<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: Carrier and Atwill's email exchange
Carrier statement above that I âsent him a barrage of âexamples�? is inaccurate. When I read his original comments on my thesis it was clear that he hadnât read the book, so I sent him a short synopsis stating that: âas you were commenting upon the thesis, I thought you would appreciate such a description.�?
Carrier then asked that I send him âmy best example�? of the thesis, to which I replied:
âIf you wish to understand the thesis, however, there is no shortcut to reading the book, as the system that I maintain exists between the Gospels and Josephus is both incrementally built and interrelated. Thus, as with the Jesus/Moses typology in Mathew, no single parallel is capable of even demonstrating the thesis, which can only be understood by viewing the overall mapping. As in the Jesus/Moses typology in Matthew, a number of the parallels between Jesus and Titus can only be seen within the overall mapping scheme.�?
He still refused to read the work however, instead asking me to send him, not âexamplesâ, but the citations of a few of the related passages. And this is what I sent him, merely the citations of a few of the parallels. Thus, when you read Carrierâs âreviewâ above bear in mind that he is not commenting upon my analysis â he has not read the book - but is simply making up the connections between the passages as it suits him. I will give an example of the folly of this below.
The only aspect of my work that we communicated on in any depth whatsoever was concerning the âDemoniac of Gadaraâ. Carrier felt that this was an invalid parallel since, in his opinion, âGadaraâ had not been the location given in the original Gospels but was a âcorruptionâ. For some reason, Carrier does not discuss the details of this exchange in his above critique, only stating that - âIt's also the wrong place (Atwill struggles against all contemporary scholarship to insist that Gadara was the original reading in the Gospels when in fact it almost certainly was not--and yet his parallel requires Gadara)�?. I therefore present the actual exchange below so that readers may judge our âstruggle�? for themselves.
Carrier began his rebuttal of the parallel by pointing out that Origen had written that âearlier versions had Gerasa�?. To which I replied:
âI hope you don't mind my passing along a correction to your understanding of Origen's position on Gadara. He did not write that: "earlier manuscripts had Gerasa", rather he wrote that the "earlier manuscripts had "Gadaraenes". He is silent as to whether or not any earlier manuscript gave a different location.�?
Carrier then attempted to argue that âGadaraâ was a âcorruptionâ on geographical grounds because it (the city of Gadara) is not on the Sea of Galilee, to which I pointed out that in the NT âGadaraâ is described as a âcountryâ and that this is confirmed by Josephus who wrote that Gadara âpossessed villagesâ. Carrier then argued that it was nevertheless impossible for Gadara to have possessed villages next to the Sea as this would have been âblocked by Hippos�?.
To which I responded:
âRichard, your statement: âHippos would certainly have had villages near the sea, but they would be between the sea and any villages held by Gadara.�? is geometrically incorrect. If you simply take a ruler and chart lines from Hippos, Gadara, Tiberius and Scythopolis to the Sea of Galilee you will find that it is indeed possible for Gadara to have possessed villages next to Lake Tiberius. You are inventing facts (that Hippos possessed villages that âblockedâ Gadara from having villages next to the Sea).
Further, your statement that: âyet even his own short estimate places Gadara several hours away from the sea�? underscores the logical absurdity of your position - that Gadara could not be the place of the Gospel demoniac story because of its location - since even that distance is within the range of distance a herd of swine could travel, Bear in mind that no distances or times are given in the Gospelâs story for the swine's journey â which, of course, is unhistorical to begin with. The fact that the Gospelsâ story describes a âcountryâ of Gadara and Josephus describes Gadaraâs âvillagesâ â however one translates Life 9, 42 - and thereby makes the âcountry of Gadaraâ as possibly even closer to the Sea of Galilee than the city, makes your âimpossibility due to locationâ thesis untenable.�?
He then reverted to his claim âthat all of the earliest mss. have Gerasa or Gergesa not Gadara�?, thus proving that Gadara was not the location originally written in the Gospels.
To which I replied:
�?Your statement: âThat all the earliest mss. that survive of Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Gerasa or Gergesa, not Gadara, confirms this (including an actual papyrus from Luke dated to the very time of Origen)�? is clearly contradicted by Origen who knew of even earlier manuscripts that had âGadaraâ. And notice that he only states knowledge of manuscripts with Gadara; he is silent as to whether or not other manuscripts gave another city. Obviously there were âearly manuscriptsâ with Gadara as why else, your conjectures regarding corruption aside, would the received texts give that city?
