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

The Gospel of Mark was written at least 5 years before the Wars of the Jews.

Mark was written in 70 AD (http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/c21online/resources/birthofjesus/intro/the_dating_of_thegospels.html) (66-70 AD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark)

The Jewish War was written in 75 AD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_War) (78 AD http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/)
ok, so you agree with everything else, right? you're just hung up on the dates. I ask because I think I can get that straightened out, but I gotta wonder if that will really do much for you. I get this feeling that this is about belief, not history.
 
The Gospel of Mark is generally ascribed to the period between 65 and 75 CE. Exegetes base this conclusion primarily on the prophecy of Jesus in Mark 13 that appears to refer to events of First Jewish Revolt in 66-70, in which Roman troops leveled the Temple in Jerusalem. For the vast majority of interpreters these passage indicates that the writer is aware that the Temple in Jerusalem either has been destroyed, or is about to be destroyed. Additional support for this may be derived from the focus on plundered and destroyed Temples in the Old Testament hypertexts the writer incorporated into the Gospel. Numerous exegetes have pointed out that Mark 13:9-13 refers to events that would take place long after Jesus' time: (...)
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_intro.html

Joel L. Watts, who wrote the scholarly Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (2013), discussing the sources and influences on the gospel of Mark, writes: "The social situation, including dating and reception history, prevails as a key in properly distinguishing sources. The date is near 75 BC." Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, p. 107.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Watts' conclusions are radically not Atwill's (!), but his analysis (including literary & historical analysis) contends that the Gospel of Mark is written to buffer his community psychologically against two "enemies", Vespasian and Simon b. Giora. (p. 107-108).

Here's Watts' blog article again responding to someone thinking he and Atwill are saying the same thing:
http://unsettledchristianity.com/joe-atwill-bill-oreilly-and-josephus-sitting-in-a-tree/
 
Last edited:
ok, so you agree with everything else, right? you're just hung up on the dates. I ask because I think I can get that straightened out, but I gotta wonder if that will really do much for you. I get this feeling that this is about belief, not history.

Please don't assume anything beyond what I post.

I can't predict how I will respond to a future post you might make until I see the post and the evidence you provide.

Whenever I look in detail at Atwill's claims, they don't hold up to the facts. The prefiguration doesn't hold up if you look at the full prophesy not just the part Atwill refers to, the time line of Mark and Josephus doesn't hold up - Mark wrote long before Josephus. Paul's letters prove Jesus was considered the Messiah early on and that contradicts what Atwill says in your interview. As far as I can tell Atwill is ignoring the facts.
 
the time line of Mark and Josephus doesn't hold up - Mark wrote long before Josephus.
Jim, I don't support what Atwill concludes, for many of the reasons you mention in this thread (Paul just being one of them), but what you write here is clearly wrong. There is no support for the claim that Mark, with any certainty, "wrote long before Josephus". As my previous posts indicate, it is even very possible that they are writing in the same time frame.

Joel Watts (Christian, New Testament scholar) makes a strong case that Mark 13's "prediction of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem" is actually a reference to this historical event having already taken place, and his writing to a post-Temple-destruction audience.
 
Jim, I don't support what Atwill concludes, for many of the reasons you mention in this thread (Paul just being one of them), but what you write here is clearly wrong. There is no support for the claim that Mark, with any certainty, "wrote long before Josephus". As my previous posts indicate, it is even very possible that they are writing in the same time frame.

Joel Watts (Christian, New Testament scholar) makes a strong case that Mark 13's "prediction of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem" is actually a reference to this historical event having already taken place, and his writing to a post-Temple-destruction audience.

I provided four references to support my statement, two for each date.

I don't mean to imply that a consensus among experts is proof. But disagreeing with the consensus is not proof either.

Watt is not convinced by Atwill:

http://unsettledchristianity.com/joe-atwill-bill-oreilly-and-josephus-sitting-in-a-tree/
Joel L. Watts October 9, 2013
...
Atwill’s reconstruction of history bears no actual similarity to history. Not only that, Atwill cannot even accurately read Josephus!

