Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill - what do people think

[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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I read it about ten years ago.  It's rubbish.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

It makes good use of a few facts, primarily sketchy dates and romanization, to spin an outlandish conspiracy theory.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It makes good use of a few facts, primarily sketchy dates and romanization, to spin an outlandish conspiracy theory.

Characteristics it has in common with most conspiracy theories.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, genre standards, lol. I’ve never understood the appeal. In this case ( like so many others) facts are even better than fiction, so why bother? The development and growth of any new religion in a society is already one of the more implausible events in human experience ( despite its regularity, the devil being in the details).

It would probably help to hear what the op considers the most compelling details and how they fit to support the authors narrative, though.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, genre standards, lol.  I’ve never understood the appeal.  In this case ( like so many others) facts are even better than fiction, so why bother?  The development and growth of any new religion in a society is already one of the more implausible events in human experience ( despite its regularity, the devil being in the details).

It would probably help to hear what the op considers the most compelling details and how they fit to support the authors narrative, though.

Not to put words in the OP's mouth, but I get the distinct impression that he read the book, then went looking for things (in this case, coincidences) that appear to support Atwill's premise. Precisely the wrong way to go about it.  Caesar's Messiah has been refuted almost since the moment it was printed.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

It’s about as bad ( and for the same reason ) as the equivalent Christian theory that a handful of named individuals invented and wrote new magic book.

The desire for succinct attribution of a social movement spanning centuries is a common thread.

[Send4Seneca]

Ok I don't believe in anything. I don't really believe in belief, or belief in or belief that. If you want to get technical, functional beliefs, like believe that I need to eat and drink to stay alive, or beliefs with incontrovertible evidence, but I don't believe in believing. So I'm trying to say I'm open minded. I think I'm one of the most open minded but also one of the most critical people I know at least in my circles. I know I'm on an atheist forum so it's good company.

I was (and always am) dismayed by the "conspiracy theory" comment because that strikes me as dismissive. Basically that's not an argument and I was hoping for positions and arguments. Calling something a conspiracy theory is a statement, not an argument, and statements are fine. They have their place, but they are not good for persuasion. Obviously some theory conspiracies are rubbish- the flat earth, the Lizard People, etc. Some are reasonable and may even be true. I hate that phrase as a habit, precisely because it is both dismissive and potentially patronizing. If something is so absurd like the lizard people theory, then calling it a conspiracy theory doesn't make the believers more laughable. It's an us-vs them thing, versus rapprochement and persuasion. I'm not angry and it's not just you guys. This has always bugged me about the 'mainstream and anyone who utters the word conspiracy theory is taking the mainstream establishment position in such instance. The establishment position is often correct, don't get me wrong. I just find basically that calling something or someone a conspiracy theory(ist) is not of much value. Often, if a conspiracy theorist is wrong, they still may have relevant facts and points to contribute that haven't been factored, so there's that too. I wasn't won to atheism by those types but by people like Dawkins and Hitchens and others, the critical bible scholars, as well as reading the texts on my own and using my brains.

But I didn't put the positive argument for Caesar's Messiah. I will take the position that I believe in it here, and put the best case as briefly as possible, but I do not necessarily believe. I am just playing Caesar's advocate. Also I can't do as good of a job as Atwill. Then you can let me know what you think.

I did read the book. I have finished it now. I enjoyed it. A few pieces of evidence feel more of a stretch but they are not all necessary as the legs could still support the table and who knows, if I re-read I might find them more convincing (or less). The two in particular are the tomb argument, just because it is so complex, and the casting out demons, for the same reason. The Mary's son and the fishers of men are the strongest single arguments, but let me step back and break it down as if nobody has read it.

I should also say I have not read Josephus yet, which I will eventually, and much of my acceptance or rejection of Atwill's theory is contingent upon confirmation from Josephus and a few other items he mentions, that I could research.

