Poor Hercules, trying to fight the Hydra. Once he lops off *one* head….
So I’ve received several emails over the past couple of days about the breathtaking new announcement to be made on October 19 (assuming the world still is functioning after October 17!) in London by “American Biblical scholar” Joseph Atwill (whom – I have to admit – I have never even heard of, to my recollection) In this announcement Mr. (so far as I can tell, from his blog, he is not a “Dr.”; in what sense is he a “scholar”? Is it because he’s read a bunch of book? Hmm….) Atwill will “prove” that “the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ.”
In other words – brace yourself – Jesus is in fact a myth. Has anyone heard this before?
For the full story, go to
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm
Atwill is a different breed from most mythicists. That’s probably good and bad. Good because, well, you wouldn’t like to be like the others. Bad because, well, you really shouldn’t want to be one at all. In any event, here is Mr. Atwill’s case in a nutshell, as described in this earth-shattering press release (referenced above):
“Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire. “Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century,” he explains. “When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That’s when the ‘peaceful’ Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to ‘give onto Caesar’ and pay their taxes to Rome.”
The operative word in this description is the second one: “asserts.” I know sophomores in college who could rip this assertion to shreds. For now, let me just put out some talking points, in hopes that I don’t have to talk about them at any length.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN OR YOU’LL FOREVER WONDER….
I haven’t checked out all the prominent mythicists, but I did see a review of Atwill’s book by Dr. Robert Price. He was none too impressed by it.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm
Nice try , Bart , but this London farce is an obvious transparent conspiracy launched by two North Carolina New Testament scholars to further bring into ridicule and derision the mythicists . Just how much are you and Jim Tabor paying your stooge Atwill and just how naive do you imagine us to be ? Yes , you are both tenured , but there may be a limit to what the faculty Ethics committee will stomach . Careful , my friend .
Yes, I better tread softly!! 🙂
Your good buddy Richard Carrier has blasted Atwill’s claims on his blog, and he notes that several other prominent mythicists (Price, Verenna, Murdoch) concur with his assessment. This may well be a first–those individuals agreeing with you (or as they would likely put it, you agreeing with them)!
Yeah, me and Carrier, the tag-team….
When will you debate?
Nothing is decided yet.
Is it possible if you can post the link?
And you thought O’Reilly had a vivid imagination!
Thanks Bart! I was hoping you’d chime in on the discussion. Its been driving me crazy seeing this lack of critical thinking nonsense circulate around the interwebs.
Side note: I’ve been getting savaged after writing this blog piece http://www.persephonespath.com/persephonekblog/defending-truth-can-mean-defending-jesus/ (where I cite you), and on this atheist forum http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Story-of-Jesus-Christ-now-proven-to-be-a-fabrication?page=5 where I’m posting under my pen name PersephoneK.
Cheers,
PersephoneK
All great points, Bart. In reading the article, the thing that stood out to me was the following statement by Joseph Atwill:
“I started to notice a sequence of parallels between the two texts,” he recounts. “Although it’s been recognised [sic] by Christian scholars for centuries that the prophesies of Jesus appear to be fulfilled by what Josephus wrote about in the First Jewish-Roman war, I was seeing dozens more. What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus. This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern. The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar.”
Atwill admits he’s seeing dozens more prophecies fulfilled in Josephus’ book, the Jewish War. In other words, he’s making connections that even the Christian scholars he’s criticizing refuse to make.
From my partially informed and limited perspective, Josephus seems far more interested in telling the history of the Judean War in a way that venerated Vespasian, his adopted Roman patron, than telling the story of Jesus and his followers. The chief passage in question appears to be the Testimonium Flavianum. Did Josephus write of Jesus in such glowing terms or did a Christian come along later and embellish the original passage? I have little doubt that Josephus knew who Jesus of Nazareth was, but I sincerely doubt he saw him as the Messiah. He tells the story of James, Jesus’ brother, from the perspective of one viewing the execution of a criminal. He tells the story of John the Baptist, a good man, as one observing the execution of a potential insurrectionist against Rome.
I forget what what your view was on the Testimonium Flavianum, but it certainly seems possible that part of it was a Christian interpolation unless, of course, Josephus saw Christians in a positive light. I will go back and read the passage that deals with Josephus in your book, Did Jesus Exist? It never ceases to amaze me that people feel so threatened by the existence of historic Jesus. For those of us who have barely scratched the surface of biblical scholarship and church history, it’s obvious that Orthodox Christianity was only one expression of the nascent Church. It is not a threat. It is a fascinating exploration of our history and one well worth an entire lifetime of dedicated study.
That’s what I call a withering blast of criticism! It would be interesting to see someone identify the common elements in this sort of work, in pseudo-science, in cryptozoology and political conspiracy theories. Is it all a recent phenomenon, or is there continuity with story-telling traditions reaching back before modern historical and scientific analysis. On another issue, I am not sure that being academically-unqualified makes you more or less likely to publish works of this sort. There seem to be an awful lot of people with divinity or scripture degrees writing similarly strange things.
