Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill - what do people think
July 25, 2019 at 3:53 am
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2019 at 4:17 am by Send4Seneca.)
I would like to start a discussion on the veracity of the core theory of the book referenced in this subject line. I also highly recommend all interested in the origins of Christianity to read it. Note I didn't say believe in it.
The core theory is this: The Roman Caesars, particularly the Flavians, in conjunction with the Herodians perhaps, and random others, invented Christianity, i.e. subverted the troublesome Jewish messianic movement to be one of pacifistic slave obey your master render unto Caesar religion, to lampoon these rebels that caused Rome trouble, as well as to "prophecize" and foreshadow Titus's future conquest of Galilee and destruction of Jerusalem as the "son of man" to thus be unconsciously worshipped by those who otherwise would refuse.
I must say I find his arguments compelling. I am not a fundamentalist Atwillian, however, so I am open to revision and so I would love to see the best arguments against his case.
I certainly admit if you just hear his theory, it sounds far fetched, because it is "out of the blue". I particularly want critics who have read his book. I have read 90% and parts of it I am more skeptical of than others, like the tomb scene but I mention this because a small torpedo to a big tanker might not sink that ship. A four legged table with one leg chopped off can still stand, so bring a complete "damning" case.
For convenience let's maybe divide all subject material into the following three groups:
Context ©: which is herein defined as incontrovertible facts and circumstance of history pertinent to the core theory- for instance information about the Maccabees, the Romans, the Herodians, civilization at that time, etc.
Theory (T): his unique theory as above including peripheral aspects and..
Evidence/Arguments (E): pretty self explanatory, what he used as support for the theory.
I think dividing the information to come into these three categories will help make the discussion cleaner and smoother. In the process of going through his book, I spent significantly more time researching subject matter related to topics he introduces that I don't know about (stuff about context) and going on many big digressions, than reading the book itself, because I would always be stopping to check, verify and learn, and I have to say this has been a blessing in itself. So far, using Wikipedia primarily, I found that the things he has claimed about history has been in alignment for the most part as I can tell which does good to his credibility. That's not to say his core theory is true. I've spent tons of time learning about the herodians the Romans the flavians The Maccabees the zealots and other such matters but of course I still have much to learn. Again this has been a blessing in itself for which I owe Joe a debt of gratitude. He also doesn't strike me as a man with any malice. That's just for the record.
I don't want to make a case myself unless the admin wants me to (i.e. Stack up all the evidence as if I'm Atwill's paid attorney) in which case I can, at a later date. I prefer people to have already read the book both because I could not represent as well as he could and because I feel like it would be plagiarizing in a way, but if that's against policy, I'll abide and take up the task. Since this is such a specific technical thread I'm content with it being a slow developing one even up to months in years (orogeny takes millions of years). I'm not a huge forum guy but this one I'm willing to take ownership of on condition that it doesn't have to be fast to grow. Quality over speed.
I will say this. With the theory arguing that Flavius Josephus was "in on" Christianity, it changes the way one thinks about "Josephus on Jesus"- not two sources but one.
I will say a few more things. I have hitherto regarded Christianity in many cases in many ways as religion of fools and as a system for creating fools. No one exemplifies this more than my father, in my eyes the meekest, most passive "joyful for Jesus" man I know, this belief system consuming virtually all areas of life though I can't necessarily tell if religion came first or his psychological disposition. If the theory of Caesar's Messiah is true, it only makes this viewpoint more pugnant, as if the religion was purposefully designed to make eunuchs of men and not as people like Nietzsche and others think, an inversion of moral values for those who aren't successful in life. If Atwill's theory is untrue, still that's what Christianity often does, which at least Judaism and Islam tend to avoid doing. I sometimes wish I had a father like Vespasian.
