Chaupoline

I know that Catholicism was Romanized Christianity. A lot of Catholic rituals were originally the Roman pagan rituals and customs. The Pope is also called the Pontiff, who were the priests of Jupiter. However, as I stated before this is way too complex for the Romans at the time. The Romans would rather have Romanized the Jewish religion as the official religion of Rome than create a new religion that would alienate the Jews. The Romans never acted in this manner before. There are many parallels with the other tales around at the time but that doesn't constitute that there is no historical Jesus.

rostau

As a non-scholar, I find the Flavian hypothesis interesting, but am obviously wary of the fact that people tend to go off on wild, speculative tangents when dealing with this sort of material. I think I am not alone in feeling that I'd like to separate fact from fiction here, and earlier on someone mentioned that there was *some* fact in the argument which the authors of the hypothesis then inflated for their own purposes. Would it be possible for someone with more knowledge than me to describe which of the ideas in the Flavian hypothesis are demonstrably correct?

Chris Weimer

And to believe that I actually bought into the Eisenman crap. It makes really good reading, and really comes together, but only if you leave out the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Thank you Burrows!

rlogan

I was also not moved by the "exact" parallels assertion in these respects:

There are more than eleven events in Jesus' life and more than eleven in Titus' career. The construction of "11 out of 11" has a ring of selective association about it. In addition, we have the concern of the "Rasputin" effect - making a vaguely similar event seem like an "exact" prediction.

The idea of Roman meddling is attractive, and the notion of these cruel "inside jokes" in the gospels is particularly provocative. Wouldn't that be rich?



But Vork pretty much summed up the problem here.

JoeWallack

JW:
Hey I've got a radical idea, let's go to Josephus and take a look for ourselves:

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/war-4.htm

"4. And now Vespasian sent Placidus against those that had fled from Gadara, with five hundred horsemen, and three thousand footmen, while he returned himself to Cesarea, with the rest of the army. But as soon as these fugitives saw the horsemen that pursued them just upon their backs, and before they came to a close fight, they ran together to a certain village, which was called Bethennabris, where finding a great multitude of young men, and arming them, partly by their own consent, partly by force, they rashly and suddenly assaulted Placidus and the troops that were with him. These horsemen at the first onset gave way a little, as contriving to entice them further off the wall; and when they had drawn them into a place fit for their purpose, they made their horse encompass them round, and threw their darts at them. So the horsemen cut off the flight of the fugitives, while the foot terribly destroyed those that fought against them; for those Jews did no more than show their courage, and then were destroyed; for as they fell upon the Romans when they were joined close together, and, as it were, walled about with their entire armor, they were not able to find any place where the darts could enter, nor were they any way able to break their ranks, while they were themselves run through by the Roman darts, and, like the wildest of wild beasts, rushed upon the point of others' swords; so some of them were destroyed, as cut with their enemies' swords upon their faces, and others were dispersed by the horsemen.

5. Now Placidus's concern was to exclude them in their flight from getting into the village; and causing his horse to march continually on that side of them, he then turned short upon them, and at the same time his men made use of their darts, and easily took their aim at those that were the nearest to them, as they made those that were further off turn back by the terror they were in, till at last the most courageous of them brake through those horsemen and fled to the wall of the village. And now those that guarded the wall were in great doubt what to do; for they could not bear the thoughts of excluding those that came from Gadara, because of their own people that were among them; and yet, if they should admit them, they expected to perish with them, which came to pass accordingly; for as they were crowding together at the wall, the Roman horsemen were just ready to fall in with them. However, the guards prevented them, and shut the gates, when Placidus made an assault upon them, and fighting courageously till it was dark, he got possession of the wall, and of the people that were in the city, when the useless multitude were destroyed; but those that were more potent ran away, and the soldiers plundered the houses, and set the village on fire. As for those that ran out of the village, they stirred up such as were in the country, and exaggerating their own calamities, and telling them that the whole army of the Romans were upon them, they put them into great fear on every side; so they got in great numbers together, and fled to Jericho, for they knew no other place that could afford them any hope of escaping, it being a city that had a strong wall, and a great multitude of inhabitants. But Placidus, relying much upon his horsemen, and his former good success, followed them, and slew all that he overtook, as far as Jordan; and when he had driven the whole multitude to the river-side, where they were stopped by the current, (for it had been augmented lately by rains, and was not fordable,) he put his soldiers in array over against them; so the necessity the others were in provoked them to hazard a battle, because there was no place whither they could flee. They then extended themselves a very great way along the banks of the river, and sustained the darts that were thrown at them, as well as the attacks of the horsemen, who beat many of them, and pushed them into the current. At which fight, hand to hand, fifteen thousand of them were slain, while the number of those that were unwillingly forced to leap into Jordan was prodigious. There were besides two thousand and two hundred taken prisoners. A mighty prey was taken also, consisting of asses, and sheep, and camels, and oxen."