I have nothing positive to say about Mr. Atwill’s claims, but I’m a little surprised at your second point. In your own book Did Jesus Exist?, you discuss a “Fourth Philosophy” among the Jews of Jesus’ day. Followers of that philosophy, in your own words, “believed that God wanted them to take up the sword to oppose the Romans.” (p.281) They sound like just the sort of people who would have been awaiting a warrior messiah.
YEs, there were some Jews who wanted a violent overthrow. I assume this was true of most people in most of the conquered provinces; I don’t see it as unique to first century Palestine. And I don’t know of a constant barrage of insurrectoins either….
I respect you more than any other scholar of religion, but while I agree that Atwill lacks credentials, I humbly suggest you not lead your talking points by pointing this out. It isn’t as if amateurs have not made contributions to history or science. Your other items carry far more weight. Maybe it is my weak high school journalism poking up its ugly (and ignorant) head, but it his lack of credentials, to many conspiracists, that give him street credit. I’m not arguing the point, just its placement. Please consider this a journalistic suggestion by, oh brother, a trained computer scientist.
🙂
You make a good point, but I think I disagree. Whenever a speaker gives a public talk, the person introducing him/her discusses such things as degrees, books written, articles written, positions held, and so on. That is, qualifications. That’s to prime the audience for the talk (given before the audience hears what the person has to say). And if the person doesn’t have qualifications, s/he wouldn’t be invited to give the talk in the first place. Just imagine that someone announces that a talk will be given my Donald Nobrowski about how the world is only a thousand years old. Would you really decide to go (outside of curiosity) if it turns out Nobrowski had never studied the subject?
Plus, if the crackpots (Mythicists) are calling you(Atwill) a crackpot, it’s time to hang it up.
I won’t being buying a plan ticket either.
This is way too complicated a plan to be carried out by first century Roman politicians.
Hercules and the Hydra myth: I watched President Obama’s recent news conference and thought he did a reasonable job explaining why he can’t negotiate every few months over a fiscal cliff threat. Then, I thought I would tune in the analysis of the news conference on Fox News. What a different view. It made me wonder if we had watched the same presidential news conference. It is very much like Hercules and the Hydra ….
Wow. It’s amazing anyone would take this guy’s claims seriously, even for a minute!
This guy is like me…I’m lifelong student of the American Civil War but I’m not James McPherson(BART)!!
So, Latin speakers in Rome writing texts in Greek for Aramaic speakers in Palestine. What a brilliant strategy that was.
Bart.
I’m sure this strain of mythicism is just as silly as the others, but just to say (with some trepidation, since I sense your irritation!) that the author, at least not in the excerpt from which you quote, doesn’t state that there were “constant violent insurrections”; he stated that the Jewish sects were “a constant source of violent insurrection”. Not to be pedantic, but isn’t there a difference between the two, and isn’t the latter true? Wasn’t the reason Pilate came to Jerusalem during Passover that he wanted to keep a lid on these simmering tensions to be found among the different Jewish sects? And isn’t it true that there was a risk of a serious outbreak of violence even though the Romans had sent the legions into Palestine at around the time of Jesus’ birth, i.e. in the lifetime, and memory, of many of those who would have been in Jerusalem for Passover?
Also, wasn’t a “warrior Messiah” the expectation of at least some Jews in the 1st Century? I thought there were records of self-proclaimed Messiahs who took up arms, no? Was a warrior Messiah anathema?
Hope I haven’t increased your blood pressure….!
Yeah, its a good point: but how could they be a source of insurrection if there was no insurrection (and a constant source would presuppose constant insurrection). Otherwise it would be like saying there is a constant source of water (say at a spring) when in fact there is not water.
And yup, Pilate and other governors did go to keep a lid on things. But that’s just the point. They *did* keep a lid on things, for the most part, most of the time. So far as I know, there were no legions *ever* sent into Palestine at all from, say 1-65 CE (the period in which Jesus would have been “invented”)…
“But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. …”
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1. (55)
There was no movement of troops into Palestine?
There was no insurrection in response to what Pilate does here?
Beginning at (60)
But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the *sacred* money. (This seems to have been done after he introduced Caesar’s effigies into the city–“Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done at night.”) The Jews were not pleased. Some used reproaches and abused the man as crowds of such people usually do. Pilate had a great number of his soldiers to carry daggers under their garments and sent them to a place where they might surround them. A great number of the Jews were slain; and thus an end was put to this sedition.
Right after this we go into the Testimony of Flavius Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum) which is problematically attributed to Josephus because on the one hand Vespasian is the Messiah but Jesus is the Christ.
Dr. Ehrman, although you say you disagree with a student of yours for saying this testimony is an insert of Eusebius, there is a test of consistency as well: how can Josephus give Christ to Jesus and Messiah to Vespasian?
Pilate just had some troops with him in Caesarea, but the legions were up in Syria. And yes, the incident with the acqueduct is one of two major issues Josephus mentions about the reign of Pilate.
Bart.
“But that’s just the point. They *did* keep a lid on things, for the most part, most of the time.”
But I think that’s the point the writer is making: the Romans didn’t want to have to keep a lid on things in the first place; they wanted to change the mindset of the general population, so that acquiescence and acceptance, rather than a desire for “regime change”, would become the norm.
