10-21-2007, 12:24 AM
Can some body counter this
Joseph Atwill, who describes himself as a "successful businessman" living in California, has a penned a book which, if true, would render virtually all previous New Testament research useless. According to Atwill, the Gospels were written by intellectuals in the court of the Flavian emperors (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian) some time after the Jewish War (66-73 AD). <b>As Atwill tells it, the Romans were worried about militant Jewish messianic movements and therefore created the Gospels to encourage the Jews to worship a peaceful Messiah, one sympathetic to the Roman government.</b> It also turns out that the account of the Jewish war by the turncoat Jew Flavius Josephus was also written by these same court intellectuals. The alert reader who compares Josephus' account of the Jewish War with the Gospels finds numerous parallels between Jesus' ministry and Titus' military campaigns in the Jewish War. While Jewish-Christians of the first century and Christians today believe they worship the Jewish Messiah, in fact they worship the Roman emperor Titus.
Here are just a few of the problems:
<b>
First, there isn't any doubt that Jesus existed and that there was a growing Christian movement in existence long before the Flavian dynasty.</b> Atwill would have the reader believe that Christians for some reason decided to embrace these fraudulent Gospels without this leaving a trace in the historical record. Who wrote the Gospels, how they were introduced into the Christian community, and why they were accepted without leaving any hint of controversy is something Atwill never gets around to explaining.
<b>
Second, the alleged parallels between Jesus and events recounted in Josephus are for the most part less than compelling. </b>I didn't have the time to check many in detail, but the ones I did weren't persuasive. For example, Atwill puts great stock in a supposed parallel between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4 and certain Jewish rebels that Josephus records as having died of dehydration in Mount Gerizim. According to Atwill, Jesus' description of himself as providing "living water" would have been recognizable to Roman readers as "dark humor." However, John records the conversation as taking place in Sychar, which is near Mount Ebal, not Mount Gerizim. Water is common theme in John's Gospel and had already been introduced. Even taking many of Atwill's supposed parallels at face value, they aren't persuasive. I don't get the similarity between Jesus calling his disciples to "fish for men" and Titus' soldiers killing Jews in the Sea of Galilee. Nor I do I see the connection between a Mary killing and eating her son in Josephus and the Christian doctrine of the eucharist. That no one saw these alleged parallels until Atwill came on the scene suggests that the Gospels aren't the satirical knee-slappers he believes them to be.
<b>
Third, to the extent that there are any parallels between the Gospels and Josephus that can't be explained by coincidence, it is much more readily explained by the Gospel writers borrowing from Josephus or a common source.
</b><b>
Fourth, Atwill is certainly correct to note that certain portions of the NT are pro-Roman, but he goes way beyond the evidence.</b> And it is unlikely that Roman writers would describe Jesus in such exalted terms if encouraging docility to the Roman state was their goal. In fact, Jesus is often presented in a manner setting him in opposition to emperor worship. Readers who are interested in this topic might consult Ethelbert Stauffer's classic CHRIST AND THE CAESARS.
<b>
Fifth, Atwill shows virtually no familiarity with any remotely mainstream New Testament scholarship. If he had read such work he would have avoided many of his dubious interpretations of certain New Testament texts. </b>For example, he asserts that the Gospels are anti-Jewish, citing the well-known line in Matthew's Gospel where during the crucifixion certain Jews exclaim "let his blood be on us and our children." (Matt. 27:24.) This most likely means that the Jews are accepting responsibility for their actions, not calling a curse on future generations. Likewise, although much of the language Jesus and Paul use concerning Jewish leaders sounds harsh to modern ears, their denunciations aren't different from that of Old Testament prophets who called Israel to repentance.
Joseph Atwill, who describes himself as a "successful businessman" living in California, has a penned a book which, if true, would render virtually all previous New Testament research useless. According to Atwill, the Gospels were written by intellectuals in the court of the Flavian emperors (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian) some time after the Jewish War (66-73 AD). <b>As Atwill tells it, the Romans were worried about militant Jewish messianic movements and therefore created the Gospels to encourage the Jews to worship a peaceful Messiah, one sympathetic to the Roman government.</b> It also turns out that the account of the Jewish war by the turncoat Jew Flavius Josephus was also written by these same court intellectuals. The alert reader who compares Josephus' account of the Jewish War with the Gospels finds numerous parallels between Jesus' ministry and Titus' military campaigns in the Jewish War. While Jewish-Christians of the first century and Christians today believe they worship the Jewish Messiah, in fact they worship the Roman emperor Titus.
Here are just a few of the problems:
<b>
First, there isn't any doubt that Jesus existed and that there was a growing Christian movement in existence long before the Flavian dynasty.</b> Atwill would have the reader believe that Christians for some reason decided to embrace these fraudulent Gospels without this leaving a trace in the historical record. Who wrote the Gospels, how they were introduced into the Christian community, and why they were accepted without leaving any hint of controversy is something Atwill never gets around to explaining.
<b>
Second, the alleged parallels between Jesus and events recounted in Josephus are for the most part less than compelling. </b>I didn't have the time to check many in detail, but the ones I did weren't persuasive. For example, Atwill puts great stock in a supposed parallel between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4 and certain Jewish rebels that Josephus records as having died of dehydration in Mount Gerizim. According to Atwill, Jesus' description of himself as providing "living water" would have been recognizable to Roman readers as "dark humor." However, John records the conversation as taking place in Sychar, which is near Mount Ebal, not Mount Gerizim. Water is common theme in John's Gospel and had already been introduced. Even taking many of Atwill's supposed parallels at face value, they aren't persuasive. I don't get the similarity between Jesus calling his disciples to "fish for men" and Titus' soldiers killing Jews in the Sea of Galilee. Nor I do I see the connection between a Mary killing and eating her son in Josephus and the Christian doctrine of the eucharist. That no one saw these alleged parallels until Atwill came on the scene suggests that the Gospels aren't the satirical knee-slappers he believes them to be.
<b>
Third, to the extent that there are any parallels between the Gospels and Josephus that can't be explained by coincidence, it is much more readily explained by the Gospel writers borrowing from Josephus or a common source.
</b><b>
Fourth, Atwill is certainly correct to note that certain portions of the NT are pro-Roman, but he goes way beyond the evidence.</b> And it is unlikely that Roman writers would describe Jesus in such exalted terms if encouraging docility to the Roman state was their goal. In fact, Jesus is often presented in a manner setting him in opposition to emperor worship. Readers who are interested in this topic might consult Ethelbert Stauffer's classic CHRIST AND THE CAESARS.
<b>
Fifth, Atwill shows virtually no familiarity with any remotely mainstream New Testament scholarship. If he had read such work he would have avoided many of his dubious interpretations of certain New Testament texts. </b>For example, he asserts that the Gospels are anti-Jewish, citing the well-known line in Matthew's Gospel where during the crucifixion certain Jews exclaim "let his blood be on us and our children." (Matt. 27:24.) This most likely means that the Jews are accepting responsibility for their actions, not calling a curse on future generations. Likewise, although much of the language Jesus and Paul use concerning Jewish leaders sounds harsh to modern ears, their denunciations aren't different from that of Old Testament prophets who called Israel to repentance.