Mod+ 241. JOSEPH ATWILL RESPONDS TO CAESAR’S MESSIAH CRITICS

[perandre]

@Vortex + @alex.tsakiris It's not so much the issue, as the claims. Atwill doesn't seem familiar with the basics of the existing scholarship.

But I agree that we should still have an orderly discussion. It would be great if a proponent could comment on the issues mentioned above.

 

[Alex]

Typologies = "gospel preaching"; they are tools to explain who they believed Christ was, and what he had done.

-- here's a very Christian site that details the similarities between Moses and Jesus... how do you explain them?
http://www.confidentfaith.net/moses-and-jesus-devine-similarities

See above. Typologies are considered prophetic, and this is a very Jewish way of interpreting Scriptures. That doesn't have to mean we must share this (super natural) explanation, but there no case for Roman influence here. All very Jewish.

-- I don't completely understand your response, but there is a considerable amount of Biblical scholarship suggesting some Bible prophecies were written after the fact. This is the first ref I came across, there are tons of others: http://ntwrong.wordpress.com/2008/1...aniel-to-after-the-prophecies-were-fulfilled/

Constantin is obviously a very problematic person to church history. He deserves his own thread, as this is hundreds of years after the era we should really zoom in on. Hope you agree.

--- Constantine clearly used Christianity as a tool for power, control, and manipulation. why assume he was the first Roman leader to do this?

Josephus was Jewish, Jesus was Jewish, most of the NT writers were Jewish.

-- Josephus believed that Titus' arrival changed/broke the Jewish covenant with God... and he's the guy who records the history we rely on. what part of Josephus' writings are you questioning? how is this relevant as to whether the Gospels relied on Josephus? they clearly did... this has been accepted for 100s of years.

The "big story" needs the "secondary" claim, so I think both should be addressed.

-- if you're arguing for a Bart Ehrman kinda Jesus who is this minor historical figure... i.e. one of many roaming mystics, then go ahead. I just don't see where that takes you.

-- the big question for me is how do we square the reality of Christ consciousness (which I believe there is very strong evidence for) with the distorted historical account?

 

[Wendybird]

agree! the way this process repeats itself is kinda funny.

Alex (and Vortex, and others), one of the things you harp on about, especially with regard to NDE and psi research is that we have scholarly research that has been peer-reviewed and published in respectable professional journals. If Atwill wants to be taken seriously, he should write a research paper that's well documented and get it peer reviewed. I think Atwill has not done this because 1) it's mostly supposition; apparently he rarely cites his sources in his books, and 2) he knows it would never pass muster from true academics in the fields of biblical research/ancient history (hint: he's not even a "peer").

I think you don't see this blind side, Alex -- it's a double standard. Because Atwill goes against the grain regarding early Christian origins, against traditional mainstream/the majority of academia (who are experts in their fields, with Ph.D.s who and research that has passed peer reviews). then hey, the controversy is OK. We all have biases that blind us a bit. But where is Atwill's peer-reviewed research to back up his claims? The theses and research of Sheldrake and Van Lommel are controversial, but they are EXPERTS in their fields with peer-reviewed research. Atwill is no expert in this field. He is a lay person, an armchair academic who fraudulently calls himself a Biblical Scholar. He is not an academic. He studied computer science in college and is a businessman who has studied Christian origins as a hobby (what I do - an armchair academic, and I can't call myself an expert or a biblical scholar). Where is his Ph.D. in the field of 2nd Temple Judaism and early Christian origins, or ancient (Roman/Jewish) history/literature for that matter? He says he's studied Greek and maybe other languages, but where's his degree in that/those field(s)? I took 5 years of French, too, but I'm not a French scholar/academic.

Atwill has a controversial angle that book marketers LOVE -- it sells books. Atwill is laughing all the way to the bank, IMHO. HE'S A BUSINESSMAN! He's not the first to work an angle like this and pull the wool over the eyes of those who aren't so literate in the field..

