<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Joseph Atwill Interview:
<i>Q. Mr. Atwill, what would you say to the thesis that rather than the Flavians using Titus' campaign as one element of the Jesus myth that some later Christians, needing to create a Jesus myth, used Josephus to forge a gospel?</i>
Joe Atwill: The thesis is plausible for some of the overlaps between Jesus and Titus. For example, Jesus' prophecies concerning the raising of the Temple and the destruction of the Galilean fishing villages could have been added to the Gospels after the fact as a way of spicing up the story of Jesus' ministry by âproving' that he had seen into the future. It is not plausible, however, for the numerous more exotic parallels. which add nothing to the surface narration of the Gospels - for example the condemning of Simon and the sparing of John parallel. Those parallels can only be seen by someone who knows what to look for and there would have been no reason - other than the one given in my thesis - to have added them to the story of Jesus.
<i>Q. Robert Eisenman has commented on the potential power of your thesis to change Christian scholarship and the many ongoing debates. His thesis however, as described in his book, "James the Brother of Jesus" states that elements of the life of James were used to create the Jesus myth. How would you respond to his thesis?</i>
Joe Atwill: As I show in my work the name of the historical âChrist' was Eleazar. He was the leader of the true Messianic movement in Judea during the first century. Most of Jesus' sayings and actions, however, were invented by the authors of the Gospels.
<i>Q. Tell us about your works in progress.</i>
Joe Atwill: I am working on several books. One is about individuals who had previously discovered the satire within the Gospels that I uncovered and it documents how they tried to disclose it to the public. I am also writing a book about the other religions the Flavians invented.
<i>Q. In one part of your book you mention that Titus captured John, a rebel of the Jewish resistance, and told him to begin writing. What is it that he wrote, in your opinion? A Gospel, a particular document, anything that is extant? I am struck by a similar situation that is discussed in Revelation 2, where God (Titus?) woke John of Patmos and told him to write to seven cities. Is it possible that these heretofore separate events are connected?</i>
Joe Atwill: The Gospels contain a satire indicating that âJohn' - one of the leaders of the Jewish rebellion in 66AD - was captured and helped them create the Christian Gospels. This individual was satirized as the Apostle John. Since the Romans used real history as the basis for many of the events in Jesus' ministry, it is likely that they were able to torture the Jewish rebel John into helping them create the story of their fictitious Messiah and then 'documented' this fact by naming the authors of one of their Gospels 'John'.Â
<i>Q. How probable (plausible) is it that satirical works of Josephus Flavius were the basis of the illusive "Q" document? Is it possible that Josephus himself, in writing for the amusement of the Flavians and friends actually authored the gospel of Mark or a precursory version of Mark?</i>
Joe Atwill: The reason that 'Q' was invented by scholars was that they recognized that the linguistic and grammatical parallels between the four gospels could not have occurred by chance and that therefore they must share some prior written source. My discoveries show another explanation is possible -- that the parallels exist because the gospels were created by the same group who simply transcribed passages from one gospel to another as they produced them.
<i>Q It seems to me that the Christian doctrines espoused, endorsed or championed by Constantine in the 4th century plagiarized Mithraism heavily. Did Titus Flavius, in his fervor to invent the Christian religion purposefully direct Josephus to incorporate Mithraic elements into his satires? </i>
Constantine was a Flavian - his full name was Flavius Constantine - who promoted his family's cult into the state religion of Rome. He was not interested in the form of the religion as much as its effect -- crowd control -- and that would make it unlikely that he would have deliberately attached attributes of other religions to it.
<i>Q How does the author of Luke-Acts consistent mis-use of Josephus fit with your hypothesis that the Gospels are a Flavian invention? For instance,
Example 1. The Census under Quirinius Lk 3:1, JW2.117-8,JA18.1-8 Luke doesn't get Josephus' historical time right</i>
Answer: Time line is not specific in either work. Exact dates are not given, only gerneral reference points.
<i>Example 2. Rebel Leaders Theudas Acts 5:36 JW 2.261*-3 JA 20.97 Luke places him 15 years before Josephus does and puts Judas Theudas the Galilean as coming before rather than after.</i>
Answer: If 'Theudas was same individual, his ministry could have spanned the dates.
<i>Example 3. Josephus characterizes Agrippa II as a profligate and hints at his incestuous relationship with sister Berenice while Luke presents Agrippa II as a decent judge.
</i>
Answer: The morality of the patrician class was different from those reared within the Christian ethos. They may have seen no contradiction between the two depictions.
