ok found the link. Transcript: http://www.rodephemet.org/hudson.html
in fact, it is better to archive it here.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Transcript of public access show Rodeph Emet - The Roots of Antisemitism - Bracha Bat Yosef Interview with literary analyst John Hudson
BBY... I am here with John Hudson.Â Mr. Hudson began working on the literary and structuralist analysis of Biblical texts in 1975Â as one of a group of English cultural anthropologists including Edmund Leach and Mary Douglas. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute in 1978 andÂ is one of the pioneers of applied literary analysis as a fieldÂ ofÂ social science.Â Over the last 30 years he has usedÂ literary analysis, semiotics, media studies and cognitive science in projects for some of the worldâsÂ largest companies. He was formerly a visiting researcher at MIT and is now doing research at the University of Birmingham. For the last two years he has also been a colleague of Joseph Atwillâs and is working with him on several new books following on from Caesarâs Messiah. Welcome.
JH.... glad to be here.
BBY... Tell us where does literary analysisÂ come from andÂ how does applied literary science enable you to reach the sorts of conclusionsÂ about Christianity that you have done?
JH... The first real literary analyst of the Christian New Testament was Porphyry Malchus who lived about 300CE. He wrote a 15 volume critical commentary on the Gospels suggesting that they were literary creations. For instance he rightlyÂ suggested that Gospel of Mark was modeled upon Homer. One of his pieces ofÂ evidence was thatÂ instead of calling the Gennesaret the Lake of Gaillee Mark calls it the Sea of Galilee and has inserted extra voyages on the water and makes the storm more sea like. Of course the church was very threatened by Porphryâs work and it was all burned âwe only have a few fragments left. But enough to see what he was doing. He was showing that the gospels are literary creations, not works of history.
BBY... So isÂ your workÂ in the same tradition?
JH... Very much so. WhatÂ social scientists do in looking at literature isÂ studyÂ the structures, look objectively at how the texts were created and edited, the social communitiesÂ and political environments that produced them, and how they relate inter-textually to other documents.Â Then you consider how they were re-written and how they continue to be used by various power brokers to create and generate meaning. Texts are not neutral things; they are instruments of social power.
Literary analysis never just looks at the surface. Texts are always produced by people with an agenda. In the case of the gospels, well,Â the winnersÂ always write history and the Romans were the winners ofÂ the Jewish war, and they wrote both the Gospels and the other New Testament texts to reflect their own agenda, theirÂ strategic needs and ideologies. The reason so many plentiful manuscriptsÂ of the Gospels survive-unlike with other early textsâis that theÂ Romans wanted them to be widely available. In comparison out of allÂ theÂ authentic Jewish documents of the period-- only one example survives--those hidden away and buried in the caves at Qumran where the Romans couldnât get at them.Â Today theÂ Gospel texts are still being used to manipulate and control people, to stop them from thinking for themselves, to be malleable and obey their leaders. All the things that the Romans designed them for.
BBY... When you refer to the Romans, which Romans do you mean?
JH...Â OK. TheÂ Roman-Jewish war of 66-70CE was fought by two generals, Vespasian and his son Titus.Â TheyÂ used their military success in the Middle East to rally popular support in Rome and stage a military coup andÂ take over the throne.Â Vespasian became the first of the new dynasty of Flavian emperors, and was succeededÂ by his eldest son Titus, and then by his youngest son Domitian. The problemÂ the Flavian emperors had was to legitimate their rule by creating useful myths and propaganda. In particular they had toÂ offer an alternative to theÂ storiesÂ of the Jews in order toÂ try andÂ trick them into worshippingÂ a false literary messiah, who would really be Caesar in disguise.
BBY...Â YourÂ literary analysisÂ shows that the figure of Jesus is entirely a literary creation.Â But isnât Jesus mentioned in the Talmud? AndÂ in the 19th century didnâtÂ the Jewish scholar Geiger claimÂ thatÂ Jesus could haveÂ beenÂ an early Rabbi?
JH... The Romans wanted people to believe there was a historical Jesus. That was their whole way of tricking and deceiving the Jews into accepting theirÂ imitationÂ pro-Roman version of the Torah. UnfortunatelyÂ GeigerÂ fell for it. Like many others he wasÂ justÂ ignorant and very naiveâhe took the GospelsÂ on face value instead of subjecting them to literary analysis. So he basically was fooled by the Roman war propaganda, just the way the Romans intended. And he isnât alone by a long way.
As for the Talmud, that was written 200 years later, so that alone makes itÂ irrelevant as evidence. But traditionally Jews have rightly argued, for instance at theÂ 13th and 14th centuryÂ Disputations, thatÂ these were references to someone else who lived at another period ofÂ time, so no they are notÂ evidence of a historical Jesus in the first century.
BBY... So is there any historical evidence for the existence ofÂ Jesus?