 

[Alex]

Hi John... realize you were responding to T, but allow me to chime in...

Bart Ehrman has basically deconstructed the NT and revealed it to be absolutely inconsistent with anything we should consider a reliable historical document.

agreed.

The case can be made of course, as Ehrman does, that there are concrete things we can say about the real man. I don't disagree that the myth surrounding Jesus likely started with a real man (just as there are myths surrounding the actual lives of presidents, conquerors, other prophets, etc.), but the arguments about who he really was are not terribly strong.

I don't agree with all of Ehrman conclusions, but I agree with your point. I think the "Jesus myth" (i.e. the claim that there wan't a historical Jesus) thing really gets us sidetracked. In terms of history it doesn't really matter much if there was some person this was all based on. A Bart Ehrman kinda Jesus doesn't legitimize Christianity.

The question Atwill brings into focus in a powerful way is -- when did the Romans begin fiddling with the Christian myth?

There can be no debate that Constantine did so in 302AD... so, was he the first? and why do the Gospels parallel the writings of the Roman court historian Josephus? Again, there can be no debate that they do, the only question is why?

 

[Alex]

But where is Atwill's peer-reviewed research to back up his claims?

I heard the same kinda stuff from Ivy League scholar Richard Carrier -- who happens to believe that Jesus was a myth. Where's the peer-review! Well, I think that argument holds up a lot better in the sciences than is does with literary review.

Anyone can do a comparative analysis of these books and ask the tough questions that Atwill asks? It's up to critics to answer, rather deflecting the question to one of peer-review.

pls take a shot at the questions in the above post.

 

[Saiko]

Atwill may be very earnest and believe he's on to something big, and he can believe what he wants to -- people can look at the evidence and see what they want to see. But I think he missed the boat big time, perhaps because he hasn't got a mystical/spiritual bone in his body.

Please do bring on a biblical scholar, an expert on the historical Jesus to bring balance to this issue.

Interesting juxtaposition. So "people see what they want to see" but when one becomes a "scholar", one automatically doesn't do that?

 

[perandre]

-- here's a very Christian site that details the similarities between Moses and Jesus... how do you explain them?
http://www.confidentfaith.net/moses-and-jesus-devine-similarities

I'm just boosting your point; there are lots of similarities, and not just with Moses! The writers of the gospels were gospel preachers. This has been recognized for centuries; nothing controversial here.

-- I don't completely understand your response, but there is a considerable amount of Biblical scholarship suggesting some Bible prophecies were written after the fact. This is the first ref I came across, there are tons of others: http://ntwrong.wordpress.com/2008/1...aniel-to-after-the-prophecies-were-fulfilled/

I think a better example of where most scholars believe the prophecy was created after it happened, is when Jesus says (In Mattthew 24) the temple will be destroyed. Scholars tend to think that claim was put into the mouth of Jesus after yr 70.

--- Constantine clearly used Christianity as a tool for power, control, and manipulation. why assume he was the first Roman leader to do this?

To the first AD emporers, the early Palestinian christians were considered a Jewish sect. They worshipped at the same synagogues as the Jews, they called themselves Jews, obeyed the Torah, etc. Then came sporadic Jewish persecution, followed by Roman persecution. There's just no signs of what Atwill claims.

-- Josephus believed that Titus' arrival changed/broke the Jewish covenant with God... and he's the guy who records the history we rely on. what part of Josephus' writings are you questioning? how is this relevant as to whether the Gospels relied on Josephus? they clearly did... this has been accepted for 100s of years.

Did you read the wiki article? Most scholars belive the christian passages are interpolations of later redactions. No conspiracies needed.

-- the big question for me is how do we square the reality of Christ consciousness (which I believe there is very strong evidence for) with the distorted historical account?

I agree that this is a great and interesting question, but I doubt that Atwill shares your interest. At least I think his theory not the best starting point for that specific discussion.

 

[Saiko]

241. JOSEPH ATWILL RESPONDS TO CAESAR’S MESSIAH CRITICS

Interview with Joseph Atwill examines criticisms of his controversial theory about the founding of the Christian church.

