Caesar’s Messiah Joesph Atwill

I don't know that the romans had the ability to do something like that. They used force and wouldn't have had the subtle propaganda techniques needed to carry it out. The Romans saw Christians as subversives that caused nothing but trouble and conflict because they had little to no respect for any other belief system. Which was a big problem in an empire as diverse as the Roman one. They spent years trying to solve the problem and I don't think they'd have the dedication to maintain a propaganda campaign like that.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

What do people make of Joesph Atwills claim that Christianity was a Roman invention to try & persuade the messianic Jews to worship a God the Roman's wanted them to, the gospels where created by a Roman family of Caesar's the Flavians. And Jesus was the Roman Emperor Titus Flavus.

Least that's the basics of it from what I understand.

Atwill's thesis is deeply flawed. There are lots of reasons for this, some big, some small.

Firstly, a series of gospels written as a single effort to be an ex nihilo backstory for Jesus wouldn't contain the amount of internally contradictory passages that they do.

Secondly, a series of gospels written in this way wouldn't have three of them be essentially the same with some editorial changes and additions.

There are only 18 latinisms (loan words from Latin to greek) in the NT, with 10 of them appearing in Mark. Even from a writer attempting to pass his story off as something else we would expect a higher incidence of Latinisms if they were written by a purely Roman source.

The inherently contradictory nature of the texts means that there is a lot of material in the gospels which would not appeal to a Jewish audience. Quite apart from the passages which portray Jesus breaking the law or advocating breaking the law, there are a lot of stories which are condescending to a Jewish audience, retelling escapades of the OT prophets but with Jesus doing them bigger and better.

The level of research the author of the gospels would have done is not consistent with the text. There are stories which show a significant familiarity with the OT and yet there are very basic mistakes when it comes to Jewish laws and customs. You wouldn't expect this from someone whose objective is to create a backstory for Jesus that would be believeable to a Jewish audience.

Atwill's work is built on allusory parallels that simply don't exist. He sees parallels between the Flavians and Jesus and begins to see links that aren't there. Let me explain with an analogy. One of the best examples of allusion on TV, for my money, is the Simpsons. The writers of the Simpsons weave pop culture references into the story better than anyone. So, for example, when Homer introduces Lisa's great uncle Chet in "Lisa the Simpson" as someone who runs an unsuccessful shrimp company we understand the joke because of the reference to Forrest Gump. Now let's consider Marge's brief stint as a realtor in "Realty Bites". One could consider this a reference to Annette Benning's character in American Beauty. But, since the episode aired in 1997 and the movie was released in 1999, the allusion only exists in the mind of the viewer. So it is with Atwill. He creates parallel and allusion where none actually exists.

gilius wrote: »

It's already been proven that he was correct. The 3 synoptic gospels were created under Titus; John and the rest of the NT under his brother Domitian; final contributions under Pliny and Trajan. However, they were helped by a number of aristocrats of the day, such as the Herod and Alexander family, and, of course, Josephus (unless he was an alias of the Flavian court historians). Jesus wasn't Titus; he was like a composite figure based on past deities, prophets and kings. However, Jesus' main role in the literature was to prefigure Titus, like a stereotype - backdated 40 years before Titus' campaign.

None of the debunk attempts even refer to the 60+ parallels occurring in sequence in any detail (Atwill's actual evidence); here's a description of just a few of them:

As I've said above, the parallels only exist in Atwill's mind. They are not deductions from the evidence but are inferred by the author. Some of them are pretty weak too.

gilius wrote: »

Why does Jesus then talk about encircling Jerusalem with a wall?
Answer: because this is when Titus and his army laid siege.

Or maybe because Jerusalem really did have an encircling wall:

gilius wrote: »

Why do the gospels then talk about: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near."
Answer: because the Roman army had arrived in the city and the daily sacrifice had been stopped.

Or because the gospels were all written after the destruction of the temple in 70AD however the gospel writers beginning with Mark decided to make Jesus look prophetic and rewrite the event to make it look as if Jesus predicted it.

You see Atwill's key problem is that he seems to have done extensive research on the Flavians and their lives but then attempts to graft this story onto what has to be said is a fairly basic understanding of the New Testament. He either ignores or doesn't seem to be aware of the syncretic nature of some of the NT texts. Take Mark, for example. There are stories in Mark borrowed from the OT and a significant portion of the narrative follows the same pattern as that established by Homer in The Odyssey. Mark is attempting to build a hagiographic backstory for Jesus in his writing and yet none of these existing syncretic incorporations come up on Atwill's radar. Alarm bells should be ringing at that point.

s28.postimg.org/7ect4z9el/desolation.jpg

gilius wrote: »

This sounds a bit vague/speculative? Not sure on the point you are trying to make here or what it has to do with Atwill's evidence? Straw man?

...

Almost every paragraph in the gospels match a paragraph in Josephus - in sequence - in terms of low frequency matching names/verbatim/locations/concepts - with interpretable satire. The sequential mapping by itinerary is a fact and forms the evidence - not Atwill's imagination. Statistically, they are very strong parallels, plus they are in sequence akin to DNA evidence. Both sets of literature were almost entirely interwoven.

OK, the point I am making here is that Atwill's thesis is flawed because he takes the gospels at face value as stories written by Jewish writers as biographies of Jesus. What Atwill fails to account for is the complex composition of the gospels and the textual scholarship that surrounds them. Allow me to explain with an example.

