stephan huller

Yes I've read Tom Verenna's piece and I am relatively familiar with Atwill. I have never read his book but I spoke with his agent (yes he had an agent back in the day who was also Funk's agent strangely enough or so he claimed). It is a stupid theory for many reasons. But all the theories are stupid. This is my bone of contention.

Have you ever spoken to a believer? I don't mean an American evangelical I mean a Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic etc. Someone who at the very least might otherwise be a reasonable person but just happened to be born in a family that believed in nonsense.

The explanation is apparently that Jesus was born from a virgin, a man and god, that the gospel was written by four people as one, that ALL the texts of the New Testament have been passed on to us without suffering from corruption. In short, this is just as silly as Atwill's theory. Maybe Atwill's theory is mean spirited. Maybe the fact that the believers don't spend too much time thinking about what they believe let's them off the hook (i.e. someone like Atwill 'must' be a nut bar because he puts effort into developing a stupid theory). But on their own I'd say it is pretty much a draw.

Now Verenna of course is trying so hard to be 'real scholar.' For him the scholarly consensus or 'peer review' is the difference. But I've been there and done that. It's just an organized system of bullshit. Basically what you have to do is demonstrate that you've read everything relevant to what you are writing about and then build your premise from that. But what if we've started off with the wrong premise? In other words, what if we are drilling for oil in Germany?

In the case of Atwill's theory for instance - whoever wrote a 'serious paper' about the Roman state's involvement in Christianity before Constantine? So the fact that no one ever wrote such a paper means that no paper is ever going to be written until someone who has went through all the training to become a 'serious scholar' suddenly has a coconut fall on his head and decides to take seriously the idea. A novice such as Atwill no matter how hard he tries is not going to get a paper on the Imperial reshaping of Christianity in the second and third centuries. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen or that there wasn't such influence. Look at Hippolytus's letter to Septimius Severus's wife or Aurelius's role in the dethroning of Paul of Antioch. Or Jerome's statement that Origen was persecuted by the Imperial government.

The point is that a paper could and should have been written about Imperial reshaping of Christianity. It should have been written by now. Why hasn't it? Because it is career suicide. Of course we tolerate 'feminist perspectives' on a misogynist tradition like Christianity for purely political reasons (I remember sitting with my best friends Greek father summarizing the whole of human history with Eve's temptation of Adam).

My point is that Atwill's methodology sucks. The theory is basically stupid. But so is the standard model inherited from passive believers in an unworkable hypothesis. All that 'serious scholarship' does is make the bullshit we've inherited from our ancestors 'sound scientific' and reasonable. Not much to aspire to.

Tom Verenna

Oh, Stephan... I don't have to try hard, my student debt and CV pretty much covers any doubt about where I'm at in my scholarship. ;-)

But back on track, my contention with Atwill is more than just his not being peer reviewed. I highly doubt his thesis is coherent enough to make it past the first round without the editor telling him he needs to completely revisit it (i.e., rewrite it from scratch). My problem with Atwill is that he doesn't have a grasp of the subject--at all. I can deal with a self-published work; many scholars will self publish a book here or there. But the difference is they tend to have a better understanding of the sociocultural situation of the period they're discussing. Atwill hasn't a clue, but that doesn't seem to bother him.

stephan huller

i agree. i just sometimes feel its like picking on the retarded kid (or whatever the politically correct term of the day is). atwill's theory is stupid. but isnt it amazing how much he's done with it? i just watched the Master this weekend. some people got balls

Toto

I went to see the movie and heard some of the post movie discussion, but I went with someone who wasn't all that interested in the subject matter so I didn't hang around to talk to Atwill.

The film itself is well made, with good camera work and graphics. The general case for the nonexistence of Jesus is presented by a series of talking heads, Eisenman and Rod Blackhirst being the most credentialed, but also Peter Freke, Kenneth Humphrey, and Acharya S/Diane Murdock. Blackhirst seemed to agree that the Flavians had a hand in writing the gospels; Freke talked about mystery cults, and Acharya S seemed to be just there for variety. There was also John Hudson, who was unknown to me but is described here:Atwill and Hudson are smart, and both seem to come from a business rather than an academic background. But Hudson has presented papers to the SBL.

The movie and Atwill kept repeating that Christianity has done some good things! But also some bad things! and it's important to realize that governments issue propaganda that is false and tries to control things. But I got the impression that Atwill does not have an ulterior political motive. He just thinks that the parallels between the gospels and Josephus are important and fascinating.

Afterward, Eisenman talked a bit about the DSS and said he didn't know what he had unleashed in Atwill. He said he would differ with Atwill on the question of a conspiracy, because Christian literature was too vast and complex. Atwill said it was okay for scholars to disagree.

In the Q&A afterwards, a filmmaker got up who had directed a movie on Jesus in India, and asked how Atwill could account for the evidence that Thomas brought Christianity to India in the first century. Eisenman said that Thomas in India could only date to the third century.

I didn't have an opportunity to raise any objections, such as why did the conspiracy create four contradictory gospels?

stephan huller

conspiracies upon conspiracies until it is all explained

Clivedurdle

Boris Johnson - Mayor of London, classically trained, possible Prime Minister, in Dream of Rome (or via: amazon.co.uk), spends a chapter comparing Caesar and Jesus and concludes something was going on...

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....on#post5353824

sotto voce

The Nasty Party strikes again.

stephan huller

all religious cults were influenced by the state. it still happens to this day. the official spokespeople for a religion necessarily demonstrate hypocrisy when dealing with outsiders because what is sacred must be shielded from profanity. with that said to argue that any religion began as an imperial plot is because there are outward signs of imperial influence (submit to the authorities 1 Peter 2:13) is silly. all religion is born from a subversive will for power against the ruling classes

sotto voce

So some would have us believe, anyway.

Nonsense. Most religion going back to ancient times has been devised by the state as means of popular control, so it is hardly a case of a cult being influenced by a state. Where there has been no identifiable state, religion has 'justified' or buttressed social and economic structures, as with the caste system of Hinduism and the ancestor worship of Shintoism. The exception is of course Christianity, which by its nature cannot make compromise with any influence of human society. It is always challenge to society, or rather, to individuals, because it operates on the individual level. Whatever is not challenge to individuals is not Christianity. Whatever states approve, or even recognise, is not Christianity.

ApostateAbe

The way I see it, the state is hardly relevant to religion. The states adapt to the religion of the people. The religion does not adapt to the state.