Last: I try and understand the nature of power in this world. Even Jesus recommended that when he said be wise as serpents but innocent as doves. So many people fail to accept what gets said because they are naive about power and those who want it. At the risk of sounding arrogant they really are like sheep wanting a good shepherd (and I am not even talking about Christians or believers) or else they just don't know how power works and are sheep by naivety. I actually don't like using that sheep metaphor as it's condescending and all, but I'm using that just because the gospels use it and I can't help it here because of the parallel, but I'm not trying to be condescending. To be wise you must be humble. But Rome was powerful and the Caesars were ambitious and not naive so all arguments must respect this context © and in fact it serves you in life to understand power.
I am totally open to having it disproven though I lean toward it now, but for all those with harsh criticisms who think someone who accept such a theory or even Jesus mythicism in general is a bloody fool, well it's certainly more reasonable to think this then to believe he's actually the son of God who turned water into wine, to believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago, so be kind. I can actually take harsh words and ridicule and that's why my professors often used me as an example in different classes, but I see a lot of people being ridiculed in different places online for what are reasonable theories from different perspectives on all sorts of topics and getting unfairly lumped in with all sorts of crazy people like flat-earthers which I think we all can agree is ridiculous, so respect and the humility of a great teacher teaching neophytes is appreciated if you have something to contribute. Thanks!
From my perspective in the current year this sounds like a really good theory based on the fact that I've read the book and done certain study of context and investigation into and thinking about evidence he provides and if there's any truth to it it will vastly empower religious skeptics and ironically almost give them secret knowledge such the gnostics desired, a high position of great insider understanding. If false, I still considered a very worthwhile read for almost anybody who has the time and interest and much will be learned about the history in this timespan, that is sorely lacking both among Christians and "Average Joe" skeptics who are interested in Christianity as a critical field. I spent so much time just starting the family of the herods (and Jewish Messianic leaders) in sorting out who's who and I still haven't fully mapped them out in perfect clarity but I'm getting closer. There's a lot of people with the same or similar names, I can tell you that. I also plan to eventually read Josephus but that will take some time.
I've said enough and brevity is the soul of wit. Let the games begin. Admin, I hope I abided by the rules and protocol in all material respects. Let me know if otherwise.
The core theory is this: The Roman Caesars, particularly the Flavians, in conjunction with the Herodians perhaps, and random others, invented Christianity, i.e. subverted the troublesome Jewish messianic movement to be one of pacifistic slave obey your master render unto Caesar religion, to lampoon these rebels that caused Rome trouble, as well as to "prophecize" and foreshadow Titus's future conquest of Galilee and destruction of Jerusalem as the "son of man" to thus be unconsciously worshipped by those who otherwise would refuse.
I must say I find his arguments compelling. I am not a fundamentalist Atwillian, however, so I am open to revision and so I would love to see the best arguments against his case.
I certainly admit if you just hear his theory, it sounds far fetched, because it is "out of the blue". I particularly want critics who have read his book. I have read 90% and parts of it I am more skeptical of than others, like the tomb scene but I mention this because a small torpedo to a big tanker might not sink that ship. A four legged table with one leg chopped off can still stand, so bring a complete "damning" case.
For convenience let's maybe divide all subject material into the following three groups:
Context ©: which is herein defined as incontrovertible facts and circumstance of history pertinent to the core theory- for instance information about the Maccabees, the Romans, the Herodians, civilization at that time, etc.
Theory (T): his unique theory as above including peripheral aspects and..
Evidence/Arguments (E): pretty self explanatory, what he used as support for the theory.
I think dividing the information to come into these three categories will help make the discussion cleaner and smoother. In the process of going through his book, I spent significantly more time researching subject matter related to topics he introduces that I don't know about (stuff about context) and going on many big digressions, than reading the book itself, because I would always be stopping to check, verify and learn, and I have to say this has been a blessing in itself. So far, using Wikipedia primarily, I found that the things he has claimed about history has been in alignment for the most part as I can tell which does good to his credibility. That's not to say his core theory is true. I've spent tons of time learning about the herodians the Romans the flavians The Maccabees the zealots and other such matters but of course I still have much to learn. Again this has been a blessing in itself for which I owe Joe a debt of gratitude. He also doesn't strike me as a man with any malice. That's just for the record.