----------------------------------------> pls ​

Congrats! Although my perspective differs from Atwill's, the level of vitriol and near vitriol in this thread shows that many here are more interested in reinforcing their existent beliefs than in genuine exploration of things. And of course many cloud that with the usual claims that "the experts say" etc. lol

 

[David Bailey]

I think you don't see this blind side, Alex -- it's a double standard. Because Atwill goes against the grain regarding early Christian origins, against traditional mainstream/the majority of academia (who are experts in their fields, with Ph.D.s who and research that has passed peer reviews). then hey, the controversy is OK. We all have biases that blind us a bit. But where is Atwill's peer-reviewed research to back up his claims? The theses and research of Sheldrake and Van Lommel are controversial, but they are EXPERTS in their fields with peer-reviewed research.

I haven't listened to the podcast - at least yet, because I am not a Christian, and see the origin of the Jesus myth (or fact) as rather unimportant. However, I do think there is a certain parallel here with the main Skeptiko debate. I mean people like Sheldrake and Radin should be publishing in Nature or Science, but they have to make do with lesser journals. Part of the problem they face is that there really aren't suitable peer reviewers to rubber stamp their work.

Likewise, those who oppose that Global Warming science have a hard time publishing, and I guess someone who goes way off traditional ideas on the Jesus story is going to have the same sort of difficulty. If we only look at peer reviewed stuff, then controversial subjects never get explored. Yes, that does let in some people with a screw loose, but I can't see any way to avoid that.

If he has got his historical facts wrong, I think someone should point this out in detail.

The real truth may well be that the Jesus story has been subject to so many layers of mythologising over the centuries, that it isn't possible to get to the truth - there must be many historical facts like that.

David

 

[Alex]

-- here's a very Christian site that details the similarities between Moses and Jesus... how do you explain them?
http://www.confidentfaith.net/moses-and-jesus-devine-similarities

---I'm just boosting your point; there are lots of similarities, and not just with Moses! The writers of the gospels were gospel preachers. This has been recognized for centuries; nothing controversial here.

not sure I get your point. so, we agree that the story of Jesus' early life was preconfigured to look like Moses. from this Atwill asks a powerful question -- why do we assume they didn't mess with other parts of the story? in particular, the coming of the Messiah?

http://ntwrong.wordpress.com/2008/1...aniel-to-after-the-prophecies-were-fulfilled/
I think a better example of where most scholars believe the prophecy was created after it happened, is when Jesus says (In Mattthew 24) the temple will be destroyed. Scholars tend to think that claim was put into the mouth of Jesus after yr 70.

ok, but again, I don't get your point. to me this is just supporting evidence for the possibility that the coming of the Messiah prophecy was written after the fact?

--- Constantine clearly used Christianity as a tool for power, control, and manipulation. why assume he was the first Roman leader to do this?
To the first AD emporers, the early Palestinian christians were considered a Jewish sect. They worshipped at the same synagogues as the Jews, they called themselves Jews, obeyed the Torah, etc. Then came sporadic Jewish persecution, followed by Roman persecution. There's just no signs of what Atwill claims.

what does this have to do with it? do you agree with the following: "Constantine clearly used Christianity as a tool for power, control, and manipulation."

-- Josephus believed that Titus' arrival changed/broke the Jewish covenant with God... and he's the guy who records the history we rely on. what part of Josephus' writings are you questioning? how is this relevant as to whether the Gospels relied on Josephus? they clearly did... this has been accepted for 100s of years.​

Did you read the wiki article? Most scholars belive the christian passages are interpolations of later redactions. No conspiracies needed.

once again, I feel like we're talking past each other... what part of Josephus' account is in dispute?

 

[perandre]

when did the Romans begin fiddling with the Christian myth?