<i>Q: I've just finished your fascinating book and, for now at least, I only have one question:Â How are critics of your book likely to respond? What arguments are they likely to make regarding the main thesis of a Flavian conspiracy? I expect to have some other questions later, but I need time to formulate them properly.</i>
Joe Atwill: There are an unlimited number of ways critics can respond to my analysis. To date, however, no critic or scholar has shown any real weakness in it. In my opinion, the only real way to show that it is inaccurate is to attack the parallels themselves. In other words to show that they are a figment of my imagination. This is because if one even accepts that the parallels between Jesus and Titus seem to have some connection then the plain fact that they occur in the same order proves that they were designed as unified literature, as such a sequence could not occur accidentally. Thus the best effort to negate the analysis is to simply deny that the parallels exist.
<i>
Q: I was wondering if you consider other non-canonical gospels, such as Thomas or Mary to be creations of the Flavians also? And what does your analysis say about the existence or nonexistence of the hypothetical Q or source gospel?</i>
Joe Atwill: The non-canonical Gospels are as much a mystery to me as anyone. My conjecture is that as Christianity grew in popularity a number of believers had 'visions' beyond the canon.
The existence of 'Q' is postulated - without any evidence - to explain the overlaps in the four Gospels which can not be explained by the four distinct oral traditions. For example, exactly parallel sentences, not from Jesus' teachings, but in the author's narration. The analysis in Caesar's Messiah shows that there is another, simpler, explanation, which is that the four Gospels simply emerged from the same group.
<i>Q: Why would rebellious warlike Jews suddenly accept a made-up friendly messiah!!! And also the letter of Pliny to the emperor Trajan about what to do about christians in 112 ad? Were not Paul's letters the first to be written, and would also need to be made-up. These are my main points I have.
</i>
Joe Atwill: Yes, the warlike messianic Jews would have never accepted a pacific leader like Jesus. He never existed. Nor did Paul in all likelihood as his Epiphany is clearly a spoof of the Flavians growing tired of killing members of the 'Way' and instead deciding to convert them to 'Jesus'.
<i>
Q: I thought that your book was terrific, but do you really think that the Pauline letters are contemporary with, or later than, the Gospels? How to do regard Paul, as Eisenman's Herodian or Herodian agent? Or, as you seem to suggest, just another Flavian writer's pseudonym? Why, then, the anti-Pauline suggestions in Josephus and the later material?</i>
Joe Atwill: The story of Paul's conversion is an obvious satire of the Flavian invention of Christianity. First he is described as killing members of the 'Way', then he has an epiphany after which he begins to convert them to 'Christ Jesus'.
Well, who killed members of the 'Way' and then had an 'epiphany' and them began to convert them to 'Jesus'. The Flavians. Like everything else in the Gospels, Paul's conversion 'foresees' a Flavian accomplishment.
<i>Q: J.P. Holding of the Tektonic ministries has published a scathing review of your book:
http://www.tektonics.org/books/csmessrvw.html. He likens it to an episode of "Spot the Loony", and makes reference to Abelard Reuchlin's earlier Arius Piso hypothesis. I would appreciate reading any response you may have to Holding's essay.</i>
Joe Atwill: http://www.insmkt.com/atwillholding.htm
<i>
Question: Is "Revelation" also part of the Flavian conspiracy you outline? The 'anti-Rome' elements of the book of "Revelation" would seem to point away from the thesis that Christianity (and its 'holy' texts) were designed to instill pro-Roman subservience in the lower scum/slave class. I think your book is brilliant, but I do wish you would have addressed the entire New Testament, and not just the Gospels and a smattering of the Epistles.</i>
Joe Atwill: This is an excellent question. A number of scholars are now trying to link the symbolism in Revelations to the findings in my work and their findings will be published sometime next year. I intend to publish an analysis of Paul and Acts shortly. Suffice to say the story regarding Paul's work as a "killer' of the followers of 'the Way' who has an epiphany which changes him into someone who converts people to 'Christians' is an obvious spoof of the Flavians' decision to stop fighting the messianic movement and began to try to convert them to their peaceful version of the religion.
<i>Question: Why would rebellious warlike jews sudenly accept a made-up friendly messiah!!! And also the letter of pliny to the emperor Trajan about what to do about christians in 112 ad,were not pauls letters the first to be written, and would also need to be made-up, these are my main points I have.</i>
Joe Atwill: The Flavians both wished to convert the Jews to a peaceful pro-Roman messianic Judaism and inform posterity that they had done so. Legacy was important to this bunch.