There is so much to write about how idiotic Atwill’s thesis is, but I don’t have the time to correct all the stupidity in the world…
 
Last edited:
Jim, I don't support what Atwill concludes, for many of the reasons you mention in this thread (Paul just being one of them), but what you write here is clearly wrong. There is no support for the claim that Mark, with any certainty, "wrote long before Josephus". As my previous posts indicate, it is even very possible that they are writing in the same time frame.

Joel Watts (Christian, New Testament scholar) makes a strong case that Mark 13's "prediction of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem" is actually a reference to this historical event having already taken place, and his writing to a post-Temple-destruction audience.
Untangling this mess:

One of the bunny trails we get pulled down is this idea that we have to swallow Cesar's Messiah whole. That is, either the Romans invented Jesus, like Atwill says, or everything Atwill is saying needs to be set aside. I take a different position. I think Atwill has given us a couple of new and important insights into this history. And, we have to pull his theories apart in order to judge them.

So, for a minute, let's suspend judgement on whether Atwill is completely correct and instead focus on where one of his theories take us... for example:

The Gospels were influenced by Josephus.

- When considering this we don't have to worry about whether Atwill should or did considering the letters of Paul, or whether he's considering other sources. We can just focus on whether or not the Gospels match up with Josephus.

- Who was Josephus? Jewish General. Take sides with the Romans. Historian. Was there for the fall of Jerusalem. His account has been verified archaeologically (below).

- The Gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke predict the fall of Jerusalem. Predict is the operative word. This is supposed to be Jesus's prediction (below). Parallels between Josephus and predictions concerning the fall of Jerusalem are extremely problematic for Christians. They mean some very important parts of the story of Jesus... who he was... what he did... were fabricated in the Gospels.

====== http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html
Archaeological Data

The most obvious data for examination, it would seem to us, isarchaeological material. In many instances, numerous details provided by Josephus can be checked, including architechural data, and their accuracy confirmed. Such precision, where it can be established, is surprising, especially since the information was set down in writing years after Josephus had left Palestine. In addition, it is clear that in some cases he is describing objects that he cannot possibly have seen, let alone measured. Thus he probably never visited Masada or set foot on its summit, so he cannot himself have measured its walls. For sixty years preceding the Great Revolt, the desert fortress was occupied by a Roman garrison and civilians were not normally allowed entry. Even so, he writes in War (VII, 286) that the walls of Masada were seven stadia, i.e., about 1300m. long.1 And so indeed they were.2 Similarly, he describes in War (I, 403) the walls of Samaria-Sebaste, built by Herod, as being twenty stadia long (3720m.). This figure also approximates to their length as unearthed.3

The perimeter of the walls of Jerusalem is said by Josephus (War V, 159) to extend to thirty-three stadia (6138m.), whereas in Avi-Yonah's reckoning they were 5550m. long; but this is a difference of merely 10%.4

Again, the harbour of Caesarea built by Herod has been studied meticulously by A. Raban and he finds that Josephus's account of it is by and large correct.5 At Masada, too, the description of the northern palace (which Josephus calls the western palace,War VII, 286) matches the remains as discovered.6 The same my be said of the width of the wall, eight cubits, which is close to 4 m. (War VII, 286).7 On the other hand, the historian alludes to thirty-seven towers on the walls of Masada (War VII, 287), whereas only twenty-seven were identified during the excavations. Either the excavators were unable to recognize all the towers, or Josephus's work contains a textual error, which may possibly be the fault of a copyist.8

Further perusal of Josephus would undoubtedly reveal additional instances of similar archaeological data.9

==== http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Jerusalem.htm
In the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, we have a different situation, because in these books Jesus clearly predicts the fall of Jerusalem. Luke has an example which is not in the other two synoptic gospels. Luke 19:41-44 says: “When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation." This passage is very clear that the city will be destroyed. Some critics say this indicates that Luke was written after the fall of Jerusalem. The argument goes – “foretelling a future event is impossible, even for Jesus, so since this book foretells the destruction of Jerusalem, it must have been written after it happened.”
 