Overall Context: (this part should not be controversial, should all be mainstream view)

After Rome took over the Palestine area (lower Levant), from the Greeks / Maccabeans, the Jewish zealots gave them trouble. They would always rebel. There were many Hellenistic Greek speaking Jews around the Roman empire. There was always the risk of them joining in, and in fact there were revolts and much destruction that occurred (such as Bar Kochba) as the jews were waiting for a militant Messiah. They still are expecting that, or expecting an earthly Messiah. It should be said straight right now, I am not Jewish but I do not make a distinction between Jews and non Jews except the distinctions they make themselves, religious or otherwise. I condemn anti-semitism even as I reserve the right to criticize actions of Israel. So according to what has been written, in Bar Kochba, in the 100s AD, there was a lot of Roman Bloodshed, such that the empire had to encourage people to repopulate. This existed before. Messiah claimants and Jewish leaders existed with names like Simon (bar Giora) and John of Grishala and a few different Eleazars (Ya'ir of Masada and the one that aligned and contested with John and Simon in Jerusalem)

I have studied these men (largely on wikipedia for what it's worth, but looking at the footnotes). I get things mixed up sometimes but the one started up there in Galilea (John). In fact the zionist or zealot movement started and had it's center in Galilee (citation needed). It was started years earlier during the census of Quintinus in 6AD by one Judas of Galilee (the "fourth philosophy" of Josephus that was destroyed at Masada). I studied their histories. We depend a lot on Josephus unfortunately, but mainstream scholars accept him as I have described, so that's irrelevant.

Speaking of that, let's get to more the roman side of things. Atwill argues that the Roman's controlled their literature and suppressed what they didn't like. That makes sense but I need to confirm it. He also asserted which I think is true, that aside from the newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls, which paint a far different picture than the following, the only two first century Judeo-Palestinian works we have are the gospels and Josephus. Very interesting.

[As an aside, I'm not sure what you think but I've come to realize that the Gospels are rather pro-Roman. Do you agree? "Render unto Caesar", "turn the other cheek", "Go the extra mile" - probably to do with impressment or being enlisted by the army to carry goods for a mile. I could give other examples]. If this is the case, it would make sense why they didn't censor or destroy this literature as well as Josephus, who was by adoption a Flavian Caesar*. (*Some say he may not have existed. I don't know what to make of these claims but it doesnt' matter here). Jesus often railed against the 'scribes' (citation needed). If there were so many scribes, you might assume they were scribbling something down, so where's the record?

The Romans were very literate. So were the jews, but we don't have a ton of records from 1st century Palestine, especially which weren't pro Roman.

Granted there were more than 4 gospels. I am not an expert on them. All I know is these four were accepted as Canon, maybe at a later date (Constantine era) because they were pro-roman. I get it. They may not have even been first century or based on first century sources, which defeats Atwill's theory, in which case the only first century text we had was Josephus.

I take it is a fact that most people would accept that the gospels were written in their current form after the destruction of Jerusalem and "prophecy" was written down that this "would happen" in a generation (olivet discourse). That's the most likely explanation and one I use for most prophecies that have come true, like those of the old testament prophets. It's the oldest trick of the book.

More context- the Romans loved Gods. For all they were, they were not monotheistic intolerant, as long as Caesar was worshiped. They would accept enemy or foreign gods. Therefore, they would create religions. They had experience. Relevant here is that what Atwill suggests is not a novel thing. Why else was there such an office of Pontifex Maximum? What did those different religious colleges do if not create and manage religions? I am not an expert but this seems logical given what I understand of Roman ways. (Interestingly when I was a believer I first heard the term Pontifex Maximum reading those end time books "left behind". The pope is the P.M. but before Xianity it was just a pagan office, and I LARP as a pagan (in my own head at least)).

I call the combination of conquer by sword and then by religion and propaganda "sword and sorcery" and Rome seemed to pursue that path. They were a military might, but an empire can fall so they also used "sorcery" (religion, persuasion and philosophy) to maintain, so after the conquest, it is logical. I had a hard time accepting Joe's theory as it seemed so Ad Hoc as I lacked context. It seemed like too out of the blue like he just made stuff fit to his view, and that could be, but that's why I studied and am studying so much of Rome outside of his work. I still have so much to learn but the context I have got to does seems to support, so it doesn't seem so Ad Hoc.

He also says, which I noticed years ago on first glancing at the Maccabean apocrypha briefly, and Josephus, that the names seemed to match with those of the characters in the gospel. I just assumed (bad to assume) that that's just because those names were so common. That may be the case or it may not be. Atwill mentions they were not common and gave a source (a dictionary I think, of names). I'll have to dig it up and confirm but if the names were not as common to be by chance, that supports his contention. Basically the Macabeans had names like Matthias (Matthew), John, Simon, Jonathan, Judas, Eleazar, and others. They were first, from wherever, and then the argument goes that these names weren't common or as common as to be unsuggestive, and both Josephus and the Gospels (single source) took them to lampoon or neutralize them. The idea of doing that is on it's face powerful. Whether that was done is a whole other question but that would be savage of Rome.