I think that’s why he uses the word ‘source’ in the way he does. Since the source of insurrection; namely, the desire to rid the country of a pagan, foreign, and mercenary oppressor, was widely and persistently felt, there was always a significant risk that a widespread insurrection would come about….and this fear of insurrection that the Romans had was subsequently realized when rebellion broke out (in the late 60s).
Anyway, as I said before, I’m sure you’re right in saying that this theory is doesn’t hold water, but I just thought that you might have slightly misinterpreted what the writer said ( I’m just going from the excerpt you provided). The other, far more likely, possibility is that you’re right and I’m wrong!!
Regards.
I was of open mind on historicity, and studied Neil Godfrey’s “Vridar” Mythicist site for weeks before concluding that the Mythicists are far from ‘silly’. Why would you conclude that? I think they have a much better case than historicists.
Atwill – who?
Bart — I think you should write more articles like this one. You seem less cerebral and more committed. The aggressive tone does wonders for your style and your message. You might even want to call your own press conference. 😉
Richard Carrier more or less annihilated Atwills thesis:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664
I’ll warn you now, it’s a long piece!!
He attacked you.
http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/category/bart-ehrman/
You attack him.
# # #
Bart Ehrman asks:
What does he mean by speaking of “constant” violent insurrections in first century Palestine.
Steefen:
It is generally accepted that the Passover was a time of violent insurrections.
And, are you saying Pilate did not have to deal with this when he governed?
Really? What are you thinking of. There was the incident under Cumanus (long after Jesus’ day). Which other ones do you have in mind? Can you think of any in Jesus’ time (say in the teens, 20’s, or 30’s CE?). If not — why invent Jesus to prevent them?
Dear Bart,
>> Not many Passover Insurrections.
Perhaps, but if you move the N.T saga into the late AD 60s, and agree that the biblical Jesus was Jesus of Gamala, then there were any number of insurrections that fit the N.T. narrative. How else did Jesus know how the Romans encircled Jerusalem, in AD 70? (see Luke 19:43). Clearly, this was an eyewitness account from AD 70.
Face facts.
a. Saul was Josephus Flavius (they were on the same shipwreck going to Rome).
b. And Jesus was Jesus of Gamala.
And this happy conflation of characters means that:
a. Saul was chasing and arresting the followers of Jesus around Galilee.
b. Josephus was chasing and arresting the followers of Jesus of Gamala around Galilee.
a. Jesus of became High Priest of Jerusalem, according to the Hebrews 7.
b. Jesus of Gamala became High Priest of Jerusalem, according to the Talmud.
b. Jesus married Mary Magdalene, according to tradition and the wedding at Cana.
b. Jesus married Mary Boethus (i.e.: Mary Magdalene), according to the Talmud.**
etc: etc: etc:
I could give more instances, but I think I have made the initial point.
** See Robert Eisenman’s identification of Mary Boethus as Mary Magdalene.
.
Yes, there were occasional uprisings later. But for this theory to hold, there would have had to have been regular insurrections in the 10’s, 20’s, and possibley 30’s. I don’t know of any.
.
Dear Bart,
I think you missed the point of my posting.
Forget the AD30s, nothing happened then. Just get the gospels and relocate them into the AD 60s, and follow the historical account given by Josephus Flavius in Bellum and Vita.
Now, in the AD 60s, you will find all of the N.T. characters and events. In reality, Jesus was Jesus of Gamala, the primary adversary of Josephus himself. Jesus of Gamala was the leader of the Jewish Revolt, and so this is the ‘minor’ revolt that the biblical Jesus was involved in. Thus the crucifixion scene given in Vita, where the three leaders of the Jewish Revolt were crucified in the Kidron Valley, is the biblical crucifixion scene. And, of course, one of the leaders of the Revolt survived the crucifixion.
Try it for yourself – if you place the entire N.T. into the AD 60s, you will find every event – including the feeding the 5,000 and the armed assault by Jesus from the Mount of Olives. It is all there in the historical record, if you understand that Jesus was the leader of the Jewish Revolt, and Saul was Josephus Flavius.
Ralph
Ah, I see what you mean now. Well, you’d have other problems then, such as the dating of the life of Paul.
What about the sicarii? I don’t think that we would today classify radical Islam as an “insurrection,” but it does attract disaffected youth, as well as more organized “cells,” and we have therefore found it necessary to declare a full-fledged “War on Terrorism.” Roman officials and sympathizers were being assassinated in Judea probably on a fairly regular basis, as both stated and implied by Josephus, and these incidents were no doubt a constant thorn–or dagger–in Rome’s side. You don’t need an army or a mob to have an uprising, just a ferment on slow-boil. And yet, when this pot did boil over, the Jews were certainly able to recruit an army from it.
“How else did Jesus know how the Romans encircled Jerusalem”? By Luke inventing it. 🙂 Write me at by avatar at AOL. I want to talk privately about Eisenman.
Are you a Christ mythicist?