Last edited:
In the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, we have a different situation, because in these books Jesus clearly predicts the fall of Jerusalem. Luke has an example which is not in the other two synoptic gospels. Luke 19:41-44 says: “When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation." This passage is very clear that the city will be destroyed. Some critics say this indicates that Luke was written after the fall of Jerusalem. The argument goes – “foretelling a future event is impossible, even for Jesus, so since this book foretells the destruction of Jerusalem, it must have been written after it happened.”
I think a lot of scholars accept that there is a high possibility that Luke read and used Josephus as a source.

In the portions of Joel Watts' book that I'm reading, he comes to the conclusion that Mark, the earliest gospel, likely had access to Josephus as a source also, or the same sources Josephus did, and he "mimes the historian's account for images to imitate" (p. 73). First he says Mark 13, but also Mark 11.15-17 are instances that point to Mark being dated post-70 AD. Mark's "mimetic sources" point the book being written between 71 and 75. He then explains Josephus wrote his early material of Vespasian's victories after arriving in Rome, and that he wrote in his native Aramaic. Josephus's early writings were first a small pamphlet that was self-published to friends in Rome and Asia. He quotes another scholar who says that the pamphlet, translated into Greek, made into copies by numerous scribes on papyrus rolls, would have circulated widely in the Roman world. This propaganda "littering the streets", Mark would have no problem coming across.

Watts also notes that Josephus used the war memoirs of Vespasian and Titus to write his account, because they were accessible, and they were likely known to Mark also. Watts concludes that we cannot know if Mark accessed Josephus' pamplet or final work, but he had access to the same history, and there are important literary connections between Josephus and Mark. Josephus' work was also published in various stages, from early 71 to after 75. (Joel L. Watts: Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (2013). Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stockpcits, p. 72-75.)
 
I think a lot of scholars accept that there is a high possibility that Luke read and used Josephus as a source.

In the portions of Joel Watts' book that I'm reading, he comes to the conclusion that Mark, the earliest gospel, likely had access to Josephus as a source also, or the same sources Josephus did, and he "mimes the historian's account for images to imitate" (p. 73). First he says Mark 13, but also Mark 11.15-17 are instances that point to Mark being dated post-70 AD. Mark's "mimetic sources" point the book being written between 71 and 75. He then explains Josephus wrote his early material of Vespasian's victories after arriving in Rome, and that he wrote in his native Aramaic. Josephus's early writings were first a small pamphlet that was self-published to friends in Rome and Asia. He quotes another scholar who says that the pamphlet, translated into Greek, made into copies by numerous scribes on papyrus rolls, would have circulated widely in the Roman world. This propaganda "littering the streets", Mark would have no problem coming across.

Watts also notes that Josephus used the war memoirs of Vespasian and Titus to write his account, because they were accessible, and they were likely known to Mark also. Watts concludes that we cannot know if Mark accessed Josephus' pamplet or final work, but he had access to the same history, and there are important literary connections between Josephus and Mark. Josephus' work was also published in various stages, from early 71 to after 75. (Joel L. Watts: Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (2013). Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stockpcits, p. 72-75.)
excellent. but aren't these guys are burying the lead. I mean, tell your average church going Christian that these guys made up stories attributed to Jesus... they would be in shock!
 
Sorry if this link has been posted before but it is too long a thread and my attention span too short.
http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664

"Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers I often get conflated with. Mythicists like him make the job of serious scholars like me so much harder, because people see, hear, or read them and think their nonsense is what mythicism is. They make mythicism look ridiculous. So I have to waste time (oh by the gods, so much time) explaining how I am not arguing anything like their theories or using anything like their terrible methods, and unlike them I actually know what I am talking about, and have an actual Ph.D. in a relevant subject from a real university."