JH...There is no independentÂ historical or archaeological evidence whatsoever forÂ the existence of the Jesus figureÂ described in the gospels.Â Quite to the contrary.Â There is a vast amount ofÂ evidence showingÂ that Jesus was createdÂ entirely as a literary character and he was deliberately created for malicious anti-Semitic reasons. 70% of this character was created by midrash on traditional stories, 10%Â byÂ re-using material on Cynic philosophers, andÂ 20% by drawing on events in the Roman military campaign of Titus Caesar from the yearsÂ 66-70CE , as Joseph Atwill shows in his book Caesarâs Messiah. In fact Atwill shows thatÂ what the church has alwaysÂ proclaimed as the biggest piece of historical evidence for the existence of Jesusâsomething called the Testimonium Flavinianumâis essentially a confession by the Flavian emperors that they created the whole thing as a fraud to deceive the Jews.
BBY... What were the Flavian Emperors trying to accomplish by inventing Jesus as a literary character ?
JH... The Romansâ priority was to calm downÂ the Middle East and to make the Jews pay taxes and to make the Jews worship Caesar as Lord. They did this by taking over the name of one of the local Hebrew religious figures namely the âmessiahââand using it as a disguise forÂ a literary account of Caesar that lay underneath. It was exactly the same strategy that the RomansÂ used throughout the Empire, to disguise Caesar as a local god. That was the way the Caesar cult worked, and it was the Caesar cult that united the Empire.
BBY... So after the Jewish war in 70CE the Romans had burned all the Torahs they could find, and they wanted to destroy Judaism.Â They decided to create aÂ replacement for the Torah, whichÂ would teachÂ JewsÂ to live by Roman values. Is that what happened?
JH... Yes pretty much. They were trying to create a comic cartoon version of the Torah.
You mentioned Roman values. The Gospels teach Jews to pay taxes, to honor Caesar, to give up on laws like circumcision, give up on the Mosaic Law, to be obedient and not to fight enemies, to work on the Sabbath and help the Roman occupying army by carrying their backpacks twice as far as the law required. Whereas a traditional Jewish text would talk about freeing slaves and prisoners, the gospel textsÂ never talk about freeing slaves---because Rome was a slave-based society. And they talk about visiting prisoners and feeding them in order to save the State moneyânothing about freeing them.Â It is a Gospel of oppression, slavery and death, and its focus constantly reminds us of Romeâs expertiseâas cross builders andÂ as torturers.Â Creating a fake Jewish messiah to instruct the Jews to submit to Rome in all these ways was highly comic from a Roman point of view.
BBY... Why were the Romans replacing the Torah with a Gospel? Why did they call it by that name?
JH... The word Gospel in Greek is Evangelion. It literally means âgood news of military victoryâ.Â Nobody until recently has been able to explain this. But now the reason is obvious. My colleague Joe Atwill in his book Caesarâs Messiah shows that all the key events in the life of Jesus are literary satires ofÂ Roman battles in their campaign in Judea. Battles which the Jews lost.Â So the âgood news of military victoryâ refers to the fact that the Romans won these battles and haveÂ created literary satires of them, and are going to humiliate the Jews by educating them to believe that their defeats are âgood newsâ. That was the Roman idea of RevengeâSeneca writes about it.Â The Romans wereÂ determined that the Gospels would humiliate the Jews andÂ force them to accept a false version of their own history. It was part of the Roman take-over of Jewish culture.
BBY... And the reason why it was all done covertly?
JH... It was all a trick. A deception. The Romans had tried forÂ a hundred years or more to try to get the Jews explicitly to worship Caesar. The emperor Caligula for instance had even tried putting his statue in the Temple.Â The Jews would rather die first. That was why the Romans knew they couldnât do it overtly, and instead had to do it covertly by creating something that appeared on the surface to look like a Jewish document.Â It wasÂ a way of tricking the Jews into accepting these teachings by making the GospelÂ appear to be aÂ genuine record of aÂ historic religious leader 40 years before. So what they couldnât do directly the Romans would do by deception. The Romans were good at writing false histories. There are many other examples of it. They found it amusing. AllÂ effective propaganda works by deception and concealing its true authorship. Just look around today, the world is full of it. The GospelsÂ are fake news, and fake history, only 2000 years old.
BBY... So how did the Romans create this replacement Torah?
JH... The firstÂ version that the Romans createdÂ isÂ what we know today as the Gospel of Matthew . ThisÂ is the largest book of the Christian New Testament . According to something that Bible scholars call the âtwo document hypothesisââon which there is amazing work done by Professor Peabody andÂ the International Institute for Gospel studies-- this was the first of the New TestamentÂ Gospels to be written.Â I agree with that view, although there was an even earlierÂ draft version.
BBY... What is the draft version?
