Steefen said
Robert said
I wouldn’t blame it on academic politics. Maybe Carotta’s views are not all that credible to those with expertise in the field? There are much easier ways to account for the gospels being written in such a way that the message would be inoffensive and pleasing to Roman society.
Carotta’s views are very credible to those with expertise in the field.
The Romans destroyed the Holy Land for a while and the Temple, there. The traditional worship of the Hebrew God and religious practices for the Hebrew God were interrupted. Second, Carotta is not saying the gospels are simply pro-Roman, inoffensive, and pleasing, he shows the biographies of some of the deified Roman leaders were written into the biographical information for and the good news, and a Revelation about the Son of God, Savior, and Messiah. What theology would fill the gap left by the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, a Hebrew God diminished with the destruction of his Temple, and messianic fighters killed? Answer: an opportunity to graft biographical information of Roman leaders to the biographical information of a Jewish messiah.
The hybrid Jesus (the grafting of Jewish messianism made non-violent and Hellinized Roman leaders) is a character of historical fiction who did not live/exist. Furthermore, after the Biblical Jesus died, he nor a vengeful Hebrew God for the crucifixion of his son brought on the Jewish Revolt and the Jewish Civil War 36-40 years later.
No they are not. The few qualified academics who have mentioned him (and they are rare, because most just ignore him), have completely left his nonsense in the dust. His views were thrown out by Antonio Piñero, and if I remember correctly they have basically no relevance at all to others. Other NT scholars such as those in ¿Existió Jesús realmente? El Jesús de la historia a debate (Madrid, Editorial Raíces) do not care for his work either.
Carotta’s work has absolutely no relevance whatsoever in the field of New Testament, and they are not credible to anyone in the field. There is not a single New Testament scholar I am aware of in the world who thinks that Carotta’s views are credible. None.
Chris_Hansen said
No not politics. Carotta just isn’t convincing and is bad at his work. Simple as that.
Argumentation Specialist
Okay. You’ve expressed your erroneous opinion. I’ve had enough of that.
Carotta wrote an investigative report, not a traditional nonfiction trade paperback book.
The 2003 Dutch translation caused a controversial and at times heated debate in the Dutch media.
Historian Thomas von der Dunk, philosopher Andreas Kinneging and philosopher Paul Cliteur were among those who supported Carotta’s theory.
More important, I found value in his work–although I did not give his book 5 stars (probably 2 stars). I gave Carotta or Joseph Atwill 1 star but not on argumentation value alone. Sometimes when I review a book, I review each chapter. I remember with Joseph Atwill, less than 50% of his chapters were graded B or higher. No more than three of 16 chapters (if I recall the number of chapters correctly) were graded A or A+.
So, for presentation/style issues, I rolled up my sleeves and improved the presentation/style issues. I am satisfied with the improved results.
Steefen said
Chris_Hansen said
No not politics. Carotta just isn’t convincing and is bad at his work. Simple as that.
Argumentation Specialist
Okay. You’ve expressed your erroneous opinion. I’ve had enough of that.
Carotta wrote an investigative report, not a traditional nonfiction trade paperback book.
The 2003 Dutch translation caused a controversial and at times heated debate in the Dutch media.
Historian Thomas von der Dunk, philosopher Andreas Kinneging and philosopher Paul Cliteur were among those who supported Carotta’s theory.
More important, I found value in his work–although I did not give his book 5 stars (probably 2 stars). I gave Carotta or Joseph Atwill 1 star but not on argumentation value alone. Sometimes when I review a book, I review each chapter. I remember with Joseph Atwill, less than 50% of his chapters were graded B or higher. No more than three of 16 chapters (if I recall the number of chapters correctly) were graded A or A+.
So, for presentation/style issues, I rolled up my sleeves and improved the presentation/style issues. I am satisfied with the improved results.
Thomas von der Dunk has no credentials in early Christianity. He is a modern cultural historian. Andreas Kinneging and Paul Cliteur are also not relevant and have no credentials in the field. So, their support does not matter nor does it validate him.
I don’t care if Carotta wrote an investigative report or a trade paperback. It was still bad, and no qualified historians in New Testament, early Christianity, Roman history, etc. support his views. His work is bad, and historians don’t care. And so what? Tom Harpur’s trash book caused a stir in American media. G. A. Well’s mythicist books caused a stir in American and British media, and he was even invited to debate at the University of Michigan. Fun fact, even Wells rejected his old theories eventually.
That bad books cause a stir in media is irrelevant. That scholars with no credentials in the relevant fields find it convincing is irrelevant.