I think that's enough for Context. Sorry if my writing is sloppy.

The core theory has already been presented.

Now the evidence aspect and in particular what persuades me at present.

First, people critique Atwill of seeing Parallels out of randomness or chaos. There is even a word for this that I saw on RationalWiki (Apophenia). Yes that could be true. In fact that's the highest (most favorable flattering) critique to be received I think, because it means your logic is sound, you are of sound mind relatively, but just seeing things that don't exist because of law of large numbers or something. In other words, given those patterns being real, a case might be makable, only they're not. So that's what I'm going to get into- these parallels on which his main support (but not al of his support) rests. But before I do, he argues, which I think a lot of people miss, that it's not only the patterns or parallels between Josephus War of Jews and Antiquities and the 4 canon Gospels but also how they are all in sequence which each other, which is more improbable by nature. He stresses this point often. As to whether that's the case, I don't know. I must read Josephus myself, which will take time, but to the degree it is the case, to the degree his parallels are in sequence, at least in Time Sequence if and when Josephus leaves a 'time stamp', that is highly relevant, so to the degree that's the case (and who has enough understanding of the texts to judge?) then any criticism against him reading into parallels too much must address this.

Alright- Pre Parallel evidence:

1. He argues that key people, Flavians, were among the first Christians. There were the catacombs of Domatilla, a flavian. That's very early and powerful (if not mistaken- here's a good place to critique if you have counter-evidence! I want to give people targets because if this idea is refuted, we all win and truth wins). If Domatilla a close relation was "Christian" of the Jesus line, then a Christian was in the family of the Flavians. I do not think they are like my family, uncaring or unwitnessing of the lifestyle and religions people practice. They would have realized and done something if it was problematic. Also Berenice. I had no idea who this person was, and that is a strange name but it is basically Veronica transliterated and it is the combination of two words we already know- Phero as in pheromone, transFER- something that moves across or bears, and Nike- Victory. Bringer of Victory. She was wife of Herod and mistress of Titus mentioned in Acts. Apparently she is regarded as a Christian and a saint. I guess this might be oral and less certain than I thought, which is fine but it would mean at least two people with connections to both the Flavians and Christians existed. Again evidence for Berenice's faith may not be as strong as I thought, though there's no evidence against it either. I have limited time to go deep into everything and study everything even though it's fun. And Atwill argues, which is sensible, that several people could have transferred knowledge of the Jewish scriptures to Rome and helped write in the fulfillment of prophecies, including Josephus, if he existed, and Berenice, or others, John of Grishala (if he was the disciple whom Jesus loved). Yes I know that's speculative. My only point is that they were Rome. They weren't bumbling idiots.

We have to go through life without too much credulity and also without too much incredulity. Both are dangerous extremes. I try to be as open minded as possible but remain critical. Rome could acquire the resources to do this if it had the will and insight. There were many Greek speaking Jews about, outside of Judea.

More evidence-
Typology. Atwill argues that the gospels were typological literature as used throughout the hebrew scriptures. Jesus typified Moses plainly, by coming from Egypt and being tempted 40 days in the desert and surviving death of infants, etc. I take this as on good footing so I don't do much to justify it. Mainstream scholars agree Jesus was typed from Moses early on. But Atwill argues Jesus then remains the type for Titus. I was in Israel and Jerusalem once and I saw about Titus. I didn't know or care much for him at the time. I failed to make it to Masada. Regret that now. IT wasn't part of Biblical history so I didn't care as much, not that I was an extreme fundamentalist, but still I cared more about what was int eh bible. I would like to see Ceasarea Maritima and other places but it doesn't matter to me much at this point. I was also in Rome. It would be great to see the Titus arch. But now if Jesus typified Titus, how so?