Carrier then switched gears and returned to the âgeographicalâ aspect of his argument but changed his position from it being a âcertainty�? that Hippos had âblocked�? Gadara from possessing villages next to the Sea to merely a âprobabilityâ, to which I replied:
âYou did not write "probably was�?, what you wrote was: âHippos would certainly have had villages near the sea, but they would be between the sea and any villages held by Gadara.�? As I pointed out, this is statement of fact that you made up. And as far as your new position that there is a âprobabilityâ of Gadara not having villages near the Sea of Galilee, I only say that you are now making this up. What evidence do you have for such an assertion? Zero, right?
Further, your position that the demons could not have run six miles to the sea fits your criticism of my position to a tee â âThat's exactly the kind of silly and desperate contrivance that biblical literalists depend on to eliminate contradictions in the Bible.�?
Richard, the story about the swine did not happen. No swine were ever possessed by demons and ran to the sea. Itâs symbolic, amigo, but of what? My thesis has explanatory power, what is your explanation for the story being in the Gospels?�?
At this point, rather than presenting evidence for his position that Hippos had âblockedâ Gadara, Carrier took a new tact stating that the parallels I show between Jesusâs ministry and Titusâ campaign were âinevitable�?.
He wrote:
âThese 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.�?
To which I replied:
âYour position that the parallels are âinevitable�? 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 âson of Maryâ, 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 â 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 â in all of human history - of such sequential parallelism that occurred accidentally". Or, do you have a single example?
Carrier, for some reason, ignored my challenge but again returned to his âcorruptionâ argument, this time modifying his position that âall the earliest mss. have Gerasa or Gergesa�? to âonly Matthew�? gave Gadara - which is like being a little bit pregnant. He also provided a much needed moment of levity in the exchange with the following âcrystal clearâ and âparsimoniousâ description of how the corruption âGadaraâ made its way into the Gospels.
He wrote:
�?Only Matthew has anything like an early reading of Gadara. That confirms the original reading was not Gadara: since Mark wrote first and Luke and Matthew both copied Mark, the corruption to Gadara had to happen either between Mark and Matthew (or by Matthew) or after Matthew â
To which I responded:
âThis new position clearly contradicts the one you made in your previous email that âall the earliest mss. that survive of Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Gerasa or Gergesa, not Gadara�?. And as far as your tortured vision regarding the copying and corruption of the Gospels I can only say if you feel this has proven to the satisfaction of most NT scholars you are in a dream world where your opinions have become dogma. Further, your ability to determine âcorruptionsâ from text is not supported by even a shred of evidence. Nothing. Your position is simply that âGadaraâ must be a corruption because it is not next to the âseaâ, which as I have shown is not simply a weak thesis, but absurd.�?
At this point, for some reason, Carrier broke off our âstruggle�? and then produced the above critique â though he had previously stated that he was finished commenting in this thread â but even here making a number of obvious mistakes. For example, his statement: âAnd why does Atwill think a legion is "too small for an army" when a legion was by definition an army?�? - is clearly incorrect. A legion may be a component of an army, but an army is not 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 Carrierâs, of the relationship between an âarmyâ and a âlegionâ see Wars, 6, 4, 237.
Also notice his explanation of the name of the woman â Mary -, who ate her son,
âJosephus clearly chose the name Mary because this is the name of the sister of Moses, the only prominent woman in the Exodus (hence Passover) narrative, especially given the meaning of her name, as Atwill himself notes: "rebellion."
Carrier is thus agreeing with my insight that the name âMaryâ â meaning rebellious female â could well have been selected by Josephus for symbolic purposes. However, as he accepts it in this case, this undermines his position that the passage is not connected to the Gospels, where every female central to Jesusâ ministry is also named Mary or Martha the Aramaic version of Mary. He explains away the âmany Marysâ in the Gospels simply by claiming that âMary is too common a name to be remarkable�?. But what evidence of that does he have that the name was âtoo common�? â the Gospels? This is circular reasoning.
Moreover, those who have actually read Caesarâs Messiah will recognize that his statement: -
âHad 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.�? -
confirms my claim that Carrier is simply attacking his conjectures not my analysis, which goes into this relationship in such detail. This is the type of blunder that is inevitable when someone âcritiquesâ a work they havenât read.
Finally, I would point out that even the methodology Carrier is attempting to use to critique a work that he hasnât read is demonstrably incorrect. My thesis is that the precise typology between Moses and Jesus is extended to Jesus and Titus - the life of the first savior of Israel, Moses, âforesawâ the second, Jesus, whose life then âforesawâ the final âsaviorâ, Titus. And, as readers can ascertain for themselves, his method of critique would not uncover a single one of the typological relationship between Jesus and Moses and, therefore, is irrelevant as far as my thesis. I pointed this out to him several times but, for some reason, he did not respond.
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 âinstructionsâ 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."
The ideas in Caesarâs Messiah deserve a full acid bath of criticism, but I would hope that critics read the book before they attack, as this aids coherency.
