Posted on 02/08/2021 6:56:56 AM PST by Cronos
We hesitate to write a critique of Joseph Atwill’s recent claim that Jesus never existed, arguing that the Romans invented the entire life, ministry, and teaching of Jesus (A recent online headline reads, “Ancient Confession Found: ‘We Invented Jesus’”). We hesitate to write this critique only because we worry that this will give backhanded merit to Atwill’s claims. It’s kind of like writing an argument for why Santa Claus doesn’t exist: even engaging in the debate almost gives the illusion that there is a debate. After all, even atheistic critics like Bart Ehrman have written, “The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet.”[1] Why should we even engage conspiracy theorists like this at all?
But unfortunately, many people in Western culture are so ignorant of historical, NT studies that they are in some cases bothered by Atwill’s theory. For this reason, we feel a brief critique is in order.
In his book Caesar’s Messiah,[2] Joseph Atwill argues that Jesus of Nazareth was the invention of the Roman Empire, and Josephus wrote the entire NT after AD 70. He claims this was due to supposed parallels between the NT and Josephus’ Jewish War. Their motive? Atwill argues that the Romans invented Jesus to pacify the Jewish people, having them believe in a suffering messiah, rather than a conquering one.
There are at least five reasons why we feel that Atwill’s theory stretches our credulity beyond the breaking point:
Even radical atheistic skeptics are intensely critical of Atwill. For instance, atheist Richard Carrier (of infidels.org) writes,
Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers I often get conflated with. Mythicists like him make the job of serious scholars like me so much harder, because people see, hear, or read them and think their nonsense is what mythicism is. They make mythicism look ridiculous. So I have to waste time (oh by the gods, so much time) explaining how I am not arguing anything like their theories or using anything like their terrible methods, and unlike them I actually know what I am talking about, and have an actual Ph.D. in a relevant subject from a real university… his theory entails a massive and weirdly erudite conspiracy of truly bizarre scope and pedigree… Atwill is a total crank, and his work should be ignored, indeed everywhere warned against as among the worst of mythicism, not representative of any serious argument that Jesus didn’t exist.
Likewise, radical NT skeptic Robert Price writes,
According to Atwill, the reader needs to comprehend perhaps the most complex literary satire ever written. But Atwill’s envisioned satire seems so complex as to be incoherent.
Atheist P.Z. Myers writes,
If you’re one of the many atheists who gleefully forwarded this to me or credulously mentioned it on twitter… I see you’ve already met the good friend of so many half-baked wackos in the world, Confirmation Bias.
Even fellow skeptics have disowned Atwill’s theory. This should be our first red flag that Atwill’s theory is suspect.
Atwill claims that Christianity didn’t exist before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. But even the Roman historian Tacitus places Christian persecution under Emperor Nero in AD 64—well before the destruction of Jerusalem. Tacitus even calls the Christian movement an “immense multitude.” He writes,
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome… Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination when daylight had expired. [3]
If Christianity was a Roman conspiracy, then why would Tacitus—a Roman historian—claim that Christianity existed in AD 64? And, more importantly, why would the Roman emperor Nero persecute Christians in this way, if Rome was actually trying to support Christianity?
Tacitus isn’t the only Roman to mention Christianity. In AD 110, the Roman governor Pliny writes to the Roman Emperor Trajan about the Christian movement in Bithynia. Here Trajan tells Pliny that Christians should be killed, unless they abandon their faith. Trajan writes,
If indeed [Christians] should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance.[4]
From this excerpt, it is very clear that Trajan was trying to stop Christianity—not support it. Why would the Romans invent a religion that they would later persecute like this? Moreover, if Rome invented Christianity, then why execute Peter and Paul?[5] Instead of crucifying these two central leaders of the early Christian movement, they should have had them on their payroll.
Finally, the Romans weren’t the only ones to mention Jesus (see Part Four of Evidence Unseen). Other Greek and Jewish sources also mention Jesus of Nazareth. Were these hostile sources also part of this “Roman conspiracy”?
The NT affirms that Jesus has “all authority on heaven and Earth” (Mt. 28:18), and he is called the “king of kings and lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16). This is why, in the book of Acts, the disciples twice disobey the government in order to obey Christ (Acts 4:19; 5:29). Why would the Romans invent a messiah that would take away their authority, rather than garner it?
Moreover, the NT affirms the exclusivity of Christ—not permitting the worship of false gods (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5). If the Romans were trying to create a deity that would be friendly to emperor worship, why invent one that demands worship of Jesus—not Pagan emperors? The Christian faith spread quickly to Pagan countries in the Roman Empire, and it caused many of the “good Roman citizens” to rebel against emperor worship. But why convert Gentiles who were already good Roman citizens? Furthermore, if the NT was supposed to convert Jews, then why write it in Greek—rather than Hebrew or the dialect of Aramaic?
