I’ve blogged this subject over at my Naked Bible blog, but it also belongs here at Paleobabble. What follows is borrowed from that post and appended with reviews and updates.
Joseph Atwill, self-proclaimed (and credential-less) biblical scholar has recently busied himself with a new PR campaign to promote a rehashing of his 2006 book, Caesar’s Messiah. It was supposedly a bestseller — but have you ever heard of it? Well, he’ll make sure you do this time around.
The basic thesis is, from the Amazon description, that:
“Was Jesus the invention of a Roman emperor? The author of this ground-breaking book believes he was. ‘Caesar’s Messiah’ reveals the key to a new and revolutionary understanding of Christian origins. . . . The clues leading to its startling conclusions are found in the writings of the first-century historian Flavius Josephus, whose ‘War of the Jews’ is one of the only historical chronicles of this period. Closely comparing the work of Josephus with the New Testament Gospels, ‘Caesar’s Messiah’ demonstrates that the Romans directed the writing of both. . . . Atwill noticed a series of parallels occurring in sequence between the military campaign of the Roman Caesar Titus Flavius and the ministry of Jesus. His findings led him to a startling new conclusion about the origins of Christianity – that a Roman imperial family, the Flavians, had created Christianity to pacify the Jews’ rebellion against Rome, and even more incredibly, they had placed a literary satire within the Gospels and ‘Wars of the Jews’ to inform posterity of this fact.”
Basically, Atwill is doing something of a Dan Brown, giving us The Josephus Code. For sure that would have been a sexier title. No doubt the media would have pumped it more the first time around had the word ‘code’ been in it.
So what do we have here? Instead of the Zeitgeist conspiracy we get the notion that the NT gospels were written by Romans. And boy, were those Romans ever clever. They decided to mimic Josephus’ accounts of Titus Flavius in their presentation of Jesus. . . . Now wait a minute. . . . So, the Jews were influenced to pacificism by a guy who didn’t really exist . . . but who were they following around? Not really . . . the gospels were written later, after the fact . . . Gullible people (and of course subsequent early Christians) just read about him and accepted what they read about the guy’s existence . . . in accounts that were patterned after the chronology of a Roman emperor’s life . . . who lived in the past a little later than the guy didn’t exist. . . . as clever propaganda. So the Jewish or Christian readers of the later gospels wouldn’t really have known Jesus didn’t exist. They just took it on faith because the Roman-generated gospels told them that guy existed. . . . And so no later Christian or Jew who believed in, or didn’t like, Jesus would ever have known Jesus wasn’t actually real . . . because they’d never see the parallels between what Josephus wrote and the gospels that Atwill did . . . because . . . well . . . they didn’t read Josephus . . . no, they did that. . . . It has to be because Atwill is so much smarter. . . . Yeah, that’s it . . . because the early Christians and any of their opponents could have read Josephus. They just didn’t see the coded messaging that would have made the case that Atwill sees. Even Josephus experts haven’t seen that. . . . Or experts in the gospels. . . . Gosh, Atwill is smart.
Clear now?
Many real scholars of the New Testament, the gospels, and the historical Jesus (from varied theological persuasions) have weighed in on Atwill’s thesis:
- Larry Hurtado has offered his thoughts on Atwill in a post entitled, “FlimFlam of the Month.”
- Joel Watts asked, “Was Jesus a Roman Invention?” over at the Huff Post
- Robert Price (who doesn’t think Jesus existed) debunks the book (This review alone, coming as it does from someone sympathetic to at least the idea that Jesus never existed, should tell you how poor Atwill’s work is)
- Historian Tom Verenna writes, “No, Joe Atwill: Rome Did Not Invent Jesus“
- James McGrath echoes my own sentiment with his title, “As Bad as Mythicism: Jesus as Caesar“
“Historian Tom Verenna writes … ”
“Historian”? The guy is an undergraduate student. Try “blogger”.
He’s published via a scholarly publisher. That isn’t trivial. I care about peer review, not necessarily the alphabet after a person’s name. This is why I said Atwill was cowardly for not submitting his work to peer review. It isn’t complicated.
I don’t care so much about “the alphabet after a person’s name”. I’m more interested in the years of critical study, training, mentoring and experience those letters represent. As someone who has a few letters after my name, I know the value of that rigorous training. So I tend to hold those who have an “alphabet after their name” AND have published work over someone who jumped to the second via becoming a marginal scholar’s personal toady. Call me old fashioned.
Then again, those of us who remember Verenna from a few years ago when he was still calling himself “Rook Hawkins” may have a lower tolerance threshold for him in his latest incarnation as “Thomas L. Verenna”. Back then he used to post howler-riddled tripe while awarding himself grandiose titles like “Ancient Texts Expert” and claiming he was offering “College Degree Level” online courses in something or other via the website of the oafish “Rational Response Squad”. When it comes to claiming expertise he doesn’t actually have, this guy has form.
And citing “Jesus mythicist” fringe dwellers like Carrier and Verenna/”Rook Hawkins” critiquing Atwill is like saying Von Daniken is wrong because Sitchin and Hancock say so. Not exactly credible.