10-21-2007, 05:09 AM
I do not know where the above criticism came from, but all of Atwill's either don't read what he had written or they assume dates and other things, and then try to disprove what somebody has proven *based on their own unspoken, unproven assumptions* . For examples, from CM forum:
-----------------------------
My exchange with Richard Carrier was strange. It began with his posting criticisms of Caesarâs Messiah which were incoherent and indicated that he had not read my book (he later admitted that this was the case). I ask if I could send him a copy âto improve his criticismâ. He declined and asked me to send him my âstrongest piece of evidenceâ. I replied that since the Jesus /Titus relationship was a âliterary system built incrementallyâ there was no such thing, but sent him the citations for a few of the parallels to try and encourage him to actually read the book. Instead he began to critique what he thought the relationships were between the parallels â not my analysis (he still has never read Caesarâs Messiah).
After a lengthy and private debate (which he lost badly) he creatively edited our remarks into a format of his choosing and posted them on a public forum without allowing me to first respond. If you read his critique you will see he writes âAtwill postedâ in front of my remarks. This a lie, none of these remarks were âpostedâ but occurred within private emails going back in forth within our exchange.
When I read his edited version I told him that his behavior was unscholarly and unethical and that we should have an unedited and public discussion on my work to allow everyone to see whose analysis can stand scrutiny. He chickened out, of course.
As an example of what Richard edited out, he claimed that parallel human Passover lambs were not linked because the family relationship between âEleazarâ and âMaryâ was not the same in each story. I pointed out that in the typological system between Jesus and Moses (the system that the Jesus/Titus typology is built upon) the family relationship between the âJosephs who go to Egyptâ is not the same either. Somehow Richard forgot to include my response in his edited version of the exchange and claimed that I was one ignoring his points.
If anyone has communication with Carrier please restate my offer to him of a public exchange.
Joe
-----------------------------
My exchange with Richard Carrier was strange. It began with his posting criticisms of Caesarâs Messiah which were incoherent and indicated that he had not read my book (he later admitted that this was the case). I ask if I could send him a copy âto improve his criticismâ. He declined and asked me to send him my âstrongest piece of evidenceâ. I replied that since the Jesus /Titus relationship was a âliterary system built incrementallyâ there was no such thing, but sent him the citations for a few of the parallels to try and encourage him to actually read the book. Instead he began to critique what he thought the relationships were between the parallels â not my analysis (he still has never read Caesarâs Messiah).
After a lengthy and private debate (which he lost badly) he creatively edited our remarks into a format of his choosing and posted them on a public forum without allowing me to first respond. If you read his critique you will see he writes âAtwill postedâ in front of my remarks. This a lie, none of these remarks were âpostedâ but occurred within private emails going back in forth within our exchange.
When I read his edited version I told him that his behavior was unscholarly and unethical and that we should have an unedited and public discussion on my work to allow everyone to see whose analysis can stand scrutiny. He chickened out, of course.
As an example of what Richard edited out, he claimed that parallel human Passover lambs were not linked because the family relationship between âEleazarâ and âMaryâ was not the same in each story. I pointed out that in the typological system between Jesus and Moses (the system that the Jesus/Titus typology is built upon) the family relationship between the âJosephs who go to Egyptâ is not the same either. Somehow Richard forgot to include my response in his edited version of the exchange and claimed that I was one ignoring his points.
If anyone has communication with Carrier please restate my offer to him of a public exchange.
Joe