The gospels and epistles contain different language, themes, and grammatical styles from one another. This reflects multiple authorship—not single authorship. In fact, this is utterly inconsistent with the notion that Josephus was the single author of all 27 NT books (Besides, isn’t it a touch of overkill to write 27 books? Why not just write one book?).
Atwill states that the Romans were motivated to invent Christianity to create a more passive Jewish community in Israel. However, the Romans had just destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. They weren’t trying to rehabilitate Judaism; they were trying to force it into submission. The Romans had no problem utterly destroying the Zealots in Israel—either under those in the Jewish War in AD 66 or later under Bar Kokhba in AD 132.
Moreover, most Jewish traditions were non-violent. There were four veins of Judaism in the first century: (1) Pharisees, (2) Sadducees, (3) Essenes, and (4) Zealots. After Jannaeus crucified 800 Pharisees, the Pharisees became apolitical. Likewise, the Sadducees were largely secular, working alongside the Romans, and the Essenes lived far from Jerusalem at Qumran. Therefore, the only remaining group was the Zealot party, which was militaristic. The Pharisees waited for God’s overthrow of Rome, the Sadducees became wealthy off of Rome, the Essenes withdrew from Rome, and the Zealots wanted to war with Rome. Thus if the Romans wanted to “invent” a passive, Jewish theology, they had three out of four groups to choose from. Why invent a new one, which would be unfamiliar to traditional Jews?
We should point out that Joseph Atwill is not a NT scholar or a historian; he is a dotcom businessman. Therefore, he has no educational prowess on this subject—anymore than the average person with a business degree could offer. This is, no doubt, why his work has suffered from such harsh critique in the scholarly world. By the way, the price is $40 a ticket (or 25 British pounds) for Atwill’s “Covert Messiah” conference in London, England this weekend. We would be naïve to think that a business man like Atwill has purely academic motives in throwing this conference.
this article debunks that
What drivel— so why would the Romans invent Jesus?
1.) to stick it to the Jews (isolated largely in that area, btw, demographically little to go on that there were court jews so to speak, screwing with the Consuls and Caesars (that was later...as done to the Hetman of Cossacks for example).
This reason would be equally irrational theory in that when Romans dictated a new “god”— everyone had to sacrifice to them, worship etc. as a part of the government. Acknowledge them as gods... plural. That clearly didn’t happen until much later— Constantine (and even that was said to be a “death bed” conversion, Constantine usurped the political power of Christians to his own devices). No- it wasn’t that.
Or..2.) did the very down trodden non-Sanhedrin /elitist, ie. lower class jews in Judea get tired of all the percentages being squeezed out of them (namely the temple moneychangers had had enough of Caiaphus (sic) and advanced a “messiah” (there were many in those days always “debunked” by the Big Tech rabbis... heh)== finally a highly believable messiah performing real miracles and preaching directly to the jews and pagans in a completely scriptural manner and proper orientation for the jewish prophecies?
Or 3.) Jesus was the Son of God, came down to show the way to the Lord, took on and forgave all their/our sins, whose Power was superior to the pagan Romans (many of whom obviously converted, tossing out their useless ‘gods’), and the corrupt lying elite rabbinate— in that area resulting in the destruction of the Sanhedrin. Looking back to the Temple of Solomon in the Holy City... and all that happened afterward, including Jesus of Nazareth. IOW, He was the real thing— the best deal in all of the World, and the leave behinds stayed behind to screw up the world to this very day while ignoring the teachings of Christ.
The Way, The Truth and the Light. Out of darkness, Light, everytime darkness tried to make a comeback— defeated. Yeah— That is the Truth. and this author is yet another atheistic grubbing a@@.
Atwill obviously never studied Roman history. He seems to be one of these lightweight moderns who believe their current state of mind and social viewpoints must have been dominant in the past.
If the Romans had thought Jews were still a problem after destroying their Temple and exhiling many, they would simply have killed the remaining Jews or sold them into slavery. Look what they did when they decided Carthage had caused too much trouble. Or, if Atwill is viewing this, go read up on that bit of real Roman history. You might get a clue and stop embarrassing yourself.
FF Bruce wrote a book on Extra Biblical history that documented non biblical historical references to Jesus. I have or had a copy and have been unable to find it. it is out of print.
This appears to have most of that information online as well.