Joe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carrier statement above that I âsent him a barrage of âexamples�? is inaccurate. When I read his original comments on my thesis it was clear that he hadnât read the book, so I sent him a short synopsis stating that: âas you were commenting upon the thesis, I thought you would appreciate such a description.�?
Carrier then asked that I send him âmy best example�? of the thesis, to which I replied:
âIf you wish to understand the thesis, however, there is no shortcut to reading the book, as the system that I maintain exists between the Gospels and Josephus is both incrementally built and interrelated. Thus, as with the Jesus/Moses typology in Mathew, no single parallel is capable of even demonstrating the thesis, which can only be understood by viewing the overall mapping. As in the Jesus/Moses typology in Matthew, a number of the parallels between Jesus and Titus can only be seen within the overall mapping scheme.�?
He still refused to read the work however, instead asking me to send him, not âexamplesâ, but the citations of a few of the related passages. And this is what I sent him, merely the citations of a few of the parallels. Thus, when you read Carrierâs âreviewâ above bear in mind that he is not commenting upon my analysis â he has not read the book - but is simply making up the connections between the passages as it suits him. I will give an example of the folly of this below.
The only aspect of my work that we communicated on in any depth whatsoever was concerning the âDemoniac of Gadaraâ. Carrier felt that this was an invalid parallel since, in his opinion, âGadaraâ had not been the location given in the original Gospels but was a âcorruptionâ. For some reason, Carrier does not discuss the details of this exchange in his above critique, only stating that - âIt's also the wrong place (Atwill struggles against all contemporary scholarship to insist that Gadara was the original reading in the Gospels when in fact it almost certainly was not--and yet his parallel requires Gadara)�?. I therefore present the actual exchange below so that readers may judge our âstruggle�? for themselves.
Carrier began his rebuttal of the parallel by pointing out that Origen had written that âearlier versions had Gerasa�?. To which I replied:
âI hope you don't mind my passing along a correction to your understanding of Origen's position on Gadara. He did not write that: "earlier manuscripts had Gerasa", rather he wrote that the "earlier manuscripts had "Gadaraenes". He is silent as to whether or not any earlier manuscript gave a different location.�?
Carrier then attempted to argue that âGadaraâ was a âcorruptionâ on geographical grounds because it (the city of Gadara) is not on the Sea of Galilee, to which I pointed out that in the NT âGadaraâ is described as a âcountryâ and that this is confirmed by Josephus who wrote that Gadara âpossessed villagesâ. Carrier then argued that it was nevertheless impossible for Gadara to have possessed villages next to the Sea as this would have been âblocked by Hippos�?.
To which I responded:
âRichard, your statement: âHippos would certainly have had villages near the sea, but they would be between the sea and any villages held by Gadara.�? is geometrically incorrect. If you simply take a ruler and chart lines from Hippos, Gadara, Tiberius and Scythopolis to the Sea of Galilee you will find that it is indeed possible for Gadara to have possessed villages next to Lake Tiberius. You are inventing facts (that Hippos possessed villages that âblockedâ Gadara from having villages next to the Sea).
Further, your statement that: âyet even his own short estimate places Gadara several hours away from the sea�? underscores the logical absurdity of your position - that Gadara could not be the place of the Gospel demoniac story because of its location - since even that distance is within the range of distance a herd of swine could travel, Bear in mind that no distances or times are given in the Gospelâs story for the swine's journey â which, of course, is unhistorical to begin with. The fact that the Gospelsâ story describes a âcountryâ of Gadara and Josephus describes Gadaraâs âvillagesâ â however one translates Life 9, 42 - and thereby makes the âcountry of Gadaraâ as possibly even closer to the Sea of Galilee than the city, makes your âimpossibility due to locationâ thesis untenable.�?
He then reverted to his claim âthat all of the earliest mss. have Gerasa or Gergesa not Gadara�?, thus proving that Gadara was not the location originally written in the Gospels.
To which I replied:
�?Your statement: âThat all the earliest mss. that survive of Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Gerasa or Gergesa, not Gadara, confirms this (including an actual papyrus from Luke dated to the very time of Origen)�? is clearly contradicted by Origen who knew of even earlier manuscripts that had âGadaraâ. And notice that he only states knowledge of manuscripts with Gadara; he is silent as to whether or not other manuscripts gave another city. Obviously there were âearly manuscriptsâ with Gadara as why else, your conjectures regarding corruption aside, would the received texts give that city?
