Caesar's Messiah

[Capstone]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUPoLMW6dNM]Caesar's Messiah Documentary Trailer - YouTube[/ame]

So, Atwill’s chief premise is that Christianity was a Roman invention designed to squash the post-Jewish War uprisings and create a pacified version of messianic Judaism. To support his premise, Atwill demonstrates a strange relationship between certain events in the four Gospels and events recorded in Josephus's historical account, Wars of the Jews. When read inter-textually, the Gospels appear to be a satire of the Jewish uprisings and Roman victories of the first century. It seems the Flavians were getting their jollies from the esoteric joke, as well as reaping the benefits of the newly-formed religion!

The most compelling aspect of Atwill’s argument rests not so much on the parallels themselves—which are subject to interpretation—but on the fact that at least 12 instances of these “peculiar similarities” also happen to coincide chronologically between the texts. It's difficult to imagine how remote the odds are that this inter-textual phenomenon could have occurred independently.

An excellent summary can be found here.

 

[Capstone]

Christians:

In case the significance of these findings has escaped you, the notion that your entire belief system has a fictional basis is now empirically demonstrable.

Burying your heads even more deeply in the sand than they've been ...isn't going to make the uncomfortable truth go away.

 

[peach174]

A couple of things has been left out of what he says.

First - the Work's of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and a History of the Jewish Wars, describes how Jesus looked. That he says the man did exist.
Second - there is evidence of Aramaic manuals.
"Is It True That Some NT Documents were First Written in Aramaic/Syriac and THEN in Greek?" - Probe Ministries
Textually speaking, there is little manuscript evidence to substantiate an Aramaic precedent over the Greek. There are however, ten different Syriac manuscript sources which have survived, dating from the fifth to the tenth centuries A.D. The earliest, a palimpsest written in the 4th or 5th century, is the oldest extant manuscript which is a representative of the Old Syriac translation (which probably originated around 200 A.D). All of these manuscripts give evidence of having borrowed from pre-existing sources--the Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, or the Massoretic tradition.

By far the best Aramaic specimen of the Syriac Peshitta is found in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and dates from the sixth or seventh century A.D. Close behind is one in the British Museum in London which dates from the ninth or tenth century A.D.

 

[peach174]

If we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it should be among the most reliable on record compared with others.

Historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.

By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.

Still, to put to rest the notion that there is no historic and scientific proof of Jesus outside the Bible, we may look to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted.

Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

 

[konradv]

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

If Tacitus is at all historical, you do have to tale some Roman "histories" with a grain of salt, that totally destroys the author's argument, because Nero ruled before the Flavians supposedly invented Jesus.

 

[daveman]

Christians:

In case the significance of these findings has escaped you, the notion that your entire belief system has a fictional basis is now empirically demonstrable.

Burying your heads even more deeply in the sand than they've been ...isn't going to make the uncomfortable truth go away.

Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue...?



What's it matter to you, anyway? You don't want to believe in God? Fine. Don't. But why do you have your panties in a bunch that other people do?

 

[Capstone]

A couple of things has been left out of what he says.

First - the Work's of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and a History of the Jewish Wars, describes how Jesus looked. That he says the man did exist.

From the link to the summary in the OP:

[...]Perhaps the most important new evidence for the ahistoricity of Jesus is the reading that Caesar’s Messiah provides of a critical passage in Josephus’ other major work, Jewish Antiquities. This is the famous ‘Testimonium’ passage in which is supposedly the major independent textual source for the historical existence of Jesus. Atwill demonstrates that this text is genuinely by Josephus. However, when read in context with the surrounding passages, it amounts to a confession admitting that the Flavian emperors invented the character of Jesus to deceive the Jews into worshiping a false messiah. The reader merely has to read the text as it was originally composed, using a well-known Hebrew compositional technique found in the Book of Leviticus, and known as ‘pedimental composition’. This technique gives emphasis to the central passage of text by framing it with mirrored passages either side. (Thus, Leviticus 19, which concerns righteous dealing, is framed by two chapters about prohibitions).[...]

As for this:

[...] Second - there is evidence of Aramaic manuals.
"Is It True That Some NT Documents were First Written in Aramaic/Syriac and THEN in Greek?" - Probe Ministries
Textually speaking, there is little manuscript evidence to substantiate an Aramaic precedent over the Greek. There are however, ten different Syriac manuscript sources which have survived, dating from the fifth to the tenth centuries A.D. The earliest, a palimpsest written in the 4th or 5th century, is the oldest extant manuscript which is a representative of the Old Syriac translation (which probably originated around 200 A.D). All of these manuscripts give evidence of having borrowed from pre-existing sources--the Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, or the Massoretic tradition.

The Roman Empire under Titus was quite large, with Jewish factions fairly widespread. Obviously, if a large portion of the intended audience spoke and read Aramaic only, the Evangelion manuals (read The Gospels) would have been widely distributed in Aramaic. In other words, the presence of early Aramaic and Greek texts is not only perfectly consistent with Atwill's thesis ...it would actually be an expectation of it.