Constantine showed a strong interest in theology after yr 318, when Arius hit the stage. This stride caused such proportions, that Constantin feared for the stability of his empire. This leads up to Nicea 325, and it's a very interesting story. No doubt did he use christianity politically before this, but there's no evidence he or any other emperor bent the teaching to their will.

The geographical spreading of NT manuscripts (numbering more than 5000 fragments), makes us able to track origins and developments. In the Greek NT, I can see all variations in every single verse every found. It gets technical, but basic commenting on the origins of the gospels without knowing the "standard models" for the synoptic problem is very hard.

I recommend checking out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#Theories

 

[Alex]

Constantine showed a strong interest in theology after yr 318, when Arius hit the stage. This stride caused such proportions, that Constantin feared for the stability of his empire. This leads up to Nicea 325, and it's a very interesting story. No doubt did he use christianity politically before this, but there's no evidence he or any other emperor bent the teaching to their will.

But, isn't this asking the question in the wrong way? If we agree that Constantine (like just about every ruler in history) used religion as a political/manipulation tool, then why wouldn't he "bend the teaching to his will"?

and since this isn't a new trick, why wouldn't other emperors do the same?

 

[Michael Larkin]

Well, I've been doing some research, as promised. Atwill isn't only associated with his thesis about Christianity, but also with a theory that Shakespeare was actually a woman who, surreptitiously, was a Jewish protagonist: both topics are covered in this video (Shakespeare first, the origin of Christianity second, starting around 31:40):

See also: http://shakespeare-oxford.com/wp-content/oxfordian/Hudson_Bassano.pdf

The thing that makes Atwill's Christian thesis seem doubtful to me is the fact that Christianity arose before the start of the Flavian dynasty (a 25-year period beginning in 69 AD according to Wiki): Titus Flavius (Vespasian) lived from 9-79 AD. The emperor Nero preceded him, and it is reported that in 64 AD (after the famous fire at which he is supposed to have fiddled), he engaged in persecution of Christians (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml). It seems logical to assume that Christians must have been around for long enough by 64AD that they had been noticed and were deemed worthy of attention.

If the Flavians originated Christianity, then they must have done it before 64 AD while the Julio-Claudian emperors (successively Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero, from 27 BC to 68 AD) were in power. If we are to accept the death of Jesus was around 33 AD, then it's hard to see how, whilst the Julio-Claudians were in power, it could have escaped their notice that Titus had been busily manufacturing the Christianity which at that stage was apparently aggravating Nero.

The only way to square the circle would seem to be if the Christians that Nero persecuted were in fact a different bunch of believers than the Christians for whom Atwill alleges the Flavians constructed the New Testament texts specifically, and in disguised form, to keep the troublesome Jews pacified.

Another point is that Romans, unlike the Greeks, weren't noted for their subtlety. An elaborate thesis like Atwill's seems uncharacteristic of them. Trouble in the provinces? Send in the legions, show them who's boss and keep them subdued by force. Also, it wasn't until Constantine was emperor that in 312 AD he reportedly became a Christian, prior to which many Christian persecutions had occurred. Thereafter, persecutions of non-Christians began in characteristic Roman fashion: so if Christianity had been fabricated as a peaceful religion to keep populaces subdued, it seems to have failed. If anything, the Romanisation of Christianity seems to have metamorphosed it into a a zealous and intolerant religion. If prior to that time the Romans had been capable of subtlety, why then did they succumb to the dark side, for which they'd in any case long been known?

Sorry, Alex, I can't buy it. Atwill seems to have it backwards.

 

[Saiko]

A quick look at Atwell's blog does show that he's given to unexamined flights of fancy.

The first mystery concerning Paul is why did the author of Acts change his name from ‘Saul’ to ‘Paul’, a word that means ‘tiny’. The truth behind Saul’s nickname is viscous humor that makes fun of the fact that Paul was not merely circumcised but castrated. The story of Paul’s castration is black comedy and is given in Acts 13 1-9.