<i>Question: In the case of Mary eating her own son, is it possible that this is a parody of the old Baal worship in which the first born is sacrificed to the divine king Melech? I have read that early Christians were accused of this barbaric custom by their Roman detractors. Apparently, the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ was motivation for this accusation.</i>
Joe Atwill: I believe that the "flesh eating" symbolism in the Gospels is strictly a parody of the cannibalism that took place during the sieges of Jerusalem. All of the Gospels are a prophetic satire of the war.
<i>Question: 1)If Christianity was created by Roman Emperors, why did the Empire persecute Christianity, off and on, until the time of Constantine(approx. 330CE)? 2) Why would the New Testament, if created by the Flavians, lampoon Paul? Ever since the work of the Tubingen School, scholars have known that Paul's version of Christianity, as evident in his authentic letters mostly written in the 50s CE, was spiritualized, otherworldy, pacifist, and non-revolutionary.</i>
Joe Atwill: The 'Christians' that were tortured between 40 and 150 CE were members of the real - militaristic - messianic movement. Part of the genius of the creation of Roman Christianity was that it absorbed the history of the legitimate 'Christian' movement, which thereby gave their new religion historical credibility and helped wipe out the history of the movement the Romans wished to replace.
This perspective is logical in that while the Romans would certainly wished to - and did - torture members of the Jewish 'Christian' movement, what reason did they have for destroying tax paying, pacifistic Roman Christians? And if Rome was actually persecuting Christians, why did the religion have its headquarters in Rome?
As far as the persecutions of Roman Christians between 150 CE and Constantine they may well have occurred. The real messianic movement had finally been destroyed and the subsequent Caesarâs may have wished to check the growth of a cult that did not permit the direct worship of them, i.e., the Emperors. It is significant that Constantine was a Flavian. He may have made Christianity the State religion because he saw it as his familyâs personal cult.
Paulâs letters were âspiritualized, otherworldly, pacifist, and non-revolutionaryâ because this is the perspective Rome wished from âChristiansâ. Compare his perspective with the followers of the âChristâ found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The description of Paulâs âconversionâ to Christianity is an obvious lampoon of the Flavians realizing that instead of âkillingâ followers of the âWayâ they could convert them to âChrist Jesusâ. They realized that it was cheaper to rule by religion than by might.
And boy, were they right! 1000 years after the Roman legions were gone the patrician class was still partying on revenue sent to the 'Pontiff' by 'Christians'.
Amazing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Q. Mr. Atwill, what would you say to the thesis that rather than the Flavians using Titus' campaign as one element of the Jesus myth that some later Christians, needing to create a Jesus myth, used Josephus to forge a gospel?</i>
Joe Atwill: The thesis is plausible for some of the overlaps between Jesus and Titus. For example, Jesus' prophecies concerning the raising of the Temple and the destruction of the Galilean fishing villages could have been added to the Gospels after the fact as a way of spicing up the story of Jesus' ministry by âproving' that he had seen into the future. It is not plausible, however, for the numerous more exotic parallels. which add nothing to the surface narration of the Gospels - for example the condemning of Simon and the sparing of John parallel. Those parallels can only be seen by someone who knows what to look for and there would have been no reason - other than the one given in my thesis - to have added them to the story of Jesus.
<i>Q. Robert Eisenman has commented on the potential power of your thesis to change Christian scholarship and the many ongoing debates. His thesis however, as described in his book, "James the Brother of Jesus" states that elements of the life of James were used to create the Jesus myth. How would you respond to his thesis?</i>
Joe Atwill: As I show in my work the name of the historical âChrist' was Eleazar. He was the leader of the true Messianic movement in Judea during the first century. Most of Jesus' sayings and actions, however, were invented by the authors of the Gospels.
<i>Q. Tell us about your works in progress.</i>
Joe Atwill: I am working on several books. One is about individuals who had previously discovered the satire within the Gospels that I uncovered and it documents how they tried to disclose it to the public. I am also writing a book about the other religions the Flavians invented.
<i>Q. In one part of your book you mention that Titus captured John, a rebel of the Jewish resistance, and told him to begin writing. What is it that he wrote, in your opinion? A Gospel, a particular document, anything that is extant? I am struck by a similar situation that is discussed in Revelation 2, where God (Titus?) woke John of Patmos and told him to write to seven cities. Is it possible that these heretofore separate events are connected?</i>
Joe Atwill: The Gospels contain a satire indicating that âJohn' - one of the leaders of the Jewish rebellion in 66AD - was captured and helped them create the Christian Gospels. This individual was satirized as the Apostle John. Since the Romans used real history as the basis for many of the events in Jesus' ministry, it is likely that they were able to torture the Jewish rebel John into helping them create the story of their fictitious Messiah and then 'documented' this fact by naming the authors of one of their Gospels 'John'.Â
<i>Q. How probable (plausible) is it that satirical works of Josephus Flavius were the basis of the illusive "Q" document? Is it possible that Josephus himself, in writing for the amusement of the Flavians and friends actually authored the gospel of Mark or a precursory version of Mark?</i>
Joe Atwill: The reason that 'Q' was invented by scholars was that they recognized that the linguistic and grammatical parallels between the four gospels could not have occurred by chance and that therefore they must share some prior written source. My discoveries show another explanation is possible -- that the parallels exist because the gospels were created by the same group who simply transcribed passages from one gospel to another as they produced them.