"I honestly shouldn’t have to explain why this is absurd. But I’ll hit some highlights. Then I’ll reveal the reasons why I think Atwill is a total crank, and his work should be ignored, indeed everywhere warned against as among the worst of mythicism, not representative of any serious argument that Jesus didn’t exist. And that’s coming from me, someone who believes Jesus didn’t exist."
 
Sorry if this link has been posted before but it is too long a thread and my attention span too short.
http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664

"Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers I often get conflated with. Mythicists like him make the job of serious scholars like me so much harder, because people see, hear, or read them and think their nonsense is what mythicism is. They make mythicism look ridiculous. So I have to waste time (oh by the gods, so much time) explaining how I am not arguing anything like their theories or using anything like their terrible methods, and unlike them I actually know what I am talking about, and have an actual Ph.D. in a relevant subject from a real university."

"I honestly shouldn’t have to explain why this is absurd. But I’ll hit some highlights. Then I’ll reveal the reasons why I think Atwill is a total crank, and his work should be ignored, indeed everywhere warned against as among the worst of mythicism, not representative of any serious argument that Jesus didn’t exist. And that’s coming from me, someone who believes Jesus didn’t exist."
a lot has been said about this... condensed version -- Richard Carrier agrees with Atwill on the most fundamental issue re the parallels between Josephus and Mark undermining the authenticity of Jesus' prophecies re the fall of Jerusalem, but then throws a hissy fit because Atwill's book got more attention than any of his.

Carrier is a hardcore atheist (impossibly stupid philosophical starting point) who refuse to debate Atwill (I tried to set it up). Score one for Atwill :)
 
So do you still believe Atwill Alex, or do you just promote Atwill because he has an interesting theory even though you don't believe it as he presents it?
 
I mean do you believe Atwill's theory as he puts it forth in Caesar's Messiah? Or do you disagree with his conclusions but still bring him on because it's a thought-provoking conversation?
 
I mean do you believe Atwill's theory as he puts it forth in Caesar's Messiah? Or do you disagree with his conclusions but still bring him on because it's a thought-provoking conversation?
Atwill's book demonstrated a codependency... i.e. literary parallelism... between the bible and josephus's war of the jews. this was more controversial 20 years ago when he first published the book... it's more or less undisputable at this point.

This is a huge lifetime accomplishment as is it fundamentally shifts biblical scholarship. there is no reasonable explanation for the parallelism.

so, given that josephus was a propaganda agent for the romans ( again, indisputable) we are staring at some kind of psyop, social engineering project. atwill's speculation about the details versus mine is a tomato tomahto thing.
 
When it comes to the parallels, I have looked at them and find them to be quite weak and/or erroneous. In any case they are subjective interpretations which cannot be seen as definitive proof of his theory.

But the bigger problem comes when you try to look for evidence outside of the so-called "parallels". There is nothing in the historical record which corroborates his theory. In fact, almost everything that exists seems to contradict his theory. For instance the timelines simply don't make sense. Tacitus has the Christians being persecuted in by Nero Rome in the 60's AD, a decade before the Flavians took power. I don't see anywhere where Atwill has adequately explained this problem. As such, his theory is simply impossible, regardless of how strong the parallels may seem to be.

Also, there are a number of problems with the psychological basis of his theory, which is that the Flavians fabricated the Gospels to create a new version of Judaism which would be loyal to the emperors. The problem is that the Christians were persecuted for the resistance to worshiping the emperor, so the plan seems to have had the opposite effect. Also, there is no conceivable means by which the masses the Flavians were attempting to persuade to join the pro-Roman cult would have associated the characters in the Gospel with the Roman royalty. There is no mechanism to accomplish the supposed ends of the Flavians, which was to create "loyal Jews". Nobody reading the Gospels would make the connection and thus end up being loyal. Indeed, as I've stated, Christians were notoriously hostile to submitting to the Roman emperors. How do you explain the fact that this religion the Flavians created to make the Jews loyal to them had the exact opposite effect?
 