When you can find me a PhD New Testament historian who agrees with Carotta, let me know. Until then, stop bringing up irrelevancies.
It is irrelevant to you.
The New Testament is not history in the modern sense of the word. There are the gospels which any PhD New Testament historian would tell you. Acts does not match well to the Pauline Letters. Acts has historical mistakes. Hebrews is not history. Revelation is not history.
Your foundation with its scholars is not admirable.
Bart Ehrman wants his students and us to think not just follow the majority of critical scholars.
“Stop bring up irrelevanceis.” Bart Ehrman’s blog once had the tag line: Christianity in Antiquity. I care about Christianity in context which would include Christianity in Ancient History (antiquity is the ancient past, the period before the Middle Ages).
Steefen said
It is irrelevant to you.The New Testament is not history in the modern sense of the word. There are the gospels which any PhD New Testament historian would tell you. Acts does not match well to the Pauline Letters. Acts has historical mistakes. Hebrews is not history. Revelation is not history.
Your foundation with its scholars is not admirable.
Bart Ehrman wants his students and us to think not just follow the majority of critical scholars.
“Stop bring up irrelevanceis.” Bart Ehrman’s blog once had the tag line: Christianity in Antiquity. I care about Christianity in context which would include Christianity in Ancient History (antiquity is the ancient past, the period before the Middle Ages).
If I wanted to think about something, I wouldn’t read the work of Carotta. That is how one gets brain rot.
Chris_Hansen said
Steefen said
It is irrelevant to you.
The New Testament is not history in the modern sense of the word. There are the gospels which any PhD New Testament historian would tell you. Acts does not match well to the Pauline Letters. Acts has historical mistakes. Hebrews is not history. Revelation is not history.
Your foundation with its scholars is not admirable.
Bart Ehrman wants his students and us to think not just follow the majority of critical scholars.
“Stop bring up irrelevanceis.” Bart Ehrman’s blog once had the tag line: Christianity in Antiquity. I care about Christianity in context which would include Christianity in Ancient History (antiquity is the ancient past, the period before the Middle Ages).
If I wanted to think about something, I wouldn’t read the work of Carotta. That is how one gets brain rot.
Argumentation Specialist
Ignore Chris_Hansen.
Reason: This forum is not about the exchange of insults which would be beneath the standards of high quality argumentation.
People are not going to use this forum if comments are no more than insults, so do not debase these threads, Chris.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Chris has made a poor impression and needs to be on the adversary/ignore list. People have time to learn and grow. (Those who have ears, let them hear.)
If anyone wants to read a much improved presentation of some of Francesco Carotta’s critically important findings, Jesus Was Caesar, and much more, enjoy reading my paperback book, Historical Accuracy by Steve Campbell.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen said
Cancel culture, Steefen?
There is an “adversary/ignore list”? Well, at least I’m special enough to be there! I’d like to thank my friends, my family…
@Steefen I have read your book. Didn’t even know it was yours. And I can say right now, that your self-published books on Barnes & Noble Press and on Amazon do not convince even in the slightest. But… that is what happens when you base your work off of someone who is incompetent like Carotta.
Stephen said
It strikes me as odd how freaked out the mythicists become at potential references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus. The time and effort spent on debunking them. But even if you accept them the most you could reasonably glean from these references is that in the second half of the first century there were groups who considered themselves Christian and reverenced a figure they gave Messianic status. We already knew that !
I would throw in “hung on a cross” and “seed of David” as things mythicists get hung up on to no avail as well. Price’s “cross in the sky” seems very doubtful and Carrier’s heavenly sperm still brings an odd smile to my face. No one is trying to disprove the “lady of the Lake” or “platform 9 3/4.”
FocusMyView said
Stephen said
It strikes me as odd how freaked out the mythicists become at potential references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus. The time and effort spent on debunking them. But even if you accept them the most you could reasonably glean from these references is that in the second half of the first century there were groups who considered themselves Christian and reverenced a figure they gave Messianic status. We already knew that !
I would throw in “hung on a cross” and “seed of David” as things mythicists get hung up on to no avail as well. Price’s “cross in the sky” seems very doubtful and Carrier’s heavenly sperm still brings an odd smile to my face. No one is trying to disprove the “lady of the Lake” or “platform 9 3/4.”
The cosmic sperm bank may go down in history as one of the most absurd and nonsensical ideas ever proposed by a PhD historian. And I’m including Eldorado, Atlantis, and ancient aliens in this list.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)