So there is (I assume he's correct in that) one fact: that Paul means "tiny." Yet from that he's conjured up an implausible perspective. Let's say that there was a Saul and he did have an experience that in his mind was one of "the power of God." Is it in any way surprising that he'd want to "put aside his former arrogance" and that he'd see himself as "tiny in the eyes of God" and identify as such? The likelihood of such a perspective is borne out by the many expressions in both Judaism and Islam that amount to people styling themselves as "small in the eyes of the Lord."

I haven't read the interview nor the details of Atwell's theories but seeing one example of his process of "analysis" I think it unlikely that his research is truly probing.

 

[gabriel]

Atwill sounds more Dan Brown than Rupert Sheldrake, but I shall have to listen first. Conspiracies and revisions have to fulfil a few basic criteria to be taken seriously, by me at least. They have to be logically coherent, bring fresh insights and new evidence, and overthrow existing explanations. I also like to know what previous form the author has for drama and tabloid journalism. Atwill's Jesus seems to be more historical Roschach test than smoking gun.

 

[David Bailey]

If the Flavians originated Christianity, then they must have done it before 64 AD while the Julio-Claudian emperors (successively Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero, from 27 BC to 68 AD) were in power. If we are to accept the death of Jesus was around 33 AD, then it's hard to see how, whilst the Julio-Claudians were in power, it could have escaped their notice that Titus had been busily manufacturing the Christianity which at that stage was apparently aggravating Nero.

That seems like an important point that Alex should put to Atwill!

David

 

[gilius2k14]

Have you guys actually listened/read the podcast or read Atwill's book? Christianity was invented about 75-80 AD when the gospels were written telling the story of a guy named Jesus backdated to the time of Pilate. They backdated the story as part of a dual alignment: The 70 AD temple destruction had to match with the prophecies of Daniel (1); the fall of Masada (73 AD) needed to equal 40 years or 1 generation after Jesus' death in 33 AD (2). Masada probably fell in AD 74 in actuality according to archaeologists. This is covered in pages 311 to 340 of Caesar's Messiah.

So if they backdated Jesus 40 years then they had to fill in the gap:
"But there is one really interesting thing that links all of those historians together – Suetonius, Josephus, Tacitus, and Dio – the people who talk about this character Jesus Christ and about Christians. They are all Flavian court historians, every one. And every one of them also took the position that the Jewish messianic prophecies foresaw not a Jew but the Flavian Caesar. Every one of them recorded that insane and incredible concept. So when you look at the gospels and you look at my work you see that they were definitely produced in the Flavian compound. Somehow this group was able to generate this literature. So the literature just is a false history. It is a fiction about a character living in 30 to 33."

If you read the main history book about Vespasian it tells how Tacitus was reported at the time to have colluded with the Flavians over something else that escapes me... simply government corruption!

But let's start from the very beginning:
Christianity was created as a sick joke, and has become the greatest hoax of all-time. Let's compare the gospels with the official Roman history of the Emperor Titus Flavius and his campaigns to crush the First Jewish Revolt.

"Jesus": taken up and scourged, i.e. crucified, said "Woe" 8 times then "gave up the ghost" --NT Gospels & BJ 6.316

Here's the exact words quoted from both sets of literature, and this even matches after being translated from Greek to English:

Jesus .. gave up the ghost .. Jesus spoke .. woe .. Woe .. Woe .. Woe .. Woe .. Woe .. Woe .. Woe (Luke 23:46, Matt 23:1-39, 24:1-44)
Note: the gospels also tell us that Jesus was crucified.

took up the man .. number of severe stripes .. Jesus .. to cry aloud .. Woe, woe .. uttered .. Woe, woe .. Woe, woe .. Woe, woe.. gave up the ghost (Wars of the Jews 4,5,334-335, 341-343)

Who takes down Jesus in each of the stories?

Joseph .. from Arimathea .. body of Jesus .. took it down (Luke 23:50-53)
crucified .. taken down .. Josephus bar Matthias (Life of Flavius Josephus 75)

Josephus was credited with writing Wars of the Jews and referenced in his biography the taking down of the crucified near the end of Titus' campaign, but it was not included in his main book. "Arimathea" is obviously a play on the words "bar Matthias".