This the story of Jesus raising the daughter of Jairus which is told in Mark 5:21-43 and again in Matthew 9:18-26 and Luke 8:40-56. The story (as told in Mark) goes like this:


"When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” So Jesus went with him. A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?” “You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”
But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”
While Jesus was still speaking, some people came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. “Your daughter is dead,” they said. “Why bother the teacher anymore?” Overhearing what they said, Jesus told him, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.” He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. When they came to the home of the synagogue leader, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. He went in and said to them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.” But they laughed at him. After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). Immediately the girl stood up and began to walk around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat."

I have highlighted the parts which will become important in a minute. Now let's look at this passage from 2 Kings 4:25-35:

"So she set out and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel. When he saw her in the distance, the man of God said to his servant Gehazi, “Look! There’s the Shunammite! Run to meet her and ask her, ‘Are you all right? Is your husband all right? Is your child all right?’”
“Everything is all right,” she said. When she reached the man of God at the mountain, she took hold of his feet. Gehazi came over to push her away, but the man of God said, “Leave her alone! She is in bitter distress, but the Lord has hidden it from me and has not told me why.” “Did I ask you for a son, my lord?” she said. “Didn’t I tell you, ‘Don’t raise my hopes’?”
Elisha said to Gehazi, “Tuck your cloak into your belt, take my staff in your hand and run. Don’t greet anyone you meet, and if anyone greets you, do not answer. Lay my staff on the boy’s face.” But the child’s mother said, “As surely as the Lord lives and as you live, I will not leave you.” So he got up and followed her. Gehazi went on ahead and laid the staff on the boy’s face, but there was no sound or response. So Gehazi went back to meet Elisha and told him, “The boy has not awakened.” When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the Lord. Then he got on the bed and lay on the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out on him, the boy’s body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out on him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes."

Both stories, Jesus and Elisha share curiously similar elements, the parent falling at the prophet's feet, continuing on even after a messenger has told them that the child is dead, demanding privacy before healing the child and taking the child by the hand. Furthermore there are linguistic devices which indicate that the author of Mark's gospel was deliberately borrowing from the story of Elisha. The father in the first story is Jairus whose name comes from the Hebrew yair meaning awaken. Later in the story Jesus commands the young girl to awaken or egeire in Greek. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament story Elisha is told that the boy had not yet awakened or egerthe (past tense of egeire). Mark seems to be using a linguistic tip of the hat to the story of Elisha in his narrative.

Now Atwill's thesis is that the Jesus story was fabricated to mirror the actual escapades of Titus. However, if that were true then Titus would have to have coincidentally had the same adventures as an OT prophet 500 years previously. I don't think so.

Furthermore, quite a lot of the thematic inspiration for Mark's gospel (from which Matthew and Luke borrow heavily) comes from Homer, specifically the Odyssey.
For example, in Mark 14 Jesus stays at the home of Simon the Leper in Bethany where he is recognised by an anonymous woman who then proceeds to break open a jar of expensive perfume and then anoints Jesus. When the disciples rebuke her Jesus tells them that her deeds would find fame and glory and that her story would be retold wherever the gospel was preached. Immediately Mark shifts the story to Judas and the betrayal of Jesus.
In the Odyssey, Odysseus returns home disguised as a beggar and is tended to by his nurse Eurycleia. At first she doesn't recognise him but then when she sees his scar she recognises him. She then washes him and afterwards immediately shifts the conversation to talk about which of his servants betrayed him to the suitors.
The story in Mark contains a number of parallels with the Odyssey but the dead giveaway is when Jesus says that the woman will be known wherever the gospel is preached (even though she is not named). This is a linguistic allusion to Eurycleia in the Odyssey whose name translates from Greek as far-flung glory.

Similarly, Odysseus returns to his home in disguise so as not to be slaughtered prematurely by Penelope's suitors. Homer uses dramatic irony because the reader knows its Odysseus before the characters do. The author of Mark's gospel uses this theme again and again to create irony by having Jesus being recognised by a character in the story after performing a miracle. Jesus then commands them to keep quiet in order to maintain his anonymity.

If the gospels were really constructed to tell the story of Titus to the Jews then why would they borrow from Homer in this way?

Atwill's thesis also leaves several unanswered questions some of which I have outlined previously.

Why create three gospels which are copies of one another if you're trying to create a coherent story. Why not just one?

Why devote so much time in Mark and Matthew to a theological debate between faith and works if your objective is to create a biography of Titus which appeals to a Jewish audience.

Why is a book intended to appeal to Jews filled with so many basic mistakes and misunderstandings of Jewish laws and customs.

Why is a book written for Jews written in Koine Greek?

If you're going to write three different versions of the same story (Mark, Matthew and Luke) then why go to the trouble of writing John which is so hugely different. John shares only 12% of its content with the synoptics and is radically different in tone, scope, setting, objective etc. Why would Domitian screw his brother over in such a way by creating a story which kind of gives the game away.



Atwill's thesis also hinges on Christianity being invented based on The Jewish War which was published in 75CE. How then do you explain the references to Christians and Jesus 20 years earlier in Paul's writings. Moreover, if the gospels are a fabrication by the Romans then what are Paul's writings. They (with a few exceptions) all come before any of the gospels.

Atwill's thesis looks impressive on the surface but once you understand the scholarship surrounding the early Christian writings it looks about as ridiculous as the poster on IMDB who thought that Lord of the Rings ripped off Harry Potter.
The backstory of Jesus presented in the synoptics is indeed largely a fabrication constructed from earlier borrowings but it is clear from the text that the basis for this borrowing is to support the claims of early Christians that Jesus was the son of God.

s4.postimg.org/ggpvdc831/jairus.jpg