JH... It is known as the Gospel of Peter and it is clearly set in the yearÂ 70CE because Jerusalem is burning in the background.Â It is also much more clearly a fantasticÂ satire because there is a mile high talking cross that follows people around. But then the Romans decided to make it more realistic instead.
BBY... So what isÂ the Gospel of Matthew exactly ? How was it composed?
JH... The Gospel of Matthew is the most anti-Semitic document ever created because it was deliberately written as a comic parody of the Torah. We know it was written as a replacement Torah for two reasons; firstlyÂ because of its content and secondly because of its structure. Both of these things show thatÂ Matthew was written not asÂ real history but as a literary parody of the Torah.Â Which do you want to deal with first?
BBY... Lets start withÂ Matthewâs structure. You gave a technicalÂ talk at the Society of Biblical Literature a couple of years ago announcingÂ your new discovery of the structure ofÂ Matthew.Â Can you just give us an overview of what you have found?
JH... ItÂ has long been known that the Gospel of Matthew is divided into 5 books just like the books of the Torah.Â It starts with an account like that ofÂ Genesis, moves on to an account like that of Exodus and another like Numbers , then the bulk of the Gospel is like the Book of Deuteronomy, and it concludes withÂ a piece that is like Leviticus. So it is like the Torah except the order of the books is different. My work was to point out some unrecognized features that finally proved how the Romans had written it as a deliberate parody. We can run throughÂ a couple of booksÂ as examples if you like.
BBY... OK. Lets take Devarim or Deuteronomy . In what way was Matthew was based on that?
JH... The entire central part of Gospel of Matthew is taken up by a parody of Deuteronomy, which is knownÂ as Sefer Devarim from its initialÂ phrase âthese are the Wordsâ. ThisÂ is similar to Matthewâs initialÂ phraseÂ in chapter 4 v.17 âfrom that time forth Jesus began to say these Wordsâ. Like the five speeches by Moses in Deuteronomy, it is organized around a series of five great teachings given on a mountain, each of which concludes with a very formal rhetorical ending.
BBY... Then theÂ lastÂ part of Matthew was based, you sayÂ on Va-yikra the Book ofÂ Leviticus ?
JH... Yes it was alsoÂ a literary parody. My great teacher the English anthropologist Mary Douglas showed in her book on Leviticus thatÂ the different chapters move in succession around the walls of theÂ courtyard of the Tabernacle before approaching the Ark, and there are two episodes of blasphemyâone the sons of Aaron in front of the door, and the other the account of the blasphemer in front of the curtainÂ in chapter 24.Â Well theÂ last part of Matthew moves around theÂ Temple in exactly the same way and JesusÂ is twice accused of blasphemyÂ at the equivalent places in front of the entrance ways. This is absolute definite proof that the entire account in the gospel is a literary anti semitic joke.Â
BBY... Well all these similarities in structure certainly seem show that the Gospel of Matthew was written as a comic imitation of the Torah. But you are saying there areÂ similarities in content as well. Can you give an example?
JH... The best example isÂ Moses, which is very well known.Â Dale Allison has a good book on this.Â The writers of the gospel tookÂ all the key events in the life of Moses, as described in the Torah, and then createdÂ satirical equivalents of them to invent theÂ fictional life of Jesus. The sequence of events even appears in exactly the same order. Then they added inÂ another dozen events from the campaign in Judea by the Emperor Titus as well, to show who the true savior of Israel was.
BBY...So that is the Gospel of Matthew.Â You have shown that it is all a fake version of theÂ Torah.Â But what about the other Gospels, Mark and Luke?
JH... They are also entirely literary creations and they arenât independent documents. On the contrary they are basically rewritings of Matthew according to different literary styles.Â Mark is a rewriting of Matthewâs gospel to make it look like a Greek epic of Homerâs.Â Luke is a rewriting of Matthew to make it like a Roman epic, like Virgilâs Aeneid. They were targeted on the Jews in the Diaspora, so they used a different literary style to be more acceptable.
BBY...Â OK . We have talked so far about the gospels at a top level.Â NowÂ I want toÂ get into much more detailÂ on twoÂ particular bits of theÂ GospelÂ story thatÂ mostÂ JewsÂ wonder about. The first question isÂ whether the Gospel presents Jesus asÂ an equivalent to the Akedah, the binding of Isaac.
JH... As you knowÂ the Akedah appears in the Torah in Genesis 22. Originally, inÂ the equivalent passage inÂ Matthew 1.1-2.12Â which is the passage about the baptism of JesusÂ in the river Jordan in the wilderness there isÂ nothing like the Akedah. The Romans forgot to include it first time round.