How do you explain the fact that this religion the Flavians created to make the Jews loyal to them had the exact opposite effect?

Hi JayCA,
I have no opinion on the topic, nor a horse in the race. Just pointing out that people, committees, "geniuses", etc. all often screw up and experience unintended consequences.

Just because someone benefitted from an event, it doesn't mean that they conspired to bring it about. The converse is also true. Just because someone was ultimately harmed by an event doesn't mean that they didn't conspire to cause it to happen.

Life is messy and shit happens. Decisions are made in all kinds of vacuums and with all kinds of blinkers being worn.
 
When it comes to the parallels, I have looked at them and find them to be quite weak and/or erroneous. In any case they are subjective interpretations which cannot be seen as definitive proof of his theory.
here's Atwill and Bob Price (reformed Atwill critic)

I agree with Atwill and Price and Matt (see below)... anyone who tries to explain away the in parallels-in-sequence doesn't sound credible IMO.


But the bigger problem comes when you try to look for evidence outside of the so-called "parallels". There is nothing in the historical record which corroborates his theory.

it seems to me that this argument makes the tomato tomahto mistake I was referring to above. I think atwill is partially responsible for this confusion because he's very quick to offer some grand theories that seemed to stretch beyond the evidence. this is why I always confined myself to the parallelism (which I think is self-evident).

If you'd listen to skeptiko a bunch then you know that I bring this up in the form of "the gospels are dependent on josephus" argument (which is just another way of saying parallelism). I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn't get on board. you might recall:

Matt Whitman, On the Gist of Josephus |501| - Skeptiko

Matt is really smart... and very adept at arguing the christian perspective. I think you will recall that he did not have pushback on the "gospels are dependent on josephus argument."


Also, there are a number of problems with the psychological basis of his theory, which is that the Flavians fabricated the Gospels to create a new version of Judaism which would be loyal to the emperors. The problem is that the Christians were persecuted for the resistance to worshiping the emperor, so the plan seems to have had the opposite effect.

really interesting... definitely level 3 :) I appreciate the opportunity to have this dialogue with you so thanks :)

I would suggest that this is kind of making the problem that adrian goldsworthy talks about

Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy, The Romans, and the ... - Skeptiko

i.e. we have to be really really careful about using our knowledge of how history plays out when we are interpreting what these folks did. I would suggest that the most parsimonious explanation for:

Josephus claims that Vespasian was the Messiah in War 6.5.4:

But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil.
(Loeb translation)


so, I don't see any way to read the above as anything other than a psyop / social engineering project. the fact that it failed is kinda irrelevant. I mean, we have no reason to suspect that this Vespasian or josephus thought it would fail... it's just the way that history played out.
 
Hi JayCA,
I have no opinion on the topic, nor a horse in the race. Just pointing out that people, committees, "geniuses", etc. all often screw up and experience unintended consequences.

Life is messy and shit happens. Decisions are made in all kinds of vacuums and with all kinds of blinkers being worn.

That is a good point Eric, but I think given the scale of the failure, which is to say total failure, I think it at least serves to undermine Atwill's thesis. One of the verses Atwill uses to serve as the foundation of his theory is Matthew 22:21 where Jesus says "Render unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar". But he leaves out the full verse, which is: "Render unto God what is due unto God, and render unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar."

If you listen to this interview, Atwill essentially states that the fabrication of Christianity is a vanity project meant to convey a sense of deity upon the Roman royalty in the minds of the Jews. But if that's the case, I can't imagine a worse way to go about it than what is written in the text. If Josephus was really working for the Caesars, he could not have done a worse job by writing it the way he did. Doing so, he made it clear that God is distinct from the personage of the Caesars, and ultimately the Christians are loyal only to God.

When you look at it this way, the very verse Atwill utilizes to serve as the foundation of his theory is actually that which most strongly refutes it. It doesn't make sense to do it the way they did if Atwill's theory is true.
 