Atwill asserts that Jesus ministry in Galilee down to Jerusalem parallel's Titus's conquest. Additionally, we have Jesus curse the Galilean towns, slating them for destruction. We do (citation needed). Then we have him encircle Jerusalem with a wall- we do in fact, at least according to Josephus. It doesn't matter if Josephus is unhistorical or wrong at times. What matters is how they are presented to appear and to link. [Woah I'm just having a deja vu moment from years ago!]. I think there is good evidence for this overall parallel of his ministry (Galilee and Jerusalem, destruction of each) and then his Olivet prophecy of Jerusalem destroyed (citation needed). I think on this, which is overall frame, I'm on decent ground to proceed. Reading excerpts and watching videos of the destruction of Jerusalem on youtube but based on Josephus was interesting. That was a fascinating battle. Most Christians believed that his prophecy of Jerusalem in "this generation, (being 40 years)" had already occurred (pretarist view). I think the dispensationalist futurist prophecies like those crazy Christians Hal Lindsey and Lahey and others, awaiting Armageddon are both ludicrous and dangerous. Praeterism seems most rational.

So what other parallels or support exist? Atwill is arguing intent. How do you prove intent in court? What is the standard first, beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of evdeicen or what? I should say here, that maybe this theory will never get over 50% probability (I think in terms of probability on such matters) but still might be the greatest probability among competing ideas on it's same level. Something could be only 30% likely but everything else less so that is of equivalent comparability.


Again for the most part the only Josephus I've read is what Atwill cited and quoted in his book (at length) but I'm granting that he is not fudging the data of Josephus.

So here are the two strongest parallels for me that prove intent. Note, someone else could have written the gospels after josephus, having nothing to do with the Flavians and metaphorized what Josephus described. I don't know why they would do that. Maybe to soften the blow or they have a sick sense of humor but basically,

1. Jesus said he would make Fishers of men (apostles that would convert men like today's preachers). I am assuming most people are aware of these passages. I am not as steadfast at citing sources as other places online. I have heard these stories since childhood. So the obvious idea is that Jesus is speaking in metaphor and allegory. Fine but then Josephus records a kind of literal fishing of men, in Galilee, fishing the bodies out.


JOSEPHUS 3:10:9
"Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands; and indeed they were destroyed after various manners every where, till the rest being put to flight, were forced to get upon the land, while the vessels encompassed them about [on the sea]: but as many of these were repulsed when they were getting ashore, they were killed by the darts upon the lake;"

This is good I'll learn to read Josephus. It will not be easy, at least not without the proper frame and method, but that's what I'm getting. I know it's easy to get lost even in modern works let alone ancient, or get tripped up. I value accuracy so I try take my time and do it right.

Now one has to assess the veracity or probability that these two are connected. How does one do it? Well it's not uncommon for there to be a sea battle where people are killed in the water (I assume), so that's unlikely to be caused by intent. Also Jesus' disciplines were from Galilee, fishermen, so it's natural he'd use that metaphor for apostlizing. I know Atwill would argue all the parallels have to be read in sequence but just looking at this one, how often did anyone use the metaphor of 'fishing for men' and how often were there such military descriptions in history? Don't be alarmed, I'm not being carried away, although this was one of the first statements that intrigued me when I heard Joseph speak (pun not intended, but I'll take it). Also why would Jesus have been written to start in Galilee, in the north? Maybe because he was really born there, but we're skeptics. How much does our skepticism grant us to put intent and design into the gospels, if not by the Flavians than whoever wrote or redacted them? Why Galilee?

Oh pardon me I forgot also to make a point. It seemed strange to me since it was brought up, that Israel 1st century AD could be so full of zealous rebels and wars and here comes a pacifist pro-roman and he is given so much cred and people following him. Granted his biography could very well have been usurped, even by roman friendly factions, even if the flavian theory is not correct. One guy on youtube said John the Apostle was the read deal and they grafted Jesus, a roman agent, onto him- so there are competing hypothesis. I just used that John the baptist as an example. I don't take that theory particularity seriously, but there are alternatives. Why do I spend so much time on this? Well reading the book was a joy, but writing this out is more work and time, but it does help me to think through what I have been considering (amateur equivalent of publishing and peer review kinda, even if my writing is sloppy). In any case, the Jesus of the gospels as brought down to us seems out of place in 1st century Israel and Galilee. I understand the south and Jerusalem in particular was maybe more Roman friendly than the North (not sure of Samaria), and aside from the Decopolis, at least until the rebels escaped to Jerusalem during the passover. I know much of this is from our one source Josephus but that's not relevant. Also I wonder how many rebel zionists were there in 30 AD, the time of Jesus's ministry. I know this was between Judas of Galilee and the later war with Rome from 68-73. I know the dead sea scrolls show unrest I think. Who knows. You see though I'm a real thinker even if a sloppy writer . I show where the theory could be weak or alternative theories could explain things as well or better.