<i>Q It seems to me that the Christian doctrines espoused, endorsed or championed by Constantine in the 4th century plagiarized Mithraism heavily. Did Titus Flavius, in his fervor to invent the Christian religion purposefully direct Josephus to incorporate Mithraic elements into his satires? </i>
Constantine was a Flavian - his full name was Flavius Constantine - who promoted his family's cult into the state religion of Rome. He was not interested in the form of the religion as much as its effect -- crowd control -- and that would make it unlikely that he would have deliberately attached attributes of other religions to it.
<i>Q How does the author of Luke-Acts consistent mis-use of Josephus fit with your hypothesis that the Gospels are a Flavian invention? For instance,
Example 1. The Census under Quirinius Lk 3:1, JW2.117-8,JA18.1-8 Luke doesn't get Josephus' historical time right</i>
Answer: Time line is not specific in either work. Exact dates are not given, only gerneral reference points.
<i>Example 2. Rebel Leaders Theudas Acts 5:36 JW 2.261*-3 JA 20.97 Luke places him 15 years before Josephus does and puts Judas Theudas the Galilean as coming before rather than after.</i>
Answer: If 'Theudas was same individual, his ministry could have spanned the dates.
<i>Example 3. Josephus characterizes Agrippa II as a profligate and hints at his incestuous relationship with sister Berenice while Luke presents Agrippa II as a decent judge.
</i>
Answer: The morality of the patrician class was different from those reared within the Christian ethos. They may have seen no contradiction between the two depictions.
<i>Q: I've just finished your fascinating book and, for now at least, I only have one question:Â How are critics of your book likely to respond? What arguments are they likely to make regarding the main thesis of a Flavian conspiracy? I expect to have some other questions later, but I need time to formulate them properly.</i>
Joe Atwill: There are an unlimited number of ways critics can respond to my analysis. To date, however, no critic or scholar has shown any real weakness in it. In my opinion, the only real way to show that it is inaccurate is to attack the parallels themselves. In other words to show that they are a figment of my imagination. This is because if one even accepts that the parallels between Jesus and Titus seem to have some connection then the plain fact that they occur in the same order proves that they were designed as unified literature, as such a sequence could not occur accidentally. Thus the best effort to negate the analysis is to simply deny that the parallels exist.
<i>
Q: I was wondering if you consider other non-canonical gospels, such as Thomas or Mary to be creations of the Flavians also? And what does your analysis say about the existence or nonexistence of the hypothetical Q or source gospel?</i>
Joe Atwill: The non-canonical Gospels are as much a mystery to me as anyone. My conjecture is that as Christianity grew in popularity a number of believers had 'visions' beyond the canon.
The existence of 'Q' is postulated - without any evidence - to explain the overlaps in the four Gospels which can not be explained by the four distinct oral traditions. For example, exactly parallel sentences, not from Jesus' teachings, but in the author's narration. The analysis in Caesar's Messiah shows that there is another, simpler, explanation, which is that the four Gospels simply emerged from the same group.
<i>Q: Why would rebellious warlike Jews suddenly accept a made-up friendly messiah!!! And also the letter of Pliny to the emperor Trajan about what to do about christians in 112 ad? Were not Paul's letters the first to be written, and would also need to be made-up. These are my main points I have.
</i>
Joe Atwill: Yes, the warlike messianic Jews would have never accepted a pacific leader like Jesus. He never existed. Nor did Paul in all likelihood as his Epiphany is clearly a spoof of the Flavians growing tired of killing members of the 'Way' and instead deciding to convert them to 'Jesus'.
<i>
Q: I thought that your book was terrific, but do you really think that the Pauline letters are contemporary with, or later than, the Gospels? How to do regard Paul, as Eisenman's Herodian or Herodian agent? Or, as you seem to suggest, just another Flavian writer's pseudonym? Why, then, the anti-Pauline suggestions in Josephus and the later material?</i>
Joe Atwill: The story of Paul's conversion is an obvious satire of the Flavian invention of Christianity. First he is described as killing members of the 'Way', then he has an epiphany after which he begins to convert them to 'Christ Jesus'.