SHameed01: Yes, I think so. I see no reason to think Jesus was other than a literary invention. Paul is the best ‘evidence’, and I don’t think “brother of the Lord” is very substantial. It does not matter if Jesus was real or not, however, IMO. Whoever said his quotes indicated that one needs a living Master as savior — John 6:40 (continuous present tense as in the Greek) and John 9:4-5 BEFORE its corruption (see C. Sinaiticus):
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx
James is the real target of the New Testament. There was a concerted effort (conspiracy? maybe not) to HIDE James as successor. Eisenman started the expose’, I like to think I fulfilled it:
http://www.judaswasjames.com/
In a reply above, I mention the protest against Pilate extending the flow of water. This incident is followed by the Testimonium Flavianum which begins “about the same time.”
Right before the extension of water flow incident, the Jews get together to protest the images of Caesar Pilate introduced. On the sixth day of this, Pilate was going to have his soldiers give the protestors immediate death. The Jews threw themselves on the ground and laid their necks bare for slaughter.
Before 65 C.E. the Egyptian Prophet led the Jews to use force against Rome but Felix met them with Roman army and put that insurrection down.
Jesus’ Palm Sunday incident had military overtones. How could the Son of Man movement claim rulership without violently forcing Pilate and Rome and the client-kings of Rome out of Palestine?
Judas of Galilee or Judas of Gamala led a violent resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around AD 6.[1] The revolt was crushed brutally by the Romans. These events are discussed by Josephus in Jewish Wars and in Antiquities of the Jews.
Hopefully, I’ll be able to get Rev. Marcum at Highland Park United Methodist Church (adjacent to SMU) to further defend the statement it was not unusual for Jews to cause trouble for the Romans on their holiday of liberation.
Every sermon and adult class regarding Palm Sunday, he mentions that Rome expected and sometimes got trouble from Jews on Passover.
P.S.: Jesus is made an example that resistance is futile. All across Western civilization there are churches, cathedrals, modern stadium-sized churches that advertise resistance leads to half-naked torturous death. Then we have Jesus cowering before Pilate. Pilate asks, where is your kingdom. Jesus cowers and answers that the hopes and dreams of his people Daniel – forward is not even on this Earth–the right of way is given to Rome and the other super powers. Our God is in the air somewhere. Oh, I wasn’t recreating Solomon’s entrance into the gate of Jerusalem for Earthly purposes. The people weren’t waving palm branches the way there were doing in the Maccabbees for military victory. The Son of Man is coming in the clouds, he’s not going to land on Earth and cause Caesar problems in Jerusalem. I have nothing to say against Rome. Rome is here on the ground, I’m harmless with my aspirations for a kingdom of subjects of good character giving to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. I make no Earthly claims. When I was tempted, I didn’t want a kingdom of this Earth.
This is the problem of a Moderated Forum..
We all point out the same issues/problems, only for us to realise it once you have released the beast… LOL
But I will add that I found Rich Carriers post on his blog concise considering the scope of his disagreement….
>>Ah, I see what you mean now. Well, you’d have other
>>problems then, such as the dating of the life of Paul.
Not so. It is only an assumption that Saul was born in, say, AD 20.
However, if Saul = Josephus, then Saul would have been born in AD 37. This means that Saul would have been aged about 14 on his first evangelical tour.
Too young? Remember that a Jew becomes a man aged 13 or 14, and that Saul was under the guidance of the older Barnabas (Saul was Mercury to Barnabas’ Jupiter). And who do the Mormons send out on evangelical tours to Europe today? The middle aged, or youngsters? The answer is youngsters, because i get them knocking on my door all the time.
So there is nothing to prevent Saul being born in AD 37. (Nothing bar Saul’s egotism).
And there is nothing to prevent the N.T. being staged in the AD 60s. The only oddity is the mention of Pontius Pilate. But as you know, the Toledoth Yeshu gives two versions of the trial of Jesus, one with Pilate and one with Queen Helene. The latter is the more correct. But the gospel authors sought to disassociate Jesus from the Jewish Revolt, which they have obviously succeeded very well in doing.
So, as I pointed out before, there is nothing in the gospels that cannot be explained in terms of Jesus being the leader of the AD 60s Jewish Revolt. And conversely, this theory explains all those strange oddities, like the gospels containing descriptions of the siege of Jerusalem. How? Because this was a history of the Jewish Revolt.
So try me. Please try and falsify the AD 60s date for the gospel story. Conversely, I can point out many N.T. events that are purely AD 60s (involving Jesus of Gamala):
The armed assault from the Mount of Olives.
The feeding of the 5,000.
Jesus becoming high priest (Hebrews 7).
Jesus being a leader of a new sect (the Fourth Sect of Judaism)
A Revolt being waged.
A dispute over taxation.
Jesus fighting Saul (ie: Jesus of Gamala fighting Josephus Flavius)
Saul arresting ‘Christians’. Under what authority was that??
Saul changing sides (ie: Josephus changing sides.)
The three leaders of the Revolt being crucified.
The leaders of the Revolt being taken down from the cross by Josephus (of Arimathaea)
One of the leaders of the Revolt surviving the crucifixion.
etc: etc:
It is all there, and much else besides…..
Ralph Ellis
.