That is a good point Eric, but I think given the scale of the failure, which is to say total failure, I think it at least serves to undermine Atwill's thesis. One of the verses Atwill uses to serve as the foundation of his theory is Matthew 22:21 where Jesus says "Render unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar". But he leaves out the full verse, which is: "Render unto God what is due unto God, and render unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar."

If you listen to this interview, Atwill essentially states that the fabrication of Christianity is a vanity project meant to convey a sense of deity upon the Roman royalty in the minds of the Jews. But if that's the case, I can't imagine a worse way to go about it than what is written in the text. If Josephus was really working for the Caesars, he could not have done a worse job by writing it the way he did. Doing so, he made it clear that God is distinct from the personage of the Caesars, and ultimately the Christians are loyal only to God.

When you look at it this way, the very verse Atwill utilizes to serve as the foundation of his theory is actually that which most strongly refutes it. It doesn't make sense to do it the way they did if Atwill's theory is true.
Good points.

Also, now that I think about it, in favor of your argument is that if Atwill is correct, then once the unintended consequences (that you noted) began to appear, the Romans could have simply morphed the myth; make adjustments to correct the results. They could go as far as claiming a new chapter in the story had been discovered that "clarifies" whatever is the source of the trouble. Heck, they could have even had Christ return, like he said he would, and preach the new and improved pro-Roman message.
 
=I agree with Atwill and Price and Matt (see below)... anyone who tries to explain away the in parallels-in-sequence doesn't sound credible IMO.

Well I will yield there are some interesting coincidences and/or similarities between Josephus and the Gospels, but as I've stated I find them far from definitive. One has to ask how 2000 years could have passed before anyone seemed to notice them until Atwill wrote his book in 2005. If they are so strong one would expect a number of people, including experts and academics, to have pick up on it before that. Yet unless I've missed something not a single person in history up to that point made the connections. So I really think this calls into question the strength of the parallels between Josephus and the Gospels. They are there if you strain hard enough, but also vague enough that one should certainly seek other corroborating evidence before his theory can be considered on solid ground.

However I see you seem to have avoided my point about Tacitus' mention of the Christians being in Rome before the Flavians supposedly invented the religion whole-cloth in the 70's AD. If this is the case, it should be clear that it's entirely impossible for Atwill's theory to be true, so this is an important point. I see he addressed this in the interview for this forum, but I think his points are far from solving the dilemma. There are couple big problems I see. First, let's look at Tacitus' writings:

Tacitus:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called "Chrestians" by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

So he's referring to a Christ who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, just like the Gospels say, so I think we can safely assume these are the first Christians of what would become modern Christianity. The second problem is how negatively he is portraying the Christians. In just a few short paragraphs, he refers to them or their religion as "hated for their abominations", "mischievous superstition", "evil" "hideous", "shameful", AND he's talking about how they are being tortured to death because of all this. If this is really some psy-op operation to get rebellious Jews to believe in this fabricated religion, how does this description encourage people to join this movement? I think it's safe to say Tacitus wasn't attempting to advance the fake religion, which means he was probably just describing what he thought was real history. As such, this pretty much destroys any chance that Atwill's theory is true, regardless of how convincing his parallels may be.

Other problems arise with the timelines given by Atwill when you try to put yourself in the place of a Jew living in the 70’s AD when the Josephus and the Flavians supposedly created the Christian religion whole-cloth. There is simply no way any sensible person living at that time would even begin to believe what was being fed to them regarding the hoax religion.

The Jews living in the 70’sAD would be reading about events that took place approximately four decades earlier, but they would have no reason to believe any of it because there would be no evidence to their direct observation that any of it ever happened. They would be able to know that there was never any enigmatic teacher named Jesus Christ going around and performing miracles and preaching to the masses. Same with the Apostles, they would be able to see there aren’t really any of his followers going around the empire trying to convert people as the texts they are being given say there should be. There should be churches with thousands of people in them that have existed for maybe decades, but none of that would exist because everything in the Gospels is a lie from the 70’s AD, and they would be able to see that.