See NOTES further down the page.
https://alwaysbeready.com/extrabiblical-historical-sources-corroborate-the-bible/
There was one thing that I Did not see, and that was a letter from an Arab Businessman who was in Jersalem and wrote
(Not my site...there may be others if you look.)
This is a crackpot idea but it has been around at least since the 1960s. I recall reading a column in 1969 in which the writer alludes to it (he thought the idea was nuts) and commented, “If that is so, then the Thirty Years War wasn’t necessary.”
I offer here an interpretation of Caesar’s Messiah that neither confirms atheists’ or religionists’ reviews of the book but, nevertheless, finds Atwill’s conspiracy theory and a providential origin of Christianity as both plausible and compatible. Thus, those in both ideological camps of thought will find my review disappointing and engendering cognitive dissonance (denial). I will borrow some insights from sociological historian Max Weber in order to elucidate my viewpoint.
Atwill’s thesis is that the New Testament Gospels were written by Roman propagandist and former Jewish priest Josephus; Berenice the daughter of the Greco-Jewish ruler Herod; and former Jewish soldier turned Roman general Tiberius Alexander, as a military psychological operation (PSYOPS). The aim of this psych operation was to pacify the Jewish zealots who had previously wiped out a Roman army contingent including Roman general Cestius Gallus. Jews resisted Roman taxation, Roman appointment of Jewish Temple priests and Roman emperor Caligula’s placement of his deity-like statue in every Jewish temple. Zealot Jews killed all priests who collaborated with Rome.
Despite all the valid criticisms of Atwill’s book, I nevertheless find his Roman conspiracy theory to be self-evident for anyone who does a simple reading of the Christian Gospels. As Atwill states, the Gospels call for believers to:
• Matthew: Turn the other cheek (and do not fight Rome))
• Matthew: Pay one’s taxes and other tribute to Rome (Roman citizens were tax exempt)
• Mark: If one is rich, give away all their property and money to the poor (so that they cannot fund anti-Roman resistance)
• Matthew: To “go the extra mile” to help strangers (to help carry a Roman soldier’s supplies)
• Matthew: Avoid mass persuasion and hysteria which will cause those who are possessed with a demon to run to the sea and drown (allusion to Roman legions and Masada siege and mass suicide?)
• Matthew: “Put your sword into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (by war against the Roman Empire)
• Luke: “Love the stranger” (Roman soldier)
• Luke: “Love your enemies” (the Romans)
• Matthew: Understand that Jesus was sent “only to the lost sheep of Israel” to convert them (the Jewish resisters against Rome)
• Mark: Not blame the Roman soldiers for the crucifixion (“Christ fiction” - but blame the Jewish priests)
• John: Lose their life for Jesus (not for the Jewish Zealots)
The above obviousness does not need Atwill’s convoluted analysis that Jesus is a humanly-created archetype for the Roman Emperor Titus.
Assuming that Atwill’s Roman conspiracy theory is flawed but plausible, to what extent can we be certain that his theory does not leave room for divine providence in the Jesus story? Is it plausible that Christianity was an unintended consequence of fraud that pullulated (spread so as to be common) to all Jewish communities in the Diaspora. And later Christianity spread to Syria and Egypt as a way for those areas to avoid being over-taxed or wiped-out by the Romans?
Is It not possible that the Jesus story may have a theological origin anyway and that such unintended consequences might reflect the hand of God? This insight comes from agnostic historian Max Weber who pointed out that humans are not capable of predicting the outcomes of their actions. In other words, there may be room for providential coincidence (or chance) in the Jesus story no matter if it was the outcome of fraud. Even if Christianity was a plot to convert militant Jews, it later backfired and became the religion of the Empire. One could say God had the last laugh?
This means that there is every reason to distrust those partisans who claim to have all the keys to understanding the Jesus story as either fact or fiction. For from Christianity the following emanated: a religion of peace and commerce (compared to extremist Judaism and Islam); a universal, not an ethnic religion; the importance of the individual over sect, caste, clan and tribe, serfdom and slavery; and the birth of science over magic and astrology.
Note: I am an unorthodox Christian who does not believe that faith requires the certainty of inerrant scriptures, some propagandist posing as an historian, an infallible pope, some rare mystical experience that other people never have, some therapeutic experience or participation in some progressive social change movement. I am equally dubious of those atheists who also seek certainty in historical relativism that would deny the human experience of religious transcendence and the wonder and awe of the unknowable. For a skeptical overview of Christianity, one might read the works of Peter L. Berger: Questions of Faith: A Skeptical Affirmation of Christianity, 2003; The Heretical Imperative (1980) and A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural (1970).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.