JW:
Sow (pun intended), the 2,000 reference would appear to be from the 2,200 prisoners and not the rebels who rushed into the holy sea. Still, interesting parallels here. In the words of Arty Johnson, I find "vehhhy interesting" Mark 5: (KJV)

8 "For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.
14 And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
15 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid."

"Legion" refers to the Roman soldiers? The Roman soldiers are the unclean pigs that the Messiah will cast out of the country?

It is easy for me to picture TNG Christians who knew who the author of "Mark" was and that the "Gospel" was in part based on this type of copying who had the following conversation:

Flavius Flounder:
When my descendents find out that "Mark" wasn't written by anyone who knew Jesus they'll kill me.

Senator Bluto:
Hey, we'll just tell em that we left the signed original outside the Church one night and when we woke up the next morning, it was gone. We'll report it to the Congregation as missing and insure that we know who the real author was from Church Tradition.

Falvius Flounder:
Do you think that'll work?

Senator Bluto:
Hey, it's got to work better than the truth.



Joseph

PLAGIARIZE, v.
To take the thought or style of another writer whom one has never, never read.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Vorkosigan

Here are some notes I have for the Gerasene Demoniac:

A number of other possible sources have been suggested. Macdonald (2000) argues that this scene is based on the story of Polyphemus the one-eyed giant from the Odyssey (summarized on this site) and the story of Circe, who turns Odysseus' men into pigs.

Many New Testament scholars see a reference to a Roman legion occupying Palestine, either Legio 1 Italica, which had as its legionary standard a boar and was in the east in around 67, or more likely Legio X Fretensis, which had among its standards a bull, a tireme, a dolphin, and a boar, and was responsible for occupying Jerusalem after the Jewish War (ended 70 CE), staying into the fourth century. After 70 it was stationed in Gerasa for a while (Winter 1974, p180-181). Against this interpretation is the fact that Gerasa is in Gentile rather than Jewish territory, where the legion would not have been viewed so negatively (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p166). However, in the second century Legio X was made the sole occupying legion of "Syria Palestina" (Hadrian's abusive name for the Jewish homeland), so a later date for Mark might be indicated. In addition to the symbol of the pig itself, Myers (1988, p191) points out that this pericope is saturated with military terminology. The term agele that the writer uses for a "herd" of pigs is often used to denote a gaggle of new recruits for the military, the Greek term epetrepsen ("he dismissed them") echoes a military command, and the pigs' charge (ormesen) into the lake sounds like a military attack.

Cliff Carrington in his Flavian Testament has also pointed out some parallels between this and a passage in Josephus, where Jewish rebels, led by a rebel named Jesus (son of Shaphat), are chased into the nearby lake and killed by Titus' army. Myers (1988, p191) also sees possible Josephean parallels, with both War 4.9.1, and Antiquities 14.15.10. As the general level, enemy soldiers killed by drowning recalls the fate of Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea.

JohnHud

Both Carrington and Atwill agree that the Demoniac at Gadara is a Flavian literary satire of the Roman battle at that location. (Carrington by the way also agrees with Atwill's other parallels). Of course it is also one of the Homeric satires identified by MacDonald. The point about the gospels is that their stories were witten to be interpreted in terms of four different levels of meaning, in accordance with Hebrew interpretative conventions.

JH

TonyBozo

I found a very good, detailed review of Atwill's book (now called "Caesar's Messiah") at:

http://www.webspawner.com/users/caes...ev1/index.html

CAESAR'S MESSIAH: DR. HARWOOD'S REVIEW

In response to Dr. William Harwood’s (so-called) review of ‘The Roman Origin of Christianity’ (renamed ‘Caesar’s Messiah’, pub. Ulysses Press) as published in Oct. 2004 issue of the ‘Freethought Perspective’.* [Oct. 2004, Roman Piso]

I read with great interest, Dr. Harwood’s "review" of ‘The Roman Origin of Christianity’ by Joseph Atwill. Not because I agreed with what he was saying, but because it illustrates so well why it is that so many other scholars and researchers have never been able to get at the truth regarding Christianity and its creation. It seems rather strange to me that someone can (or would want to) claim that they are giving a book review without even reading the whole book; that does not even make sense. It is like not taking into consideration that (or caring that) one may be taking something out of context. Book reviews of scholarly material should not be made by people who have not read the entire book. Why? Because this does not allow the author to make the case or to address the points that he brings up or to show how the author had arrived at his conclusions.