Well, who killed members of the 'Way' and then had an 'epiphany' and them began to convert them to 'Jesus'. The Flavians. Like everything else in the Gospels, Paul's conversion 'foresees' a Flavian accomplishment.
<i>Q: J.P. Holding of the Tektonic ministries has published a scathing review of your book:
http://www.tektonics.org/books/csmessrvw.html. He likens it to an episode of "Spot the Loony", and makes reference to Abelard Reuchlin's earlier Arius Piso hypothesis. I would appreciate reading any response you may have to Holding's essay.</i>
Joe Atwill: http://www.insmkt.com/atwillholding.htm
<i>
Question: Is "Revelation" also part of the Flavian conspiracy you outline? The 'anti-Rome' elements of the book of "Revelation" would seem to point away from the thesis that Christianity (and its 'holy' texts) were designed to instill pro-Roman subservience in the lower scum/slave class. I think your book is brilliant, but I do wish you would have addressed the entire New Testament, and not just the Gospels and a smattering of the Epistles.</i>
Joe Atwill: This is an excellent question. A number of scholars are now trying to link the symbolism in Revelations to the findings in my work and their findings will be published sometime next year. I intend to publish an analysis of Paul and Acts shortly. Suffice to say the story regarding Paul's work as a "killer' of the followers of 'the Way' who has an epiphany which changes him into someone who converts people to 'Christians' is an obvious spoof of the Flavians' decision to stop fighting the messianic movement and began to try to convert them to their peaceful version of the religion.
<i>Question: Why would rebellious warlike jews sudenly accept a made-up friendly messiah!!! And also the letter of pliny to the emperor Trajan about what to do about christians in 112 ad,were not pauls letters the first to be written, and would also need to be made-up, these are my main points I have.</i>
Joe Atwill: The Flavians both wished to convert the Jews to a peaceful pro-Roman messianic Judaism and inform posterity that they had done so. Legacy was important to this bunch.
<i>Question: In the case of Mary eating her own son, is it possible that this is a parody of the old Baal worship in which the first born is sacrificed to the divine king Melech? I have read that early Christians were accused of this barbaric custom by their Roman detractors. Apparently, the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ was motivation for this accusation.</i>
Joe Atwill: I believe that the "flesh eating" symbolism in the Gospels is strictly a parody of the cannibalism that took place during the sieges of Jerusalem. All of the Gospels are a prophetic satire of the war.
<i>Question: 1)If Christianity was created by Roman Emperors, why did the Empire persecute Christianity, off and on, until the time of Constantine(approx. 330CE)? 2) Why would the New Testament, if created by the Flavians, lampoon Paul? Ever since the work of the Tubingen School, scholars have known that Paul's version of Christianity, as evident in his authentic letters mostly written in the 50s CE, was spiritualized, otherworldy, pacifist, and non-revolutionary.</i>
Joe Atwill: The 'Christians' that were tortured between 40 and 150 CE were members of the real - militaristic - messianic movement. Part of the genius of the creation of Roman Christianity was that it absorbed the history of the legitimate 'Christian' movement, which thereby gave their new religion historical credibility and helped wipe out the history of the movement the Romans wished to replace.
This perspective is logical in that while the Romans would certainly wished to - and did - torture members of the Jewish 'Christian' movement, what reason did they have for destroying tax paying, pacifistic Roman Christians? And if Rome was actually persecuting Christians, why did the religion have its headquarters in Rome?
As far as the persecutions of Roman Christians between 150 CE and Constantine they may well have occurred. The real messianic movement had finally been destroyed and the subsequent Caesarâs may have wished to check the growth of a cult that did not permit the direct worship of them, i.e., the Emperors. It is significant that Constantine was a Flavian. He may have made Christianity the State religion because he saw it as his familyâs personal cult.
Paulâs letters were âspiritualized, otherworldly, pacifist, and non-revolutionaryâ because this is the perspective Rome wished from âChristiansâ. Compare his perspective with the followers of the âChristâ found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The description of Paulâs âconversionâ to Christianity is an obvious lampoon of the Flavians realizing that instead of âkillingâ followers of the âWayâ they could convert them to âChrist Jesusâ. They realized that it was cheaper to rule by religion than by might.
And boy, were they right! 1000 years after the Roman legions were gone the patrician class was still partying on revenue sent to the 'Pontiff' by 'Christians'.
Amazing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->