RTS

There seems to be some possibility that records of Jesus in Roman history do exist, but not from the conventional (and/or religious) perspective you would expect.

I've been doing research into the "Flavian Hypothesis" and have found it to be a quite interesting perspective. The site where the "Flavian Hypothesis" review is located belongs to Dr. Rodney Blackhirst of La Trobe University, Australia. I just started reading Joseph Atwill's book "The Roman Origin of Christianity" and so far find it to be well written in which he presents a sound proposition upon which his argument is based. Along with the positive feedback from Dr. Blackhirst, Robert Eisenman, Professor of Middle East Religions and Archeology and Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University, Long Beach, has stated that Atwill's work is "challenging and provocative...If what Joseph Atwill is saying is only partially true, we are looking into the abyss." Mr. Atwill further states "A critical review of my work 'The Roman Origin of Christianity' has been overseen by J. Harold Ellens, former Dean of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Michigan, and head of the society of Biblical Literature. In the review, which will be published later this year" [in which Dean Ellens] concludes, "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 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."

I'm still learning of this period in Roman history, and I'm only collecting information and felt this may be of some interest to those here. This is not an endorsement of this hypothesis. At this point in time, I have not formulated any conclusions as to the veracity of the "Flavian Hypothesis". The only comment I now have is as stated above, "[I] have found it to be a quite interesting perspective." After I finish Atwill's book I'll have a better base knowledge upon which to express an informed opinion about his work.

Kosh

If this is true, then how do we account for the drastically different portrayals of the character of Pilate? If they were all buddies and writing at the same time, you'd think they'd have got that detail correct....

Vorkosigan

Very interesting first two chapters. Not the first time I have head this claim. Is that the Atwill who posts at TWeb?

Vorkosigan

RTS

As I've previously stated, I'm new to the study of this historical period in Roman history, and your statement is un-referenced and extremely vague. I would greatly appreciate whatever further information you can proffer on these different accounts/portrayals of Pilate and their source.

All I can find is that Philo speaks of him as inflexible, merciless, and obstinate, and Josephus mentions his military activity in Judea and that the Jews hated him and his administration.

I just did a quick word search for Pilate in Atwill's book "The Roman Origin of Christianity" and Pilate and his relation to the commonality in both Josephus and the Bible is mentioned very often. Have you read Atwill's work? Maybe he addresses this issue in his book. I just started reading his book yesterday.

===========================================

I'm not familiar with TWeb, so I don't know.

Kosh

And as has been often pointed out here, the Gospels portray him quite the opposite. A whimpering, indecisive coward in front of the Jews.

RTS

It seems you necessarily equate collusion with consistency where historical portrayals of Pilate are concerned. I can think of many reasons why this would not be the case; one being the different target audience for the specific writings.

If Roman Aristocrats did write the Gospels and portrayals of Pilate as a propaganda tool (weapon of war) to undermine the socio-political infrastructure of the Jews, the target audience would have been the youthful, fundamentalist, Pharisaic Jews. The purpose would have been to recruit as many Jews to this new Roman-Jewish religion while inciting rebellion against the old Jewish superstructures. This (maybe) is why Pilate's culpability was minimized in the Gospels and he was portrayed as "afraid". This way the Jews were portrayed as the murderers of their own messiah (the Roman Hero-God) and the entire burden of guilt was upon them.

Whereas, in the writings of Philo and Josephus (which were commissioned by the Caesars) the target audience would have been the Roman elite and their subjects. This is why Pilate was portrayed as a strong military leader who was formidable and inflexible.

The Jews had to become the bad guys for killing their own messiah, and the Romans became the good guys for destroying the vile murderers of Jesus the (Roman) Christ. The post facto prophecy being fulfilled in 70 C.E. when the Romans (righteously by Roman NT standards) destroyed the temples in Jerusalem and Masada and eradicated the rest of the murderous, evil Jewish Nation that stood against Rome.

It appears history attests to the fact the Roman plan worked perfectly.

rlogan

Not long ago I started a thread on Paul, with the idea of asking who would be motivated to create a Paul. I did not reveal my thinking was that there was Roman influence or Roman apologists. I had seen that Piso site before and was disappointed with the lack of scholarship.

My first glance at the Flavian Hypothesis suggests it is a cut above the Piso scribblings. But I am in po position to judge.

Be that as it may, it does seem to me a reasonable hypothesis that people in power either instigated or commandeered the movement.

unreasonable hypothesis - Jesus appeared to Paul.

MortalWombat

Do you have a source that says that Philo's works were commisioned by the Caesars, or that his target audience was the Roman elite?

spin

The parenthesis in RTS's comment was probably aimed at only the works of Josephus and not those of both Philo and Josephus. At least that seems to be the intention I gleaned from the statement, though it could easily be taken as ambiguously indicating that both of them related to the parenthesis. I doubt that that was the intention.

spin

secular buddhist

Well, if I were a Christian apologist, I would argue thusly:

I believe that it is a matter of historical record that Pilate was reprimanded several times for violating the Roman policy of not offending or antagonizing the Jews, at least in regard to their religion. The trial of Jesus may have occurred at a time when Pilate felt he was in a bit of trouble with his bosses and had better keep on good terms with the locals.