Same with Paul and his epistles. He is supposedly writing to all these churches in all these cities, and he is telling them in his epistles he has come to them and instructed their leadership and encouraged them. But there are no churches for people to read his messages. Even if there were, they would be the first of the people there, and they would know there was never this Paul guy and he never came to them to teach them. Because Paul never existed and the Jews reading this stuff would be able to see this. But even worse is that because the churches are a hoax, there are no real people there to receive Paul’s messages, even if he did exist.

How would a Jew living in, say, Corinth feel if he was given a document from a guy named Paul addressed to a supposed church in the city, and telling them that he has been there and spoken there, but nobody has ever seen Paul and there is no church to be found in Corinth because the church is a completely fabricated invention of the very text the Jew is reading? Do you not see that thinking the Christian religion could have been founded this way makes literally no sense?

This is why you can’t fabricate from absolutely nothing a religion in the 70’s AD that should have been founded several decades earlier. It doesn’t make sense. People would be able to see there is no real church, there was no real founding Messiah, there are no real Apostles, there is no existing movement, nothing. They would be able to see this with their own eyes, and thus it’s simply absurd to think any significant number of people would have fallen into believing such a baseless idea. In short, they would be able to look at the Gospel texts being given to them, which would serve as the basis of the religion, and know that they were not true. Is that not clear to you?

How do you envision this operation would have been implemented? Do you think it was just the 3 Flavian emperors and Josephus? It seems to me a lot more people would have to have been involved. You would need people to write the fake manuscripts to be delivered throughout the empire so that converts would have something to read in their meetings. You would need people to actually deliver the fake manuscripts throughout the empire. You would need people on the ground helping convince local Jews that the hoax religion is real. It seems like the number of people involved could easily have reached into the thousands.

And all these people would have to communicate with each other over large distances for multiple decades to respond to various developments and keep the hoax alive. The only way to do that back then was by letter, so one would perhaps expect at least some record of these communications would have survived and would have been found, but literally nothing of the sort has been discovered. So for this massive, empire-wide, decades-long operation being orchestrated from the highest levels of the Roman government, there is literally nothing outside of Joseph Atwill’s supposed “parallels” that serves as direct evidence of this vast conspiracy. It seems pretty incredible that such would be the case, does any of this lack of hard evidence concern you?

so, I don't see any way to read the above as anything other than a psyop / social engineering project. the fact that it failed is kinda irrelevant. I mean, we have no reason to suspect that this Vespasian or josephus thought it would fail... it's just the way that history played out.

Well if it failed so badly don't you think it would have been prudent for them to admit to these rebellious Christians and prove to them that the whole thing they are resisting the Roman emperor over is a complete fraud? It wouldn't have been that hard to do, but there is no evidence anyone attempted to enlighten the Christians about the hoax nature of their religion. And maybe the reason for this is that Christianity is not, in fact, a Roman hoax.

We have manuscript evidence from Emperor Trajan, who took power just a couple years after the end of the Flavian dynasty, that his subordinates were to put Christians to death unless they would renounce Christianity and worship the emperor. According to the manuscript, real Christians would rather die than submit. So to him the true test of being a Christian is that they WON'T worship the emperor, exactly the opposite of what Atwill argues was supposedly the reason the Flavians created the religion in the first place.

AND if this really was a Roman hoax being orchestrated by the Roman royalty throughout the empire for decades, it is kind of incredible that the emperors who immediately succeeded the Flavians had absolutely no knowledge of this massive operation. Note that Josephus was still alive at this point, and wrote his Antiquities in 98AD, AFTER he would have had any motivation of supporting the Flavians as their dynasty had already come to an end. It's totally irrational to think history could have played out this way. When you look at the facts outside of the supposed parallels, nothing makes sense if Atwill's theory was really true.
 
Back
Top