I would have thought that any reviewer of material of this kind would want to be as fair and impartial as possible. Which means that one would want to read the entire book (and any others which address the same issues) and then if the reviewer still has questions or reservations, that he/she would write them down and send a copy to the author for reply; before reaching any harsh or hasty conclusions. This is possible with Joseph Atwill, Abelard Reuchlin and myself. All one need do is to write and ask us about whatever they may not understand. We would be happy to clarify and/or supply that information. One of the first things that I would like to say about this is that Dr. Harwood, by not reading Atwill’s complete book never saw perhaps the most convincing pieces of evidence that Atwill presents in his book; that of the exact parallels that exist between the story of Jesus and the military career of Titus. And the fact that at least 11 of these occur in the same sequence! The odds of this happening by chance are extraordinary!

Atwill uses the mathematical calculation for the chances of probability of this occurring with eleven of these events (exact parallels) in exactly the same order (even though there are actually even more parallels found). The probability of this happening by chance, as opposed to deliberately is calculated via a more conservative method (giving the minimum likelihood). There is no number manipulation here to find something that is not represented realistically. The likelihood, or probability ratio therefore, for these parallels occurring in the exact same sequence by chance in terms of percentage is less than .0000003%; which is to say, in effect, zero. Thus, it could not happen. And then, also proving that these were deliberate constructs with the author’s intent involved. They were created this way purposely. At this point, this appears to be extremely strong evidence that both were written by the same author or authors. But as we continue to examine this, we realize that there is even more to this. Atwill calculated the probability of this based upon only the 11 examples that were not only exact parallels, but which also occurred in the very same order. Thus, as 11 factorial (11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1). The result is then the same as 1 chance in 39,916,800. This deals expressly with the chances of one account being directly related to or influenced by the other and gives us the percentage for the likelihood as 99.999997% certainty that the two accounts are directly related to each other and that one (the earlier one) influenced the other.

It is also proof that the author/s of each were one and the same. How is this? Because not only were there exact parallels found, but those parallels occur in the very same order (sequence). And add to that, the fact that the very same literary devices were employed in creating both of them. They correspond to each other in many subtle ways which were missed by the vast majority of researchers (until now); but which the author/s of BOTH of these texts were privy to.** All ancient texts should be examined in terms of their construction – as literature.

Dr. Harwood is one of the saddest "reviewers" that I can think of and this is because he is not objective and appears to have no clue as to how important it is to do his homework on a subject before opening his mouth about it. For instance, I had noted that Dr. Harwood had also harshly judged my book ‘The Synthesis of Christianity’ (which is about a very intricate subject, and therefore, difficult to understand without some background in that specific subject), without even reading my other books about this.*** What I think that reviewers of material about such a unique and unfamiliar subject should remember is that they should not make the assumption that they are qualified to comment upon it until they have read enough to have a working knowledge of it. Dr. Harwood most certainly does not.

Dr. Harwood says in his "review" that Atwill "based his conclusions almost completely on English translations..." I think that this is a style difference more than anything else. This is nearly the very same statement that I’ve heard another so-called scholar say about MY work as well. And that person was just as incorrect as Dr. Harwood. I wondered WHY it was that that person had made that statement and I found that it was an attempt to reduce me and my work down to someone who only knew and read passages that were translated into English. In short, to make it appear that I had no knowledge or command of the ancient languages involved. This, is what I see Dr. Harwood doing to Atwill. In my case, I was writing for a wider audience (not limiting my material to scholars alone), and my thought was to try not to intimidate or overwhelm readers. But instead of trying to understand that, some people only see what they want to see. The world today, is not made up entirely of scholars. And the fact of the matter is that unless an author wants to limit their work only to scholars, they are going to have to write in ways that will meet the reader half-way by writing in language that the average reader will be able to comprehend. Again, my thought was not to cater to or to try to convince other scholars, but to reach a wider audience and to avoid intimidating the average reader.

Fortunately, I was able to expose that statement for what it really was (in my case) by bringing the text or reference in question to the forefront and explaining how it was that the person making the claim was incorrect. I was being criticized for citing passages from the Loeb edition of Pliny The Younger, which was translated by Betty Radice. I have found that the Loeb editions of the classics and other ancient texts are perhaps the most precise and accurate translations that are available to most people today (including scholars). I made the point that if he were criticizing ME for citing the translation of Pliny The Younger by Betty Radice, that he was also criticizing Harvard University and the panel of experts who had approved the translation by Betty Radice for publication and to represent the scholarship of Harvard University itself. He quickly abandoned the idea of trying to make a case or point based upon the use of "translations into English." The fact of the matter is that I am quite capable of reading the ancient texts in those ancient languages with extreme precision; but I DO use translations made by other scholars which are already published and well-known, because I know that these are a) accepted by most scholars and b) because they can be more easily found by those who may seek them to confirm references, and c) because they may be obtained or purchased by the general public at an affordable price. I think of these things, because I realize that the average (non-scholar) reader will eventually need to confirm these things for themselves.