This was the reason for the Birkat haMinim. And for the many vile curses in the Talmud. Jesus was not hated because he was a minor heretic who chased some sacrificial animals out of the Temple. He was hated because his Jewish revolt ended up with the destruction of the entire city and Temple.
And Saul’s new Simple Judaic sect of Christianity could not admit an association with such a divisive and hated figure either (hated by both jews and Romans alike). So they merely dropped their hero back by one generation, to separate him from the Jewish Revolt. And so cunning was the ploy, that nobody has seen the truth ever since that time.
Ralph
I hear what you’re saying, Ralph, but what’s even more important and damning is what has been done to JAMES. It is my conviction that the entire ‘Betrayal’ is a cover-up of James as the successor to “Jesus” — whoever he was. Judas is myth. Spong shows every detail of him in the gospels is midrash. NOTHING is historical. Eisenman has Acts 1 Judas as James, and “Joseph Barsabbas Justus” as obvious tip-off to James (“son of Joseph”, the JUST One) in the Matthias fiction. Combine that with no mention of him by Paul or even a ‘betrayal’ (“handing over” in 1 Cor. 11:23) and Jesus appearing to THE TWELVE (1 Cor. 15:5 and the interpolated “500”) and you have pure myth casting a net over even Jesus. Two famous quotes of Jesus’ were actually spoken by James, according to Hegesippus: “Father forgive them …” and “You will see the Son of man coming with Power and on the clouds of heaven”.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html
.
Addressing the issue of Jewish missionary activity, I found reference to an incident by way of Wikipedia, of Tiberius expelling the Jews of Rome in 19 A.D. for that reason. There is a footnote sourcing this to one Robert E. Van Voorst, a theologion. I’m not sure if you’ve ever heard of him, or if he is reliable. Also I hope I’m not spitting hairs.
Yes, he’s written a book on non-canonical sources for the life of Jesus.
finished watching Atwill’s documentary some time ago and I must say he probably assumes more than he should, i mean even if there are paralels between the new testament story of Jesus and those of previous pagan gods, one should also look at the factors that puts Jesus aside from all the pagan gods of the past..for example in Mark 10:18 Jesus talks about why call HIM good when no one is good except God alone..now is that something a pagan god like Horus or Dionysis would say?
Also in John 17, when Jesus is praying to the Father, Jesus tells the Fahter that you alone are the one true god, now does that sound like a person who believes HE is part of the Divine Godhead would say?
In fact in these words I see the character of a Jewish man. Anyways these were just some of my thoughts.
The New Testament we have today is tainted by a Post-Failed Revolt Against Rome and Rome’s need to respond with Religion-Creation-Propaganda to turn an activist Jewish Messiah into a pacifist Jewish Messiah. One caesar adopted a Jewish historian (including a name change from Joseph to Josephus) who worked for the propaganda campaign. This same caesar gave Rabbi Johannan ben Zakkai Yavne University outside of Jerusalem after the Revolt was over. If having a historian and a university president is not enough, Rome also had its own college/university and enforcement over religions within its realms.
In ancient Rome, the quindecimviri sacris faciundis were the fifteen (quindecim) members of a college (collegium) with priestly duties. Most notably they guarded the Sibylline Books, scriptures which they consulted and interpreted at the request of the Senate. This collegium also oversaw the worship of any foreign gods which were introduced to Rome.
All the Flavian emperors were members of this college and would have studied the Messiah expectations of the Jews. After saving the lives of Josephus and Yohannan ben Zakkai, and after giving them land outside of Jerusalem on the plains, and after both of these intellectuals were paid off by Rome, Vespasian, Titus, and Dometian had two good study partners for considering what level of activism Messiah expectations would have going into the 25 years following the Post-Failed Revolt 74 c.e. – 99 c.e.
Bart Ehrman:
•What does he mean by “zealous Jewish missionary activity”? I don’t know of any Jewish missionary activity at all in the first century. What’s he thinking of?
Steefen:
He’s talking about Jews (even Sicarii) who went to Alexandria. The Sicarii were missionaries for their cause in Alexandria. Non-Sicarii Jews had to take a stand against their missionary activity.
When Masada was thus taken, the general left a garrison in the fortress to keep it, and he himself went away to Cesarea;
for there were now no enemies left in the country, but it was all overthrown by so long a war. YET DID THIS WAR AFFORD DISTURBANCES AND DANGEROUS DISORDERS EVEN IN PLACES VERY FAR REMOTE FROM JUDEA;
for still it came to pass that many Jews were slain at Alexandria in Egypt
for as many of the Sicarii as were able to fly thither, out of the seditious wars in Judea, were not content ot have saved themselves, but must needs be undertaking to make new disturbances, and persuaded many of those that entertained them to assert their liberty, to esteem the Romans to be no better than themselves, and to look upon God as their only Lord and Master.
See full account at War of the Jews, 7, 10, 1
Also, see Chapter 10: The Authors of the New Testament / Caesar’s Messiah by Joseph Atwill.
Dr. Ehrman, there is something here with what Atwill has written.
This is what I read earlier today:
Joseph Atwill, the author of Caesar’s Messiah looked at the story of the man possessed by Legion.