In stark contrast, Biblical scholars are far more challenged by the very things predicted by the Flavian hypothesis.

Your other post (with citations from Josephus and Tacitus) is further evidence that you don't even understand what Atwill has argued. In line with his theory (which is largely explanatory in nature), only a relatively few elites would have been privy to the grand Roman joke, but the actual existence of Titus's literary counterpart would have been promoted as a means of lending legitimacy to the character they wanted the Jews to worship -- hence, again, the mention of Christ by Roman historians of the era would actually be an expectation.

Do yourself a favor in the future: try reading up on the topics of discussion before posting your arguments against them.

 

[Capstone]

If Tacitus is at all historical, you do have to tale some Roman "histories" with a grain of salt, that totally destroys the author's argument, because Nero ruled before the Flavians supposedly invented Jesus.

Just before, since Nero directly preceded Vespasian (Titus's father) and was actively engaged in putting down Jewish revolts and punishing those responsible. It's easy to see how a writer may have jumbled some of the facts 48 years later, particularly if the process of legitimizing the character of Christ included a bit of historical post-diction on the part of its creators.

 

[Capstone]

What's it matter to you, anyway? [...]

Unfortunately, Christianity is still being used very much as its inventors envisioned -- to control the masses and to realize highly questionable political agendas (including war profiteering). The sooner it goes the way of the Greco/Roman mythology that preceded it ...the better.

 

[konradv]

If Tacitus is at all historical, you do have to tale some Roman "histories" with a grain of salt, that totally destroys the author's argument, because Nero ruled before the Flavians supposedly invented Jesus.

Just before, since Nero directly preceded Vespasian (Titus's father) and was actively engaged in putting down Jewish revolts and punishing those responsible. It's easy to see how a writer may have jumbled some of the facts 48 years later, particularly if the process of legitimizing the character of Christ included a bit of historical post-diction on the part of its creators.

The fire in Rome occurred in 64 CE, while the Jewish War didn't break out until 66. Nero was already persecuting Christians in Rome as scapegoats before that. Kind of strange for a religion that hadn't been "invented" yet!

 

[peach174]

The Roman Empire under Titus was quite large, with Jewish factions fairly widespread. Obviously, if a large portion of the intended audience spoke and read Aramaic only, the Evangelion manuals (read The Gospels) would have been widely distributed in Aramaic. In other words, the presence of early Aramaic and Greek texts is not only perfectly consistent with Atwill's thesis ...it would actually be an expectation of it.


The intended audience was for Gentiles not Jews. Capstone

The Greek language was first spread by Alexander the Great after he defeated the Persian Empire in 323 B.C. Because of Alexander’s conquest Greek became the major international language of their time period. Greek became the dominant language of Israel and the world at the time of Christ. God used this to reach out to the Gentiles that did not speak Aramaic or Hebrew.

The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language 250 plus years before Christ by the 70, Sanhedrin. This Greek translation was first done by Jews for Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria Egypt. The Pentateuch was first translated, than later the rest of the Old Testament books were added to the translation.

Long before the time of Jesus, the Jews stopped using Hebrew as their everyday language and kept it for their religious services. They continued to read the scriptures in Hebrew in the temple, but not exclusively. Aramaic was used as their common tongue, however they lived among those who spoke Greek. All Jews in Jesus day spoke at at least 2-3 languages and the language of the day was Greek like english today- they wrote it to reach the whole world. There is every indication during New Testament times Jesus and the disciples were multi-lingual. When it came time for them to quote the Old Testament in the Greek written New Testament, they preferred quoting from the Greek Septuagint. For example in Romans 3 there is a large quotation from Ps. 14, where there are six whole verses in the apostle's quotation which are not found in the present Hebrew text, but are preserved in the Septuagint!

 

[Capstone]

The fire in Rome occurred in 64 CE, while the Jewish War didn't break out until 66. Nero was already persecuting Christians in Rome as scapegoats before that. Kind of strange for a religion that hadn't been "invented" yet!

Not strange at all, considering Nero's place as Vespasian's direct predecessor.

Again, part of the deal would have been the promotion of Titus's literary counterpart as a real life individual, and this likely could have resulted in a bit of post-diction on the part of Roman writers of the era (note that Suetonius referred to the Christians punished by Nero as "a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition".

It's also important to understand that the Roman "invention" was a replacement of the militaristic brand of messianic Judaism that preceded it. After crushing the zealots around 70 CE, a new Roman-friendly version of 'Christianity' emerged complete with the tales of Jesus and his disciples.

 

[konradv]

The fire in Rome occurred in 64 CE, while the Jewish War didn't break out until 66. Nero was already persecuting Christians in Rome as scapegoats before that. Kind of strange for a religion that hadn't been "invented" yet!

Not strange at all, considering Nero's place as Vespasian's direct predecessor.

Again, part of the deal would have been the promotion of Titus's literary counterpart as a real life individual, and this likely could have resulted in a bit of post-diction on the part of Roman writers of the era (note that Suetonius referred to the Christians punished by Nero as "a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition".