But when Mark re-writes the second editionâyes you areÂ correct--- Mark remodels Matthewâs story of the wilderness to provideÂ a version of the Akedah. In Matthewâs original account of the baptismÂ there was just a voiceÂ and the heavens are described as opening. But MarkÂ doesnât use the word opening, insteadÂ he uses the wordÂ splitting schizo (Mk 1;10). Then he adds in the words âand it happenedâ (Mk 1;9) to begin the story and tells the reader specifically that Jesus âsawâ this splitting of the heavens.
MarkÂ has taken his wording straightÂ from theÂ story ofÂ the AkedahÂ given inÂ Greek inÂ the Septuagint. ThisÂ also begins with those words âand it happenedâ, Abraham âsplitâ schizo wood for the sacrificial fire, a voice called out âfrom heavenâ (Gen 22;11,15), and Abraham named the place âthe Lord will seeâ (Gen 22;14). So Mark creates several different comic parallels in order to present Jesus as a replacement forÂ Isaac. What was theÂ second question?
BBY...Â You have just described how the baptism story in MarkâsÂ Gospel was re-written as a sort ofÂ parody of the Akedah.Â Many JewsÂ will want to know whether the account of the crucifixion of Jesus wasÂ alsoÂ created as aÂ literary parallelÂ to the Akedah?
JH... Again there is nothing about the Akedah in the first edition of the story in Matthew. ButÂ when Mark did his rewriting of MatthewâsÂ crucifixion storyÂ yes he added in elements of the Akedah into the crucifixion story as well. But he did soÂ in a very subtle way that also adds in Roman anti-semitic humour.
In Torah Isaac of course had two sons, Esau the red haired, and Jacob who was Israel the soldier of God.Â You remember how Isaac carries the wood to the altar.Â InÂ MatthewâsÂ crucifixion account there wasÂ a man who carried the wood of the crossâwho is called Simon of Cyrene.Â So this act of carrying wood makesÂ Simon a bit like Isaac.
The author of Mark then makes him evenÂ more like Isaac, by giving him a son Rufus the red haired and Alexander which means âprotector of mankindâ. Its in Mark 15;21. This is just Roman humor since these are the names of two Roman generals.Â During the Jewish War Rufus was the Roman general who helped crucify the true Jewish messiah and Tiberius Alexander was the other general who crucified the sons of the freedom fighter Judas.
SoÂ theÂ Roman generals who crucified the JewsÂ are being given cameo appearances in this epic as Esau and Jacob-Israel. Instead of featuring Israel the soldier of God the gospel features Tiberius Alexander the RomanÂ general who was known for slaughtering Jews in Alexandria. The Romans thought this hillariously funny. That is why the Gospels are the most anti-Semitic documents ever written.
ThenÂ a generation after the gospels were written a whole secondary literature of commentariesÂ sprung upÂ like the Epistle of Barnabas written whichÂ tried to spell out the message and claimed thatÂ in the crucifixion, Jesus offered âthe vessel of his spirit as a sacrifice for our sins, in order that the type established in Isaac, who was offered upon the altar, might be fulfilledâ.
BBY... So now that it has been discovered what the Gospels really are, what should Jews be doing about it?
JH...It's not for me to say, but now that we know that the GospelsÂ are a comic parody of Judaism created by the man who destroyed Yerushalyim to make people worship him in a concealed Caesar cult, we cannot justÂ stand byÂ andÂ do nothing.Â The religion that the Emperor TitusÂ createdÂ continues to poison andÂ devastate our world 2000 years later. We have theÂ ethical and moral responsibility to learn how to read these ancient texts, to understand what they are, and to use our modern media to make sure that the truth is known, to prevent further damage to our world. So what do we have to do? go, study, ask questions and teach the truth.
BBY.. That is a very powerful statement. Do you think that the recent alliances that the Jews have made with many Christians movements will deteriorate as a result ofÂ this knowledge?
JH...It's not really for me to say, but I hope that Jews and Christians together will study these ancient texts intelligentlyÂ andÂ come to a decision on what to do about them that is not based on ignorantly mis-interpreting ancientÂ Roman war propaganda.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â References
C. Allison The New Moses:A Matthean Typology (1993).
Joseph Atwill Caesarâs Messiah (2005).
Benjamin W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (1930).
David R Bauer The Structure of Matthewâs GospelÂ (1988).
Mary DouglasÂ Leviticus as Literature (1999).
W.Farmer, D.Dungan, A. McNicol, D Peabody andÂ P. Shuler â Narrative Outline of the Markan Composition According to the Two Gospel Hypothesisâ in SBL Seminar Papers (1990) pp 212-39
John Hudson âThe Structure ofÂ Matthewâ conference paper, abstract at
Allan J.Â McNicol with David L, Dungan and David B. Peabody Beyond the Q Impasse Lukeâs Use of Matthew:Â A Demonstration by the Research team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies (1996).
David PeabodyÂ One Gospel From Two; Markâs Use of Matthew and Luke (2002).