The man was possessed by Legion in the city of Gadara.
Jesus got rid of the demons.
The demons took possession of pigs/swine.
The swine started running. They ran into water and drowned.
Jesus was not a great exorcist in this instance because this is a satire of history. Here’s the history that actually happened.
By this time John was beginning to tyrannize. Now, some submitted to his tyranny out of fear and some out of goodwill. All of their reasons for militant action against Rome was now being reduced to one head, one leader, John.
John and his men were too small to be an army but too many to be just a gang of troublemakers. A legion (an ancient army term) is not an army and a legion has more members than just a gang of troublemakers. John and his followers are Legion.
Let’s say, Gadara was a community with some sense of peacefulness. They had their rich members in the community. Gadara wasn’t looking for trouble with Rome.
John comes to Gadara and he’s more militant than the Sicarii. He recruits men. Some recruits are made recruits by force. John is the possessor. John and his men are Legion.
Well, who is Jesus? Jesus is the Roman general who becomes Caesar, or emperor: Vespasian.
Vespasian comes to Gadara and sends John and his Sicarii running. They ran away from the power of Christ Vespasian. Many ran into the Jordan like the swine in the bible story. The Sicarii were deemed swine because Jews do not like swine (pork) and the Jews of Gadara didn’t appreciate John coming into the city causing trouble, recruiting their sons to their death. The only thing they got for going against the powerful Romans was a split-second of courage before getting stabbed through their guts or through their chest with a Roman sword or chopped in the face with a Roman sword or have their heads cut off at the neck by Roman sword or killed by Roman darts.
Dart
Main article: Plumbata
Late infantrymen often carried half a dozen lead-weighted throwing-darts called plumbatae (from plumbum = “lead”), with an effective range of c. 30 m, well beyond that of a javelin. The darts were carried clipped to the back of the shield.
So, the New Testament account is nothing more than a satire of what actually happened at Gadara.
Jesus is not Jesus: Jesus is Rome, Jesus is Vespasian.
“The Demoniacs of Gadara” appears in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. It is highly likely it would be considered a Q-sourced account. Q-source and Mark cannot be dated complete until Vespasian arrives at Gadara. Discussion appreciated.
Surprised not to see any commentary following the Atwill claim. The Presentation has been made, his book is public. What is the final idea following his thesis statement?
Personally, I have an open opinion on the whole mythicist proposal because there are the obvious parallels between the historical deities or is that just a coincidence.
Ehrman has stated that he is an agnostic. If he believes that Jesus was a real person then why would he no longer be a Christian? Or does he believe that the historical Jesus is just another guy trying to fill some really big shoes of the OT’s foretelling of a future messiah.
On http://www.aish.com, Rabbi Shraga Simmons presents information on the Jewish perspective on why they do not consider Jesus as the Messiah. Here are his listed reasons:
Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
Biblical verses “referring” to Jesus are mistranslations.
Scripture stated that: the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (2) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
A. Virgin Birth
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an “alma” as giving birth. The word “alma” has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as “virgin.” This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
Check the website out if you want further information on the Jewish view behind not considering Jesus as the Savior.
Any ideas on the Atwill claim will be appreciated.
Perhaps a little ayahuasca would do the world good. Never tried it but if it helps brings peace and enlightenment then it should be considered when the bitter pill of truth will be hard to swallow.
The pot is stirring now, that is for sure.
There’s not an expert on the planet who thinks it worth while even responding to it! I’m afraid it’s a completely untenable thesis, so untenable that it’s not a topic of conversation even.
There was another time when not an expert on the planet thought something was worthwhile:
The Quest for the Historical Jesus
Albert Schweitzer concluded that the goal of recovering the historical Jesus that lay behind the Christ of faith was doomed to failure. It could not be done. We could only get back as far as the Jesus who was proclaimed by the church, the Christ of faith, the Jesus of the gospels. He also concluded that the Jesus of history was not even important. What was important was the Christ of faith.
The truth is, it is not Jesus as historically known who is significant for our time but Jesus as spiritually risen within. What is important is not the historical Jesus but the spirit which goes forth from Him.
In essence, Swhweitzer agreed with Augustine: spiritual truth, not historical fact, was what mattered.
The impact of Schweitzer’s Critique:
For the next 50 years what was important in biblical scholarship was the Christ of faith, not the Jesus of history. From 1906 to the 1960s there was virtually no interest in the historical Jesus among scholars. Historical research came to a halt.
Bart Ehrman:
I’m afraid it’s a completely untenable thesis
Steefen:
Not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection, completely?
Dr. Ehrman, I agree with you at his Chapter 7. See part of my 3-star amazon.com reader review.