I don't want to make a case myself unless the admin wants me to (i.e. Stack up all the evidence as if I'm Atwill's paid attorney) in which case I can, at a later date. I prefer people to have already read the book both because I could not represent as well as he could and because I feel like it would be plagiarizing in a way, but if that's against policy, I'll abide and take up the task. Since this is such a specific technical thread I'm content with it being a slow developing one even up to months in years (orogeny takes millions of years). I'm not a huge forum guy but this one I'm willing to take ownership of on condition that it doesn't have to be fast to grow. Quality over speed.
I will say this. With the theory arguing that Flavius Josephus was "in on" Christianity, it changes the way one thinks about "Josephus on Jesus"- not two sources but one.
I will say a few more things. I have hitherto regarded Christianity in many cases in many ways as religion of fools and as a system for creating fools. No one exemplifies this more than my father, in my eyes the meekest, most passive "joyful for Jesus" man I know, this belief system consuming virtually all areas of life though I can't necessarily tell if religion came first or his psychological disposition. If the theory of Caesar's Messiah is true, it only makes this viewpoint more pugnant, as if the religion was purposefully designed to make eunuchs of men and not as people like Nietzsche and others think, an inversion of moral values for those who aren't successful in life. If Atwill's theory is untrue, still that's what Christianity often does, which at least Judaism and Islam tend to avoid doing. I sometimes wish I had a father like Vespasian.
Last: I try and understand the nature of power in this world. Even Jesus recommended that when he said be wise as serpents but innocent as doves. So many people fail to accept what gets said because they are naive about power and those who want it. At the risk of sounding arrogant they really are like sheep wanting a good shepherd (and I am not even talking about Christians or believers) or else they just don't know how power works and are sheep by naivety. I actually don't like using that sheep metaphor as it's condescending and all, but I'm using that just because the gospels use it and I can't help it here because of the parallel, but I'm not trying to be condescending. To be wise you must be humble. But Rome was powerful and the Caesars were ambitious and not naive so all arguments must respect this context © and in fact it serves you in life to understand power.
I am totally open to having it disproven though I lean toward it now, but for all those with harsh criticisms who think someone who accept such a theory or even Jesus mythicism in general is a bloody fool, well it's certainly more reasonable to think this then to believe he's actually the son of God who turned water into wine, to believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago, so be kind. I can actually take harsh words and ridicule and that's why my professors often used me as an example in different classes, but I see a lot of people being ridiculed in different places online for what are reasonable theories from different perspectives on all sorts of topics and getting unfairly lumped in with all sorts of crazy people like flat-earthers which I think we all can agree is ridiculous, so respect and the humility of a great teacher teaching neophytes is appreciated if you have something to contribute. Thanks!
From my perspective in the current year this sounds like a really good theory based on the fact that I've read the book and done certain study of context and investigation into and thinking about evidence he provides and if there's any truth to it it will vastly empower religious skeptics and ironically almost give them secret knowledge such the gnostics desired, a high position of great insider understanding. If false, I still considered a very worthwhile read for almost anybody who has the time and interest and much will be learned about the history in this timespan, that is sorely lacking both among Christians and "Average Joe" skeptics who are interested in Christianity as a critical field. I spent so much time just starting the family of the herods (and Jewish Messianic leaders) in sorting out who's who and I still haven't fully mapped them out in perfect clarity but I'm getting closer. There's a lot of people with the same or similar names, I can tell you that. I also plan to eventually read Josephus but that will take some time.
I've said enough and brevity is the soul of wit. Let the games begin. Admin, I hope I abided by the rules and protocol in all material respects. Let me know if otherwise.