The average reader, is who my first few books on this subject had been written for, not necessarily to convince other scholars. The books that I am writing now, are going to be written for other scholars. So, another thing that I will say to those who wish to review books on this subject is that they should not do themselves and others a disservice by not taking the book in the context for which it was intended. If it was written for a wider audience and not limited to scholars alone, then please take it as that and don’t try to make it appear to fall short of scholarly standards when that was not the intent of the author in the first place. Sometimes scholars write for a wider audience and in doing so, reserve the more scholarly information for other books which are written specifically for other scholars. Know the difference. Atwill’s book, however, TEACHES scholars a number of things - and so, his intent shows through.

Dr. Harwood’s criticism of Joseph Atwill is of no real substance. Instead, he reaches for the same standard items that we find religious bigots using. His criticism is merely a thinly disguised attempt at belittlement by implying that Atwill does not have a working knowledge of the ancient languages involved in this scholarly subject. He also paints Atwill as ‘sloppy’, when the fact of the matter is that Dr. Harwood failed to do his homework on this subject and launched his attack criticism without being fully informed and educated to the very subject that he is criticizing.

And, Dr. Harwood then states, "he (Atwill) has no awareness of any of the competent scholarship in the field of Christian origins." One of the most important things that I have tried to point out to scholars of the old school is that they were never taught how to study ancient history correctly, but instead, have been trapped into thinking that they have. Ancient history never happened in the way that they believe it did. And thus, their conclusions are incorrect. The way in which scholars like Dr. Harwood were taught is a misleading way. They "study" in the same way that Christians study the gospels, by simply reading and believing that they are being told the truth by those ancient authors. Both are based upon faith. Though I am sure that Dr. Harwood does not even recognize the similarity. What does Dr. Harwood call "competent"? Does he think that his research is competent? How can this be, when he makes assumptions and does not even explain them or make them clear? I will provide you with some examples within this response. For one thing, it is apparent from Dr. Harwood’s statements that he thinks that he already knows what "competent" scholarship is in this field and what is not. But he makes many major assumptions. What people like Atwill and I are saying to other scholars is that other scholars have got it wrong. And that they think of ancient history incorrectly, and this is because they were taught it incorrectly. This is precisely why it is that they have never been able to solve things like this before.

It is not that we are unaware of the work of others, but rather that we do not agree with them - and we state our case as to just why that is. Unfortunately, when people do not read our entire work or books, they cannot know that. One more thing that I have noticed about Dr. Harwood is that he gets mixed up because he uses later texts to support items stated in contemporary primary sources. He does not value primary sources for what they are. This shows that he is not careful in his process of information gathering when it comes to reaching conclusions or for supporting any given issue. This is the same mistake that I have seen a number of so-called scholars make. They use information out of context from sources from later times and try to apply them to the time in question. They cannot do this without being certain that they are not being deliberately misled by the ancient authors and without being certain that they are not taking things out of context. Many scholars and researchers even assume that just because freedom of speech is something that THEY have known in their own time, during their lives, that this was also true in ancient times. That is another extremely important item that many so-called scholars often mistakenly assume.

Also, I would like to point out another mistake that is often made by some so-called scholars today, and that is to study one side of certain times in history and then to think that they have the full picture of it. In the case of the time and places in history with respect to this subject, most people like Dr. Harwood study the Roman side almost exclusively. If they do study any of the other history of that time, they do not give it the same weight that they do the Roman authors. They know, for instance, very little about the Jews or of the Jewish history of the time (from the Talmud). In fact, they are used to thinking of the Jews and their war with the Romans in an entirely incorrect way. They do not know even the basic elements involved, nor do they know what each of the Jewish sects stood for or how they were involved in the war. So-called scholars like Dr. Harwood are used to thinking of the "Jews" of that time merely as a group, and not in terms of particular sects in certain places at certain times. In fact, they still think of the Jewish war with the Romans as if it were only two ‘revolts’. When the truth of the matter is that it was an all-out war which lasted well over 100 years (beginning in 135 BCE, and lasting until 135 CE). They do not even know what the war was being waged over. And if they did, then they would realize the real reasons for the creation of Christianity by the Romans. But not knowing this, they can only make assumptions and mislead others.

Lucretius

In fact Tony that isnt a review of Atwill's book it IS a review of a review
I looked at this and the other pages and I am still not convinced the repetiton of a statement that all the other ancient historians are wrong because they were taught wrongly does not inspire me with any confidence.
Neither does the great conspiracy theory he seems to propose a few quotes from later pages



All rather silly in my personal opinion

gregor

What's with all the folks flogging Atwill's book (or apologists for it) on this forum. Methinks I smell a literary agent somewhere.