Analysis: Jesus was Caesar
At an outlandish 500+ pages, Francesco Carotta's Jesus was Caesar (hereafter JWC) looks far more imposing than it actually is. In summary, as the title tells us, it argues that Jesus did not exist but was merely a reworking of the historic Julius Caesar. Though the selection is not a pagan deity like Mithra this time, the reasoning is the same as always: Parallels are drawn by collapsing down descriptions to make Jesus and Caesar seem the same.
Since no reputable historian (or even certain disreputable ones, for that matter) would ever endorse this thesis, we consider it sufficient to highlight some of Carotta's points as exemplary.
47-51: Here is presented a long list of parallels, which show Carotta at his best in collapsing down descriptions to a least common denominator: Both Jesus and Caesar, it is said, "start their rising careers in neighboring states in the north: Gallia and Galilee." (Of course, that depends on how one defines "start": Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and baptized in the Jordan; Caesar was working for a praetor in Asia Minor, and was later a lawyer in Italy, and did a great deal more for a "career" before he conquered Gaul.) "Both have to cross a fateful river: the Rubicon and the Jordan." (Not quite: Jesus never is said to have "crossed".) "Both have encounters in the night, Caesar with Nicomedes, Jesus with Nicodemus." (Perhaps, but Nicomedes was a king of Bithynia whom a very young Julius, working for the aforementioned praetor, was sent to raise a fleet, and with whom he stayed so long that gossip began to emerge that he was having a homosexual affair with the fellow. One can only guess how Carotta thinks this is worth a parallel.) And so on. I believe these samples are sufficient to show that Carotta exceeds even Dennis McDonald's "Homeric epics" effort in his drive to force parallels.
60-3: One particularly vehement strain for a parallel requires Carotta to argue that Jesus was actually already deceased when he was placed on trial before the Sanhedrin. His primary evidence for this: Jesus is silent before his accusers; the real reason he said nothing was because he was already dead. (In actuality, Jesus' silence reflects a common way of shaming one's opponents, by indicating that they are beneath reply. Naturally, Carotta excuses the few words recorded as said by Jesus at this time as merely inventions.) His second best evidence: Mark says that Jesus was brought to Golgotha, and the word used, pherousin, Carotta says means "carried" -- so this must mean Jesus' corpse. (Not quite: The word also has connotations of being conveyed by force or somehow assisted/directed; cf. Mark 1:32, 2:3, and 7:32 for examples of sick persons being "brought" for healing.) With "evidence" like this at the fore there is little need for a more detailed refutation.
65: Further, it is noted that while Mark and Matthew report the parting of Jesus' garments at the crucifixion in close proximity to the crucifixion itself, Luke and John report it slightly later in their accounts. From this, Carotta deduces that in Mark and Matthew we only learn about the crucifixion "incidentally" and that it has "graduated from a side issue to the central issue."
No, I cannot discern the progression of logic there either.
133: Carotta cites scholarship nearly a century old as backup for the claim that Mark was first written in Latin. (Mark does contain some Latinisms, but the consensus remains that the whole originated in Greek.)
147: Carotta makes the outrageous claim that in Mark, Nazareth is "presented...as Galileea's capital with a big synagogue." What verses in Mark say this is not explained.
150-1: Since Carotta is a Christ-myther, how does he handle the secular evidence, like Tacitus' Annals 15.44? He uses the "interpolation" routine for this one, his reasons being: 1) "[T]he scholiastic nature of the sentence" mentioning Jesus -- apparently, by this Carotta means that the sentence offers a type of commentary on a subject, which is a reason that just as well renders several hundred pages of Tacitus just as suspect, virtually any place Tacitus offers an opinion or side comment. Indeed Carotta's own comment here is itself scholiastic, which proves that it is an interpolation. 2) The word "Christ" is written with an "i" and not an "e" -- which relates to an issue we have previously explained:
Furthermore, simply referring to "Jesus" would not explain how it is that Jesus' followers were named Christians; Van Voorst [VanV.JONT, 43ff] further makes the point that Tacitus is actually issuing a subtle corrective here! The text of the oldest manuscript, and most likely reading, spells "Christians" with an e ("Chrestians"). In naming "Christ," Tacitus "is correcting, in a way typical of his style of economy, the misunderstanding of the 'crowd' (vulgus) by stating that the 'founder of this name'...is Christus, not the common name given by the crowd, Chrestus...he calls attention by his somewhat unusual phrase to the nomen of the movement in order to link it directly--and correctly--to the name of Christ."
Finally, we are told 3) that there is a "logical break" in the passage here, though after claiming so Carotta merely launches into a diatribe about how Tacitus was actually accusing "construction speculators" of setting the fire in Rome. I think it is fairly clear what the only "speculating" going on here is.
180-1: Caesar's famous catchphrase, "I came, I saw, I conquered," is said to have a parallel in the profession of the man born blind in John 9 who said, "I went and washed, and I received sight." The profession of the Markan blind man who was healed and saw "men as trees walking" is said to be an imitation of "the triumphal procession in Rome: the commander with a laurel wreath on his head, the soldiers with every piece of green they could possibly collect...."
I really doubt I need to say more. Carotta's attempts at drawing parallels are far more strained than even those of the Roman Piso theory.