Carrier then switched gears and returned to the âgeographicalâ aspect of his argument but changed his position from it being a âcertainty�? that Hippos had âblocked�? Gadara from possessing villages next to the Sea to merely a âprobabilityâ, to which I replied:
âYou did not write "probably was�?, what you wrote was: âHippos would certainly have had villages near the sea, but they would be between the sea and any villages held by Gadara.�? As I pointed out, this is statement of fact that you made up. And as far as your new position that there is a âprobabilityâ of Gadara not having villages near the Sea of Galilee, I only say that you are now making this up. What evidence do you have for such an assertion? Zero, right?
Further, your position that the demons could not have run six miles to the sea fits your criticism of my position to a tee â âThat's exactly the kind of silly and desperate contrivance that biblical literalists depend on to eliminate contradictions in the Bible.�?
Richard, the story about the swine did not happen. No swine were ever possessed by demons and ran to the sea. Itâs symbolic, amigo, but of what? My thesis has explanatory power, what is your explanation for the story being in the Gospels?�?
At this point, rather than presenting evidence for his position that Hippos had âblockedâ Gadara, Carrier took a new tact stating that the parallels I show between Jesusâs ministry and Titusâ campaign were âinevitable�?.
He wrote:
âThese 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.�?
To which I replied:
âYour position that the parallels are âinevitable�? 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 âson of Maryâ, 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 â 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 â in all of human history - of such sequential parallelism that occurred accidentally". Or, do you have a single example?
Carrier, for some reason, ignored my challenge but again returned to his âcorruptionâ argument, this time modifying his position that âall the earliest mss. have Gerasa or Gergesa�? to âonly Matthew�? gave Gadara - which is like being a little bit pregnant. He also provided a much needed moment of levity in the exchange with the following âcrystal clearâ and âparsimoniousâ description of how the corruption âGadaraâ made its way into the Gospels.
He wrote:
�?Only Matthew has anything like an early reading of Gadara. That confirms the original reading was not Gadara: since Mark wrote first and Luke and Matthew both copied Mark, the corruption to Gadara had to happen either between Mark and Matthew (or by Matthew) or after Matthew â
To which I responded:
âThis new position clearly contradicts the one you made in your previous email that âall the earliest mss. that survive of Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Gerasa or Gergesa, not Gadara�?. And as far as your tortured vision regarding the copying and corruption of the Gospels I can only say if you feel this has proven to the satisfaction of most NT scholars you are in a dream world where your opinions have become dogma. Further, your ability to determine âcorruptionsâ from text is not supported by even a shred of evidence. Nothing. Your position is simply that âGadaraâ must be a corruption because it is not next to the âseaâ, which as I have shown is not simply a weak thesis, but absurd.�?
At this point, for some reason, Carrier broke off our âstruggle�? and then produced the above critique â though he had previously stated that he was finished commenting in this thread â but even here making a number of obvious mistakes. For example, his statement: âAnd why does Atwill think a legion is "too small for an army" when a legion was by definition an army?�? - is clearly incorrect. A legion may be a component of an army, but an army is not 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 Carrierâs, of the relationship between an âarmyâ and a âlegionâ see Wars, 6, 4, 237.
Also notice his explanation of the name of the woman â Mary -, who ate her son,
âJosephus clearly chose the name Mary because this is the name of the sister of Moses, the only prominent woman in the Exodus (hence Passover) narrative, especially given the meaning of her name, as Atwill himself notes: "rebellion."
Carrier is thus agreeing with my insight that the name âMaryâ â meaning rebellious female â could well have been selected by Josephus for symbolic purposes. However, as he accepts it in this case, this undermines his position that the passage is not connected to the Gospels, where every female central to Jesusâ ministry is also named Mary or Martha the Aramaic version of Mary. He explains away the âmany Marysâ in the Gospels simply by claiming that âMary is too common a name to be remarkable�?. But what evidence of that does he have that the name was âtoo common�? â the Gospels? This is circular reasoning.
Moreover, those who have actually read Caesarâs Messiah will recognize that his statement: -
âHad 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.�? -
confirms my claim that Carrier is simply attacking his conjectures not my analysis, which goes into this relationship in such detail. This is the type of blunder that is inevitable when someone âcritiquesâ a work they havenât read.
Finally, I would point out that even the methodology Carrier is attempting to use to critique a work that he hasnât read is demonstrably incorrect. My thesis is that the precise typology between Moses and Jesus is extended to Jesus and Titus - the life of the first savior of Israel, Moses, âforesawâ the second, Jesus, whose life then âforesawâ the final âsaviorâ, Titus. And, as readers can ascertain for themselves, his method of critique would not uncover a single one of the typological relationship between Jesus and Moses and, therefore, is irrelevant as far as my thesis. I pointed this out to him several times but, for some reason, he did not respond.
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 âinstructionsâ 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."
The ideas in Caesarâs Messiah deserve a full acid bath of criticism, but I would hope that critics read the book before they attack, as this aids coherency.
Joe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->