2. The other main parallel that got me was the burning of Mary's baby in Jerusalem. So the rebels escaped to Jerusalem in the time around 70AD when it was destroyed by Titus per Josephus, and also people flocked there for the passover. It was passover time. Food was thus less scarce and also the competing factions between John of Grishala, Simon bar Giorga and Eleazar (ben Simon) burned each others food (citation needed) and made things worse (per Josephus). I had heard of this story years before. As with most Christian readings of their scripture, they miss details that don't stand out to them. In this case Mary is of Bethezub. Ezub is hyssop. You see the names Ezob and Hyssop sound the same. Ezob is considered the herb they used at passover, so that's a link to passover. Anyway she's hungry and starving so she cooks her baby. She does so not just for selfish reasons but she thinks he'll have a horrible life under roman rule and also his death will make her people more incited to fight, but it has the opposite demoralizing effect.

You can read here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Bethezuba

So the baby is clearly linked to passover by the Hyssop and the timing. Jesus is linked to passover (no broken bones, the timing).

Also, and this is incredible, Josephus, who wrote in greek, is said to have written the following (By Atwill), which I have to verify by reading the greek (I can read greek as words and research individual words. I'm not fluent in greek but I can read the words and alphabet and I'm good at drilling down). In this Mary and baby passage, they use three greek words in one paragraph (per Atwill) - Mythos, Myzoz, Mythos, as a play on words. I am fact checking this now (too little time to get deep enough) but the way he put it sounded powerful. Could be.

There is interlinear here
https://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=jose...ar/JWG6#03
Here's the translated line (Book 6, lines 207, 212 and 214). I originally thought it was one line which would have made it more powerful.

207: Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a by- word to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews."
And so forth

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CF...E%BF%CF%82
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%E1...E%BF%CF%82

So you see this is how I study and dig but it takes time. I can't put more out there at present. So let's assess. The evidence this lady's baby is linked to passover is strong- hyssop. That's strong enough for me with timing. Did Josephus attempt to link it to Jesus? That's a bigger question. Or did Gospel authors try link Jesus to that? That's more doubtful. And was mythos, misos mizos a word play? I'm not sure. I'll have to think about this more. I don't have a great grasp of greek but as I become more familiar with everything, including the language and Bellum Judaicum, it will give me a better sense. After all the book is literature. How would such literature have been understood by the educated classes (a question Atwill always asks and a good one at that0.

Last evidence I'll give and I haven't confirmed the dates, though they're right there in Caesar's Messiah, is that Josephus timed his dates of Masada and Jerusalem to correspond to prophecy. He says Jesus died in 33AD or whenever (John has 3 passovers I think, to indicate this), and in 40 years exactly (on passover) masada fell, which was like the 40 year period from the promise of the covenant to it's fulfillment, in moses or whatever. Also at 3.5 years something would be cut off. Sorry I'm not perfect in my understanding. So why would Josephus go to such lengths to time the dates of the war of the jews to Jesus or why would these two be in such sync? Maybe the gospels timed it with Josephus. Maybe I have to think about what this argument or evidence proves but Atwill says he got the date of Masada wrong but he said he got it wrong for a reason, so if that's true and he should have known but he was a year off, then that supports the idea that there was an intent, but who knows.

There are many things we can wonder about. There are many things I have learned in this process and there are many theories that may be acceptable if not the Flavian Intent and design theory in question. Admittedly that would be the hardest one to prove.

I don't want to be credulous and I don't want to be incredulous. Rome was powerful. The Caesars weren't stupid. It amazes me how many (plebs, not to be arrogant but it's true) think that people become rich and successful in life and business through luck. The ancients were smart enough to build pyramids. The Romans produced great authors like Cicero and others, who I have yet to read. Could they have done it- with Jewish intelligence allies to graft the scripture on? Sure of course, I'm not incredulous there. It would take a lot to prove otherwise, evidence that this is really not their M.O. but it seems like it is given they have colleges of religious people, the Caesar being Pontifex Maximus, and early Flavians being linked to Christianity although I'm not sure how strong this is anymore. I have to re-read what he argues.

