And so on; we could also mention the reports of a snake so deadly it can kill a man on a horse if the man touches it with its lance (and it kills the horse, too) but I think the point has been made. Now one would suspect that if Acts of Peter is to be discounted on the basis of resurrected Starkist, Pliny himself should lose a tad of his credibility on account of some of these reported oddities. But Broken Vector apparently does not feel that we need this information. Of course there are certain options. We could choose to believe Pliny about the dead people, and about the rest as well, but somehow I don't see Broken Vector taking that route, and that would also open the door to giving us no reason to doubt a resurrection. We could choose to believe only the parts of Pliny we like, and I can hear Broken Vector's echo stating that the "mistaken dead people" scenario is reasonable where the dog-headed men are not. But that argument shatters on the points we have made above: There were ample signs of death that even the stupidest ancient (though perhaps not the insulated rich like Pliny) could have observed, and would have observed on a regular basis. By itself this renders Pliny's "mistaken dead people" story into the category of the barking men. (Indeed, the shame of this above all is that Broken Vector later tells us, "...Pliny the Elder reports a lot of marvels as facts, and he was one of the most learned men in antiquity" in a discussion meant to prove that learned men could be superstitious and gullible! So why aren't these stories also "marvels reported as facts" -- other than that it is found convenient to classify them otherwise?)

It is added then:

Perhaps also this referred to the Jewish tradition of the time that the rock in the wilderness that Moses smote twice "poured out blood at the first stroke, and water at the second" (Shemoth Rabba, folio 122), the sign of God's grace and the gift of life (Christ was understood by Paul as representing this rock: 1 Cor. 10:4).

Not, in Paul's case, in a narrative context; but we wonder as well why Broken Vector sees fit to report the text of the Shemoth Rabba yet fails to advise that this document dates from the 11th-12th century AD. Perhaps he did not feel that we needed this information.

There is simply no excuse for this sort of gross misrepresentation. Leaving out critical points of information that seriously affect an argument is bad enough, but Carrier has also been found guilty of gross incompetence as well. Glenn Miller, for example, has noted here the bankruptcy of Carrier's argument that the use of a word for "rolled" referring to the stone covering the tomb of Jesus indicates a deficiency; Miller presented lexical data from both the LXX and classical sources -- sources Carrier certainly is aware of and should have checked before making his argument -- and thus Miller's conclusion:

So, the lexical data indicates that 'roll' does not imply 'circularity of shape', but rather 'end-over-end' movement (e.g., the tumbling of boulders down a hillside or cliff). Accordingly, it is general enough a term to describe both the cases above, and cases of rotation of a cylinder along its circular circumference.

The lexical data thus supports Kloner's statement that these words can/do mean 'moved' (as long as end-over-end movement is denoted). A simple "picking up and carrying " type of motion would NOT be described as kuliw-type motion, but this would rarely ever be done with boulders/stones of a size large enough to block/safeguard a tomb.

Please note in particular Miller's point here (emphasis added) which highlights the problem of inadequate research and thus, for one professedly on the way to being a scholar in the field, gross incompetence:

Richard was correct, though, that the lexical definition-entries do not give 'move' as a definition (e.g., LSJ), but had he looked through the actual word usage in the literature he would have no doubt recognized that 'roll' could also apply to non-circular objects. [In fact, the actual usage data shows that this word-group is more frequently used on non-round objects, than it is for 'actually round' objects.]

The lexicons probably do not give 'move' for a meaning, since 'move' is too general a term [Remember, 'lift and carry' motion is NOT in view with kuliw words.] But 'roll' -- since it can apply to ANY end-over-end tumbling/jerky-type motion, is a perfect word for both 'smooth rolling' and 'staccato rolling' (smile)…

The only conclusion that can be reached is that Carrier is either not competent to do this kind of work, or else, more disturbingly, that he knew this information and purposely withheld it. Neither is a promising answer. I would also add my own answer:

But he is some more obfuscation: "...[B]ased on the use of the word 'roll' throughout the narratives, the actual stone that the Gospel writers had in mind was the thin, round type which fell into use after the Jewish War, long after the time of Jesus. This was lighter and very easy for one person to move by rolling it on its edge." This becomes rather interesting as here and elsewhere, Broken Vector appeals to the study of Amos Kloner showing that at the time of Jesus, 98% of the tombs (the other 2% belonging to the very rich) the stone would have been a sort of "plug" or "cork" that viewed from above had the shape of a T with a thick stem. Broken Vector makes capital of the "rolled" language, supposing further that it is evidence that the Gospels were written late, had no knowledge of the real tomb, and anachronistically assumed that the post-70 type of tomb, which was predominantly of the "rolling disc" variety, was what was used. Such uni-dimensional thinking! Barring an incomparable flurry of tomb-building or perhaps (if I may just suggest) renovation, if 98% of tombs prior to 70 were not of this type, then it would still take a significant time for the "rolling disc" sort to become the type the made the higher percentage, and the older ones would still be there and set the main example -- and I would assume, I think legitimately, that this would take longer than anyone would suppose the Gospels were written at latest. Second, it is noted that Kloner prefers to read "rolled" as "dislodged" in line with the idea of a squared stone. Broken Vector petulanty dismisses this thesis, saying there is no proof anywhere else of the word "rolled" being used this way, and re-asserting the premise of a disc-like stone. Let's think beyond the box or prejudice and presumption, shall we? If something must be round to be rolled, then why can automobiles "roll over" and why can planes do a "roll" manuever? In modern times at least, shape is not the determining factor for what defines a "roll": what defines a "roll" is the consecutive movement of an object so that it presents successive surfaces upward. Broken Vector needs to show that this does not obtain in Greek, and does not do so. Thus the Synoptics tell us (John merely says "taken away") that the squared stone was not merely moved away, but was in such a state that it had clearly been flipped over on at least two surfaces. My, but Jesus was a strong fellow! (As opposed to a "Stringfellow" -- as a side note, one may see in Mark and Luke's "rolled away" an allusion to Josh. 5:9, "And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you." I suppose reproach was round in those days. And for what it is worth, Matthew hints at a non-disc sort of stone when he says that an angel sat on it; there would not be much room for an angel to take a seat on a disc that most likely went back into a recess.)

As of this date, Carrier has offered no reply to either of us on this point which was so critical to his case.

In close for his introduction, Carrier shamelessly introduces the suggestion that we "must also rule out the influence of a deceiving supernatural power, i.e. some force, such as Satan, who could bring about the same results through supernatural influence, as some Jews might allege for the success of Christianity." In fact Jews did and would allege no such thing; Satan, though perhaps able to be credited for healing miracles, would not be regarded as having the prerogative of power of YHWH to give and take life, and to suggest such an option even so puts Carrier out of the realm of serious scholarship and into the realm of the likes of Acharya S. (Even at this, Carrier shamelessly says from the other side of his mouth that "we will assume" that the Satan-option is not viable, even as he introduces and discusses it to take advantage of the rhetorical benefit of doing so.) The bottom line: Carrier's case runs down to the same old canard time and again refuted, never improved since Hume: "Miracles don't happen, so some other explanation must be it." This bias lies behind his answers. We remain nevertheless with the point which even he admits: That there can be enough to make "miracle" the most probable explanation among all alternatives and that indeed, the "substantial scale of evidence," has been weighed and not found wanting.

The Shameless Mercenary

In case you're wondering....

Carrier's response to my third point had 1302 words. From his rate sheet we find that he charges "6 cents per word written" for this type of work. Assuming that Johnny didn't ask for a rush job, that means that Richie was paid $78.12 for his response to this section. More on why we make a note of this later.