In both the gospels and Wars of the Jews, Jesus survives his crucifixion where two other men died.

Now do you think these Jesus/Joseph/crucifixion parallels exist in both sets of literature by chance, or by design? What if I told you there are at least 50 matches between those books occuring in the same order/sequence? Here's just some of them:

Luke 4:42-43 good news (euaggelion) .. God .. I have been sent (Jesus)
Sent away his son Titus .. WOTJ 3,9,446 + 3,10,503
good news (euaggelion)

Luke 6:1-11 Sabbath .. right hand
Seventh day .. right hands WOTJ 4,2,92-104

Luke 9:18(Matt 16:19), 9:52 bound .. loosed .. He steadfastly set His face
to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before
loose .. bound .. ordered the rest to meet him WOTJ 4,10,628-629 + 5,1,40
at Jerusalem, marched out

Luke 11:29, 12:52, 13:7-9 the crowds were increasing .. divided .. three .. two ..
tree .. fruit .. cut it down
The Jews became still more and more in number WOTJ 5,2,78 + 5,3,105,107
.. divided .. three .. two .. cut down .. fruit trees

Luke 14:28-32, 19:40 intending to build a tower .. conditions of peace .. stones .. cry out
might make an impression upon the walls WOTJ 5,6,258-261,272
.. build .. tower .. terms of peace .. stone .. cried out

Luke 21:10-11, 20 kingdom against kingdom .. earthquakes ..
famines .. pestilences .. desolation
Matt. 24:7, 15 kingdom against kingdom .. famines .. pestilences
.. earthquakes .. abomination of desolation
Dan. 9:27 sacrifice .. cease .. abominations .. desolate
sacrifice .. failed WOTJ 6, 2, 94

Luke 24:16, 37 But their eyes were kept from recognising him ..
supposed they had seen a spirit
Matt. 28:17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him, but some doubted
Mark 16:12 he appeared in another form
John 21:4 the disciples did not know that it was Jesus
they could not get any one of them .. WOTJ 7,10,418
to confess, that Caesar was their lord

This is just a tiny selection of the sequential parallels.

So why are they there?

Answer: Dark comedy AKA Satire.

So if you are intelligent enough to spot that there's a pattern above(?) then we can proceed with looking at more parallels and understanding the satire behind them before proving that the Flavians invented Christianity.

In this case the satire is simple: Jesus of the gospels was seen as the "cornerstone" of the temple who could "utterly crush", but the Jesus of Josephus' history gets killed by a stone from a roman siege engine.

"And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost."

 

[gabriel]

"Arimathea" is obviously a play on the words "bar Matthias".

Obviously to whom? Dan Brown?

 

[gilius2k14]

Here's more "play on words" between those books:
Chorazin produces the Coracin fish (Luke 5:10 linked to Matt 11:21 vs. WOTJ 3, 10, 520-527)
Zechariah, son of Berechiah vs. Zacharias the son of Baruch (Luke 23:46 linked to Matt 23:1-39, 24:1-44 vs. WOTJ 6,5,271-287, 298-315 linked to WOTJ 4,5,334-335, 341-343)
Simon bar Jonas vs. Simon bar Gioras
Judas Iscariot vs. Judas of the Sicarii

 

[gabriel]

Here's more "play on words" between those books:
Chorazin produces the Coracin fish (Luke 5:10 linked to Matt 11:21 vs. WOTJ 3, 10, 520-527)
Zechariah, son of Berechiah vs. Zacharias the son of Baruch (Luke 23:46 linked to Matt 23:1-39, 24:1-44 vs. WOTJ 6,5,271-287, 298-315 linked to WOTJ 4,5,334-335, 341-343)
Simon bar Jonas vs. Simon bar Gioras
Judas Iscariot vs. Judas of the Sicarii

Show me the paper trail and less with the Scrabble.