I'm not as a good a presenter as him. I'm not married to this belief. Calling it a conspiracy theory is not an argument and while it doesn't explicitly assert that any conspiracy theorist has a silly bias or agenda, or ridiculous way of being and irrational way of thinking, it does imply that. It's not an argument, but I'm not offended just clarifying and in my first post I didn't give any support. I was assuming people would just grab that from the web or know about it.

This took way too much time, but was probably worth it anyways. I want to engage more on the forum in different ways, much brief on other topics, modern stuff, this just happened to be my first one. I'm not married to the idea, but actually reading history and doing research with the intent to test a theory actually helps me access history, as not a set of dry facts but something to hang my ideas on and remember facts and dates more precisely, even if I end up rejecting the theory. In other words, while some may be biased by having a pet theory they went to prove, to me the theory to test increases my mind's ability somehow to absorb details that stay with me even after the theory is gone. That said, I am still leaning to the idea that this Flavian intent and design is likely or at least possible. It may or may not be over 50% but still is a likely leading idea in me, but it is also kind of premature because I know what future study I could do to test it (read Josephus, follow up on certain facts, re-read CM, and read Carrier's argument against Atwill, although I don't care alone for someone's reputation but their arguments and counter responses to arguments).

Last again I think a lot of people not just here but elsewhere go overboard criticizing these and similar works. I Don't know on what basis. I mean they are more reasonable than those very popular ideas that Jesus rose from the dead and raised others. Maybe they get more scorn because people with greater similarity have greater rivalry. Maybe they think they are profiting or something, or spent so much time developing these crazy ideas or they claim the mantle of scholarship, whereas bible believing fundamentalism doesn't, at least in a way that's taken seriously. I guess so. I don't see how they're dangerous. I like the free marketplace of ideas, and arguments more than heat (thinking of Carrier here. In his role he should be patient and long suffering or he should find another profession in my opinion).

Reading war of Jews will given me a better understanding, but that is a project, doing it right. I understand Atwill is pretty familiar with that and dead sea scrolls as that's what birthed his theory, seeing the fisherman parallel, and then he found each other parallel one at a time, so that presumes he is familiar with the texts, and also in greek. I don't have that familiarity but that, along with learning about Rome and the history and the Macabbeans is the next logical step, not just to test this theory but for general knowledge. I love history and all but I also want to live a life.

So I consider it in the realm of possible. I don't like things being called conspiracy or crackpot without at least some attempt at argumentation but I'm not offended. I just want to reform the planet in this regard!

It's a big subject. The origins of Christianity are a relevant topic and dynamite topic for many. I just realized I'm interested int he origins and became more interested when there was someone who offered to provide specifics as opposed to the general "There was this one guy" and people made a myth of him. Granted a general truth is better than a specific lie, but that's what compelled me. Now also I am interested in the origins of the "old testament", the Tanack and when the books were compiled. I found out (I kind of knew before, but I'm exploring it) there's a lot of scholarship and theory related to it, from the 1700s and 1800s, especially in Germany, so I'm examining this. I started reading "the Bible Unearthed" but as I read this book, like CM, I find myself reading wikipedia as much if not more, to give myself background.

I don't know what any of this matters. Other times elsewhere I will be very concise and pithy and to the point, but this origins business involves a lot of digging

Edit: Any edits I make will be annotated. I just added a "not" to above where I meant to say I was not offended

[GUBU]

Wall of text: Ignored.

I pretty much know nothing about the book though, but if both Boru and Gae are of the opinion it's bovine excrement after putting study into it, I'll happily defer to their combined expertise.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If I recall correctly, Atwill's central thesis was that Rome invented Jesus to pacify the Jews.  The chief objection to this is that it is tremendously out of character for Rome to do anything of the sort.  Why didn't Rome invent godmen to pacify the Carthaginians or the Galls or the Germanic tribes or the Parthians or...well, any of the dozens of peoples who irritated Rome?  Because that simply wasn't in the Roman character.  Rome would absorb foreign gods into its own pantheon (by way of identifying native gods with Roman ones), but this wasn't done for pacification.  Furthermore, Atwill builds his entire case on little more than coincidence and wishful thinking.  It isn't good history, and it's barely passable as fiction.

I agree that the Jesus of the Gospels is largely an invention, but it was an invention of disaffected Jews, not Romans.

Boru