Egads.
I'm not really sure about note 277, PaulK!
I'll have to ask the author about it. I think Jacobus is some German equivalent to James(?)
It's almost as if this note doesn't fit at all, like there has been a mistake, like it is a remnant of something in the text that was later edited out, but the note was not adjusted...?
Anyway, it isn't clear to me, so let me see if Carotta can provide me with an answer...
---
quote:
Is there any evidence for this reading of the first few verses of John or has it been concocted just to keep Carotta's ideas from being falsified ? If there were evidence I could beleive it but I cannot think it likely without support.
I'm not sure if this possibility (that the gospels might be sourced from staged plays) has been examined in a serious way.
I wonder how one would go about finding 'evidence' to prove such a process really took place? My guess is such a process would result in an almost indefinable 'quirkiness' to the text, for one thing.
About your idea that Crassus is a better fit to correspond with John the Baptist than Pompey, that is really amazing! Perhaps the character of John the Baptist is a melding of not only Pompeian snippets, but also some of Crassus, too.
I think one of this theory's big stumbling blocks is that it lacks a strict 'method'; as in a set of 'rules' like a set-in-stone mathematical formula: "John the baptist is ALWAYS mirroring Pompey, and Pompey only", or "Jesus Christ is a mirror of Julius Caesar, and of him only"...
It might not be possible for the theory as it is to provide that, because it is based upon the idea that something in the process which (mis)translated the text was too chaotic. (keep in mind, I am NOT an expert on the book. I did read it more than once, but I have since been reading and researching other things so I have forgotten a lot of the details in Carotta's book.)
But anyway, Carotta has always, in my understanding, realized that he has not come close to explaining all the details; his primary feeling is rather that he has begun the discovery of something.
So perhaps there can be a more formal way of defining the different factors in the process, but it will take a lot more research and thought (and arguing!) by a lot of people in order to discover it...?
This message has been edited by Aquitaine, May-06-2005 10:43 AM