It's also important to understand that the Roman "invention" was a replacement a of the militaristic brand of messianic Judaism that preceded it. After crushing the zealots around 70 CE, a new Roman-friendly version of 'Christianity' emerged complete with the tales of Jesus and his disciples.

If it was Roman-friendly, why didn't Titus' brother Domitian get the word? He persecuted Christians when he became emperor.

 

[Capstone]

The intended audience was for Gentiles not Jews.

I'd written:

[...] In other words, the presence of early Aramaic and Greek texts is not only perfectly consistent with Atwill's thesis ...it would actually be an expectation of it. [emphasis added]

This was in response to your point involving the existence of early Aramaic manuals.

Greek may have been the dominant language of the day, but there were still many Jews around the Empire who were literate only in Aramaic ...and they would have constituted a large portion of the Imperial cult's intended audience.

Your objection to Atwill's thesis on the basis on linguistic considerations is indicative of nothing more than your own ignorance WRT his theory.

 

[Capstone]

If it was Roman-friendly, why didn't Titus' brother Domitian get the word? He persecuted Christians when he became emperor.

Quoting Atwill himself:

The story found in the synoptics – Matthew, Mark and Luke – was written during the reigns of Vespasian and Titus. This is the story of god the father and the son of god engaged in a war with the Jews. Following Titus’s death Domitian decided he wanted to be Christ too so he produced GJohn, the Pauline material and Revelation. Notice that the third member of the trinity (the holy spirit – Domitian) becomes more visible in these works

Paul is Domitian’s Jesus, in other words, Paul is a typological character who’s adventures foresee Domitian. The Pauline material and Revelation were wired into Domitian’s court historian Suetonius work The Twelve Caesars in the same way the Gospels were wired into Josephus’s War of the Jews. (Antiquities was produced under Domitian)

I decode the Domitian typology in the next book, The Single Strand, which has as a centerpiece the opening of the seven seals of Revelation to reveal the identity of the ‘Christ’ – Domitian.

The dating of the writing of the Gospels is problematic in that there was redaction before the extant text was completed. For example in the Catholic ceremony The Stations of the Cross, Christ is stabbed in his side by Longinus. This story is no longer in the Gospels but its typological pair is still in Josephus – Wars 5, 7, 312- 314. Someone must have removed the story in the Gospels after having determined it was too obvious.

Duty calls. Gotta run.

Later.

 

[daveman]

What's it matter to you, anyway? [...]

Unfortunately, Christianity is still being used very much as its inventors envisioned -- to control the masses and to realize highly questionable political agendas (including war profiteering). The sooner it goes the way of the Greco/Roman mythology that preceded it ...the better.

And liberalism has killed far more people that Christianity ever could.

 

[peach174]

You have it backwords.
It was written and intended for Gentiles not Jews.
If it was intended for Jews then it would have been written in Aramaic, not Greek.

 

[jillian]

A couple of things has been left out of what he says.

First - the Work's of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews and a History of the Jewish Wars, describes how Jesus looked. That he says the man did exist.
Second - there is evidence of Aramaic manuals.
"Is It True That Some NT Documents were First Written in Aramaic/Syriac and THEN in Greek?" - Probe Ministries
Textually speaking, there is little manuscript evidence to substantiate an Aramaic precedent over the Greek. There are however, ten different Syriac manuscript sources which have survived, dating from the fifth to the tenth centuries A.D. The earliest, a palimpsest written in the 4th or 5th century, is the oldest extant manuscript which is a representative of the Old Syriac translation (which probably originated around 200 A.D). All of these manuscripts give evidence of having borrowed from pre-existing sources--the Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, or the Massoretic tradition.

By far the best Aramaic specimen of the Syriac Peshitta is found in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and dates from the sixth or seventh century A.D. Close behind is one in the British Museum in London which dates from the ninth or tenth century A.D.

Josephus' writings were sponsored by the Romans.

Why would you think he was anything but a propagandist? (using a christian ministries site in support of your claim isn't compelling, btw).

And, no offense, I'm not passing any judgment on your religious beliefs, but from an historic perspective, Jesus (Yeshua) didn't fit the prophesies. And there is no way to know what was written at the time because the Council of Nicea pretty much made sure of it. And Christianity combines judeo-hebrew texts with pagan celebrations. That was an effort to consolidate power on the part of Constantine.

 

[jillian]

What's it matter to you, anyway? [...]

Unfortunately, Christianity is still being used very much as its inventors envisioned -- to control the masses and to realize highly questionable political agendas (including war profiteering). The sooner it goes the way of the Greco/Roman mythology that preceded it ...the better.

And liberalism has killed far more people that Christianity ever could.

really? more than right wing nut fascists did?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Wow. I'm seeing nothing here I haven't a gazillion times. I honestly don't neither Christian NOR atheists are capable of objectively evaluating history. The Christians have their usual idyllic interpretation of Christian history, the atheists have their usual agenda to disprove the historicity of Jesus. Nothing to see here.