A- for the Introduction
A+ for Chapter 2: Fishers of Men: Men Who Were Caught Like Fish
A+ for Chapter 3: The Myth for the World
B for Chapter 4: The Demons of Gadara
A- for Chapter 6: Eleazar – Lazarus: The Real Christ
F for Chapter 7: The Puzzle of the Empty Tomb
B for Chapter 8: The New Root and Branch
A for Chapter 9: Until All Is Fulfilled
C+ for Chapter 10: The Authors of the New Testament
A+ for Chapter 11: The Puzzle of Decius Mundus
His Chapter 7 is quite egregious. In a 16 chapter book, 1/16 = 6.25%–on an exam, losing 6 points is nothing. In the Olympics Figure Skating, one fall does not make the whole performance untenable. In a baseball inning, one player out does not ruin the whole inning. Second, many of the points made in the book do not depend on the chapter I’ve graded an F.
However, there are instances in life where an event has disqualification rules no matter how excellent other parts of the trial are. Joseph Atwill’s Chapter 7 could be seen as something which totally disqualifies him from a hearing.
It’s my recommendation that Chapter 7 gets removed from the book because it does more harm than good for other chapters that should be discussed in scholarly circles and in the public arena.
Thank you.
Hi Steefen,
Well, it looks like we’re alone on this one. I looked for your review on amazon, but did not find it under your “Steefen” screen name among the three star reviews. Otherwise we could take up the discussion there or elsewhere, and spare Bart the agony. My question to you is, “What problem do you have with Atwill’s Chapter 7, The Puzzle of the Empty Tomb?” I found it to be ingenious. That the gospels should be read as a whole, and that the four resurrection stories should be interpreted in order according to the position of the sun in each, i.e., “while it was still dark,” “as the sun was rising,” “very early in the morning,” and “early in the morning,” and that with these time differentials you can reconcile all the variables in the four stories, from who was with Mary or was she alone, and the number of men or angels at the tomb, and whether they were inside or outside the tomb, and how many in each place at any given time, etc., to the point that (with the Roman’s being poor mathematicians, but very capable gamblers) the odds of all these variables reconciling is 256,800,000/1, thus providing significant proof that the author/s intentionally inserted this puzzle to demonstrate simultaneity of authorship . . . well, let’s just say that the argument made sense to me, and that I like those odds.
Hi Monarch,
I downgraded it from a three-star review to a two star review because of the problems of not having an index. See the two-star review by Stephen Campbell. Steefen is the Pen Name I used for the first edition of my book published back in late 2010 / early 2011. Seven years make a difference: I look forward to the second edition of my book, likely to be published under a different title for improved marketing.
You say you liked his Chapter 7. I say, in this chapter, Joseph Atwill says they got the tombs of Jesus and Lazarus mixed up. One problem with this is The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 15, verse 47: Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses watched where he was laid.
Yes, we can take up the discussion at amazon with comments to my review. Did you review his book? Did you review his Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah?
If you start a thread here in the Member Forum Discussions, let me know.
Thank you. I look forward to the discussion.
It’s not clear that you’re read Schweitzer’s book. He does not think the quest to uncover the historical Jesus is futile at all. In fact, he ends his book with his historical reconstruction of Jesus’ life, ministry, and death.
I read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. It is important to have the Bible questioned.
One part of Joseph Atwill’s book that is an explanation and not a parallel is the Testimonium Flavianum – Decius Mundus chapter. Steve Mason wrote, Josephus was writing at the same time as the writers of the Gospel. Atwill’s TF-Decius Mundus chapter shows Josephus was as critical if not more critical than Thomas Paine.
Dr. Ehrman, to be on the accurate side of history, we have to accept this about Josephus either through Atwill or by some other means, say, Josephus himself. Scholars, like scientists and mathematicians, have to move forward with all facts and advances in a field.
Atwill is the first writer I know who connected the Decius Mundus passage (immediately following the TF) to the TF. Who else knew and has written and has gotten on the general public’s reading radar that Decius Mundus relates to Decius Mus, a general who died to save? Who else identified Josephus’ play on words as he changed Decius Mus to Decius Mundus to say, yes, I’m a savior of the World (Mundus) spoken of just a passage ago?
For the Decius Mundus chapter of Atwill, I say this is no foolishness, this is characteristic of Josephus who saw his Jewish God and Jewish People defeated. Josephus claimed the Messiah was a Roman. A Roman-crucified Jewish man, “if you can call him a man,” was not a god-man (like a Julius Ceasar, like an Augustus, like the Flavian emperors who had cults after they died, they were deified also). But Jesus, says Josephus, was a con-god-man (like Decius Mundus, and if Josephus doesn’t make himself clear with the first passage following the TF, he restates his criticism in the second passage after the TF). Don’t believe the hype of this new Gospel religion.
Bentsen to Quayle, you’re no Jack Kennedy.
Josephus to Jesus, you’re no Decius Mus because we are losing the Revolt and will lose the Revolt; Jesus, you’re no Decius Mundus, and if you say you are, you’re a fraud as a god.
NOW, THAT is more devastating than what Thomas Paine has said.
Joseph Atwill’s second book, Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah, continues his presentation of his thesis.
#1 In the book of Revelation, it is Emperor Domitian speaking as Lord God.
#2 The churches in Revelation relate to the cities not where Christian churches were but were emperor cult temples were.
#3 Joseph Atwill’s thesis was recognized by Christopher Marlowe and Shakespeare.
