions of the exact shape of the tropaeum in question.

Yes I see your logic. I have no qualms with that. My objection is, that this carries more weight if one has read the book: your understanding of how he formed his 'conclusion' is based upon incomplete information. You have only read parts of the book.

We might eliminate the possibility of such complex shapes using Occam's razor: Because the tropaeum in question need only hold a wax replica of a man's body (not spears, shields, helmets, body armor, etc.) then the most straightforward-shape would likely be used. For example: something to attach the torso to (the upright beam of the cross), and then a crossbeam to support the replica's arms. Quick, simple, get's the job done.
(We could question if arms would have been necessary; the reasons to suspect that they would be necessary is that since this was a dramatic display for a large outdoor audience, and if it was intended to stir that audience to feel sympathy for the one murdered and the political cause he represented, then a wax torso alone would too easily look like just a shapeless blob to those looking from further away. Also, if the provocation of an emotional response was a high priority to those who choose the shape of this tropaeum, then making an allusion to crucifixion by choosing that specific shape (we know crucifixion was used at this time, because for example the slave-rebels of Spartacus were mentioned as being crucified before this time) would have been extremely desirable.)

There are reasons to seeing parallels to the emotional response that Caesar's death provoked in the later interpretations of the crucifixion of Christ. It was perceived that Caesar had died for a cause, in fact the one which had freed the people from a corrupted Roman republic; that their political hopes and economic livelihoods, and their very lives were on that cross too: his death represented the opposing political faction's direct threat to them.
These strong emotions could have morphed over time, especially as later generations of uneducated commoners would not understand the political nuances of 44BC. They would have had to reinterpret the religious iconography so that they had meaning to them.
And if this 'morphing' occured after emperors like Nero or Caligula had damaged the reputation and stature and thereby warped all understanding or sympathy for the religious basis of the worship of Divus Iulius, we might have even more clues as to why this Caesarian/Roman origin of Christianity might have disappeared or become buried under the layers of 'noise', so much so that now our understanding of what happened is so bizarrely inaccurate...

There's nothing wrong with questioning the evidentiary basis for offered claims.
It merely appeared to me that you were insisting that Carotta makes a claim that the cross was definitely a specific shape; or even that no speculations on what that shape might have been are permitted without definite proof.

Well, we might not expect to find many identifiable as being of Caesar: they would have been reinterpreted by later ages as depictions of Jesus.

I have no faith in my expertise on tropaeums, that is for certain.


Nor would I portray myself as an expert on Carotta's book; or on the traditions details or methods etc of something like literary criticism.

I'm just your average Joe who happens to like reading and thinking about history, and who also enjoys thinking about different ideas and speculations on Christian origins.
So, you certainly won't find me trying to go toe-to-toe with you guys in some intellectual slugging match. That seems to be Juliana's style, but it's not mine.

But if someone is going to call a book 'junk' or 'rubbish' and I don't agree with that assessment, and especially: when they have only read selected parts of it, I want to at least try to ddefend it as best I can, even at the risk of getting my ass kicked, so to speak. Haha!


That's fair enough, Amaleq13.
I don't intend to leave, and if you don't mind my slower pace of replying and my less-than-expert background, I hope to continue discussing this book, and bringing up points as I find the time.

Haha. Okay. So far.


I was referring your unacceptence of Carotta's 'evidence' or his speculations as to links between Caesarian history and gospel pericopes. My understanding is that you dispute that 'evidence'...?

I completely agree with that!

...(but I still have some 'faith' that you might feel less skeptical if you read the book... )

Amaleq13

I agree that a "truth" buried under so much distortion and obfuscation will necessarily require considerable speculation to be obtained but such an effort is much more compelling if there is no other credible explanation available. This, I think, goes back to Vorkosigan's complaint that Carotta does not address the existing "best" or "favored" or "generally accepted" explanations in his attempt to offer replacement. I get the impression that Carotta either believes or wishes to have his readers believe that modern scholarship is somehow at a loss to explain what his theory claims to explain and that is simply not true. There already exist seemingly reasonable and logical explanations that do not require the sort of complicated contortions Carotta describes. He's got to argue why those explanations are not tenable and/or why his should be considered better.

My comments have been directed at the specific portions of Carotta's theory that have been presented here. Only if those portions are not representative of the rest would it be necessary to read the entire book.

Don't get me wrong. I completely empathize with your situation because, if I am correct in my opinion of Carotta's theory, I have fallen prey to the same sort of argument. I've read at least one book that offered a radical new understanding and was overwhelmed by the seeming coherence of the theory. I understand the attachment one can have to such theories because I've had it. I've also experienced the disappointment when others have expressed extremely negative views and, even worse, provided strong, specific arguments against the theory's tenets. I didn't enjoy learning my confidence was severely misplaced but it was a valuable learning experience nonetheless. I might be wrong about Carotta but the arguments put forth in this thread have just not been sound. It is really as simple as that. Check some other threads and I think you will find the dissent offered by the same critics to be completely different when it is genuinely an issue of interpretation of ambiguous evidence. Except spin. He's always mean.

I understand the overall "map" suggested by Carotta's theory but the specific path seems to have significant problems. It is still possible that some sort of influence could be argued but this direct connection does not seem to me to be credible based on the specifics discussed here.

If you check back through the thread, I think you will find this being asserted with no equivocation. This may have been more a reflection of Juliana's certainty than Carotta's. Speculation is not only permitted, it is typically necesssary but it must be identified as such and not misrepresented as certain or even well supported by evidence if that is not the actual case.

The more the merrier! There is certainly a continuum of expertise here and I certainly don't consider myself to be "an expert".

No, I just don't consider speculation to be evidence. Speculation should be based on evidence. It is the flesh and evidence constitutes the skeleton. There just doesn't seem to be enough bones to hold up Carotta's "body".

andrewcriddle

We have an another example of an early form of creedal statement referring to crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. Tertullian in the early 3rd century 'On the Veiling of Virgins' (Tertullian in other works gives other types of creedal statement without the reference to crucifixion)

Novatian in 'Concerning the Trinity' seems to be referring on several occasions to some form of creed often reconstructed as IMO a/ this is some form of summary of Christian doctrine or 'Rule of Faith' only loosely related to the actual baptismal creed b/ it is very difficult to determine when Novatian is quoting and when he is freely composing here, certainly we have no reason to regard Novatian as quoting this creed like material in its entirety c/ Novatian clearly refers to the crucifixion in 'Concerning the Trinity' eg just not in the probably creedally influenced sections of the book.

Cyprian's references to the formula of baptism in his letters tell us IMO only that Baptism was carried out in the name of God the Father Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit with a question 'Dost thou believe the remission of sins and life eternal through the holy Church ?' We can't work out his full baptismal creed from this material.

Cyril of Jerusalem in the expanded form of the creed given in his IVth catechetical lecture does refer to the crucifixion although the brief summary statement made at baptism given in the XIXth lecture has only Andrew Criddle