keyser_soze

IIRC, the citizenship for the jews was given by julius caesar prior to the battle in alexandria between cleopatra/caesar's forces, and those of her younger brother's forces. The question of citizenship, where it was extremely difficult to get it, ended during the reign of marius, who started the incorporation of the italians into the roman fold. This continued under Sulla, and then under gaius julius. Citizenship was seen, post marius, as a means of annexing and spreading....to be used as a tool, no differently than the roads(rome took their roads with them). Of course this is from memory, and it may contain errors. But, though cleopatra later renegged on the jews re: their egyptian citizenship, I don't recall anyone removing the citizenship that caesar bestowed upon them.

Chris Weimer

In the empire, all native Italians that were not slaves were technically citizens, and that extended to Greece, Gaul, Hispania, Iudaea, Aegyptus, etc... the later you get in the years.

TonyBozo

Okay, this is a legitimate review:

http://www.insmkt.com/ellensreview.htm




Joseph Atwill has written an intriguing "Jesus-Book." He calls it, The Roman Origins of Christianity. It is ingeniously conceived, and as was the case with Steinfeld's runaway best seller, The Passover Plot, Atwill's new study will be both highly stimulating and enormously controversial. It will entertain, inspire, provoke, and enrage various learned scholars and informed lay readers.



Atwill approaches his subject with the plainly announced assumption that "the question of how Christianity began" is "an open one." This claim is grounded in the facts that numerous messianic sects and mystery religions were percolating through Roman and Jewish cultures in the first century, all of which have proven to be fictitious, if not hilarious, and all of which have come to nothing, except Christianity. Moreover, we have no objective evidence today that a person named Jesus of Nazareth ever existed at that time.



So the author of this innovative volume has proposed a new and radically unconventional approach to the "Jesus question," and then carries his thesis through consistently to formulate an alternative model for understanding the narratives of the New Testament and the works of Jesus' contemporary, Flavius Josephus.



Noting that events in the narratives of Jesus' ministry, reported in the gospels, parallel episodes in Josephus' reports of Titus Flavius' military campaigns, Atwill explores the possibility that "a Roman imperial family, the Flavians, created Christianity, and even more incredibly, ... placed a literary satire within the Gospels and War of the Jews to inform posterity of this fact."



Vespasian and his sons, Titus and Domitian, maintained the Flavian Dynasty from 69 - 96 CE, just the period of Josephus' tenure as their court historian, and the rise of the Christian Movement. Atwill contends that the Christian ideology and ritual practice built upon the model of Mithraism, was generated by the Flavians to offer a persuasive alternative to the numerous contentious and rebellious Jewish messianic sects constantly troublesome in Roman Palestine



The author adduces a remarkable spate of data from the New Testament, the Works of Josephus, and the history of the Roman Empire of the last half of the first century, to weave a coherent, solid, and internally consistent tapestry.



He tells a story never before attempted, sounds a trumpet never previously heard, and explores a world of potential truth until now thoroughly obscured from our vision. "Once Jesus was universally established as a historical individual, any other possibility became, evidentially, invisible. The more we believed in Jesus as a world-historical figure, the less we were able to understand him in any other way."



After being driven from Palestine by the revolutionary Sicarii in 66 CE, the Roman army under Titus reentered the Israelite domain and destroyed the revolutionaries. Atwill contends that Christian Messianism was then created by the Flavians to fill the vacuum so created. The experiment succeeded with enormous effect, marginalizing Judaism and the emperor cult, and moving the new religion toward a dominant role in the empire.



Atwill's thesis is eminently worth exploring. Both for its new ideas and for its anti-establishmentarianism in the world of biblical studies, this book is likely to become a notable best seller.


This is your opinion and it is your prerogative to hold this opinion.

Opinions are like... well you know... and those base on nothing but opinion are exactly that.

JohnHud

Review of Joseph Atwill, Caesar's Messiah (April 2005),Ulysses Press


Atwill's new study will be both highly stimulating and enormously controversial. It will entertain, inspire, provoke, and enrage various learned scholars and informed lay readers. The author of this innovative volume has proposed a new and radically unconventional approach to the "Jesus question," and then carries his thesis through consistently to formulate an alternative model for understanding the narratives of the New Testament and the works of Jesus' contemporary, Flavius Josephus. Noting that events in the narratives of Jesus' ministry, reported in the gospels, parallel episodes in Josephus' reports of Titus Flavius' military campaigns, Atwill explores the possibility that "a Roman imperial family, the Flavians, created Christianity, and even more incredibly, ... placed a literary satire within the Gospels and War of the Jews to inform posterity of this fact." The author adduces a remarkable spate of data from the New Testament, the Works of Josephus, and the history of the Roman Empire of the last half of the first century, to weave a coherent, solid, and internally consistent tapestry. Atwill's thesis is eminently worth exploring. Both for its new ideas and for its anti-establishmentarianism in the world of biblical studies, this book is likely to become a notable best seller.

Vorkosigan

Goooooooo, John! I can't wait to see it on the bookshelves.

John Deere

Hi everyone,

It is interesting to see the various impressions my book brings out. I would like to add the following comments.

First, the Gospels make the case that the generation of Jews that rebelled from Roman rule were wicked and that the coming destruction of the Galilean villages, the encircling of Jerusalem with a wall and the raising of the temple were ordained by God. What other group than the Flavians held this position?

Second, the typolgy that I show exists between Jesus and Titus was simply a continuation of the literary technique which established that the life of the first savior of Israel - Moses - 'foresaw' the second savior of Israel - Jesus. The obvious 'divine linkage' between Jesus and Moses was established by parallel names, locations and, most importantly, by a vast parallel sequence of related events. The 'divine linkage' that demonstrates that the life of the second savior of Israel - Jesus - 'foresaw' the final savior of Israel - Titus - simply continues this technique and, once understood, is no less clear.