All New Testament Scholars will serve their field better with the sure elements of Atwill’s presentation in his books Caesar’s Messiah and Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah. All New Testament scholars and essayists, German, of the United States, and anywhere else on this Earth, we have a paradigm shift. Our students and/or readers are now living with a new perspective on the origins of the New Testament.
Hi Bart,
I’ve always been a huge fan, have read all of your trade books, and have supported your blog at $20/mo. for over a year now. I encountered Atwill’s book, and, based on the press release, I dismissed it as well. However, seeing all the 5-star reviews, I thought I would give it a go, and was utterly amazed. Frankly, it’s absolutely the most amazing book I’ve ever encountered. Sad that only one person in this disparaging thread–you not being that one person–has even read it. Would you want to have a scathing review of one of your books published by someone who only read the press release? It takes a book to present a theory, not a media blurb, and many of your points against it here are prejudiced, ill-founded, and assumptive. May I strongly suggest that if you ever read another book by a “Mythicist,” or if you read any other book, period, it be this one. At the very least, please spend a few minutes on Atwill’s website, http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/ where he gives his biography and provides a detailed blog entry rebutting Richard Carrier’s attack. Certainly, I doubt you will agree with Atwill completely, but I also suspect that he will repeatedly blow your mind, and force you to re-evaluate many of your fundamental tenets. Aldous Huxley wrote “At their first appearance innovators have always been divided [into] fools and madmen,” and Einstein wrote that “Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds.” I’m not saying you are the latter, I’m just begging you not to be. Obviously, there are plenty-enough of those. “Caesar’s Messiah” is on Audible, and as I know you are busy, I hope that you’ll make it your “commute read.” It’s astoundingly brilliant, and I think you’d be doing yourself, your readers, and the field of Bible Scholarship a huge service by considering it. Thanks.
I looked at the book. I don’t know how well versed you are in Roman history, but I’m afraid the book can easily be ripped apart. If I had the energy, I’d do it, but it would take hours out of my day. Sorry!
Monarch,
Please read and participate in Member Forums, The New Testament Gospels: Q Source: Bio of Julius Caesar, Parts I, II, and III.
I’m not sure what Bart is saying about mistakes Joe Atwill makes about Roman History.
1) There is an historical account of Vespasian making a blind person see and a lame person to walk.
2) The Star Prophecy attributed to Jesus historically was attributed to Vespasian.
3) General Titus did sit at the right hand of the Power in that his father Vespasian became emperor.
4) As Jesus was Savior, General Titus was deemed “Savior” for defeating the rebels who were at civil war, terrorizing the people of Jerusalem.
5) What Atwill says about Jesus in Revelation vs Domitian is standard biographical information about Domitian.
Now, how Francesco Carotta shows Jesus to be Julius Caesar is persuasive if an editor goes through his book. I’ve gone through his book and have found at least 20 convincing reasons to see Julius Caesar being a prototype of Jesus in the Gospels. Come on: Gaius Julius Caesar was a god-man, Jesus was a god-man inside the Roman Empire. Gaius Julius Caesar’s Clementia/Mercy: Jesus’ Mercy. An image of Gaius Julius Caesar raised on a cross with his body pierced by Longinus: Jesus raised on a cross with his body pierced by Longinus; both of them died for appearing to be king. Come on ! ! !
I have seen video of Robert Price reconsidering and coming to agreement with Mr Atwill’s thesis and taking part in public discussion via iinternet on YT. Links below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wy1hrfAPG4&t=386s
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfXhUJ2fdwE
I have checked some of the links between the Gospels and Josephus pointed out by Atwill and they are basic and obvious literary facts in enough cases to make it a mathematical certainty that the texts are typologically linked. Literary evidence for this is accessible to anyone and if Atwill communicated this simply, i.e. without going into obscure examples and details, the solid group of simple and clear cases makes the theory solid and after consideration like Dr Price, acceptable and of necessity paradigm changing for many.
Cognitive change takes time and has to be in accord with one’s genuine thinking and belief about what is most reasonable. This requires going through the necessary conditions for cognitive change.
If Atwill had reversed his order of typological links and kept it to the simplest ones his communication of the essence of the reality of the Josephus basis for parts of the Gospels would have been made much clearer and thus easier for people to gradually accept and harder for people to portray as ridiculous.
After witnessing the confusion over the 2020 Election – was it rigged, or was it fair? This was about something that JUST HAPPENED, in a world where information is transferred instantly. In 2020, we learned how a non-genius man (Trump) can deceive a great portion of the people simply by repeating a baseless lie again and again. The winners write history and control the information.
It doesn’t take a genius to see how easy it is to mislead the masses and pull off a hoax. I find it “believable” that the Roman govt’ at minimum saw the opportunity to take advantage of the gullible Jewish masses and guide them towards beliefs that were non-militaristic. Did they author ALL the information/texts? Probably not. But did they strategically influence them, edit them, write some? They’d be stupid not too. Religion is too powerful of a tool for governments to ignore. It doesn’t take a genius to realize this.
I believe it is near impossible for anyone to say “what is truth” when it comes to deciphering the meaning/authorship of 1st century writings. Some conspiracy theories are likely.