Finally, discovering a intertextual relationship between purportedly Hebraic literature like the Gospels and Wars of the Jews should not be a surprise to anyone. Believing that 'God's plan' was revealed by typolgical linkage was common among Jews during this era. For example, the Habbakuk Pesher was written by someone looking for the same type of connection between scripture and history that I claim exists between the Gospels and Wars of the Jews. In fact, the Gospels were created as a spoof of the messianic Jews' typological searching, which evidentally struck the Flavian intellectual circle as barbaric.

In my opinion, the clarity of the parallels I point out in Caesar's Messiah is so vivid that few readers will doubt my conclusions. So my question to all bloggers this: Have you read the book?

I would very much like to see critical analysis from those who have read the book, but it is difficult to know how to respond to criticism from those that haven't.

Joe Atwill

steven andresen

I like Atwill's thesis. I am not a historian or scholar of biblical texts. So, my questions are simple.

I was under the impression that the straight telling of a history, where an attempt is made to state facts and relate a coherent story of what happened, was not common during this time period. That is, the gospels were not then understood as histories from this person's point of view, or that person's point of view. Therefore, the argument that Atwill makes here, that a story was made up in order to control crowds, should not be implausible. He's saying, if they weren't histories, they could be any number of other things.

My impression is that Atwill's thesis will be rejected by those who believe that the gospels, as well as the letters of Paul, and other related texts, get their credibility from their relaying corroborable facts. I read Atwill as saying, among other things, that the gospels, and so forth, do no such thing.

I am curious what Atwill says about the suggestions that the accounts of Jesus are not about actual happenings or historical people, but explain them in terms of other Roman leaders, like Julius Caesar. He argues, I take it, that the orthodox explanation of the story of Jesus cannot be taken as a history relating facts. Does the fact that there are others who argue there are other explanations seperate from Atwill's, who argue, for example, that Jesus is more about Julius Caesar than the Flavians, weaken the whole effort to question the orthodox view? Doesn't Atwill have to show why his explanation works better than these too, in addition to being a better account than orthodoxy? I think he has to address these accounts.

I am curious what Atwill would say about the distinction between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith. I take it, Atwill's argument addresses the question of the historical Jesus. He wants to say the orthodox commitment to it is misplaced. However, I wonder what he thinks this means for the story about the Jesus of Faith.

I am puzzled about this because it would seem Atwill's argument casts doubt on the story of Jesus of faith as well as the historical Jesus. However, he tells us he does not intend to get into skepticism of people's faith. On page 337 of my copy, Atwill claims,

"This work was in no way created as a criticism of the faith of contemporary Christians."

I cannot see how his argument can avoid such criticism. It is my understanding that the effort to understand the historical Jesus is an effort to answer various skeptical doubts about Christianity. There is the question whether there ever was a Jesus who said and did the things claimed for him, and who was the son of God, as claimed for him. The effort to support the Christian claims by looking into the historical records have been weak. Atwill seems to cast doubt on the few pieces of evidence people have continued to rely on. Atwill's argument seems to be a relevant attack on this question of biblical research.

However, one of the reasons that Atwill's argument will seem implausible should be that it fails to explain the Jesus of faith part of Christianity. How does Atwill account for the fact that Christianity seems to be the basis for moral and epistemological understanding if Atwill's thesis would be true? Doesn't the fact that there is a Jesus of faith undermine the credibility of Atwill's claims?

I have been particularly interested in what Atwill says about a criticism I encountered about his argument. The criticism goes like this, Atwill's thesis seems implausible because there does not seem to be any reason for the Flavians to take the trouble to make all these fake texts when the jewish armies seemed to be defeated in the field. Why make up this elaborate story if the Roman armies had defeated them already?

I have my own answer to this question, but I wonder what Atwill says. Does he think this is an important criticism of his position?

John Deere

Dear Steve;

No I do not think that the fact that the Flavians had defeated the Zealots in the field is daunting to my thesis. Bear in mind that the war that the Flavians won was merely one conflict in a stream of warfare that began years before and didn't stop until 135 CE. The Flavians would have known that the seeds of the next conflict were within the Jews' messianic religion and wished to try and restrain it. Further, though Titus had defeated them he had not made the Jews' call him 'Lord'. This he accomplished through the Gospels - the 'good news' of military victory.

Joe Atwill

steven andresen

To Joe Atwill,

Thankyou for your reply.

I agree that the fact the Jewish resistance was defeated in the field would not have made the effort to create this story of Jesus moot. I suspect the strongest part of the resistance came not from its strength of arms, but from the understanding they had of what they were about.

It is my understanding the Essenes believed in two messiahs, a military one and a priestly one. I suspect the priestly one was responsible for hardening the resolve of the Jewish resistance, and it was against the arguments and credibility of this priestly messiah that Josephus meant to subvert.

It is my speculation that the messianic movement was initiated by the character they called the Teacher, through his arguments and stature, and after his death carried on by the subsequent leaders of the movement.

I am not sure that the purpose of Josephus was to get the Jews to call Caesar "lord" without them knowing it. I rather suspect his purpose was to corrupt the Jewish understanding that it was the Teacher and whatever doctrines he might have had. In effect, I think, it would have amounted to the same thing.

One way to undermine the credibility of the Teacher's arguments, at the time, would have been to make his Jewish followers think he became the leader of a gentile movement.

Can you describe some of the more significant objections you have recieved about your thesis?

thanks,

steve andresen

spin

(This seems to be based on the mistaken scholarly consensus that the DSS were Essene. There is not a single jot of evidence for the assumption that there is a direct connection between the two.)