It seems fine as a whole. I'm only about halfway through it though and already it seems there are a dozen points you could spin into their own articles-and please do if you feel so inclined. You give a lot to chew on.
I've been persuaded that Jesus Mythicism is the correct answer since the 1980s (when Moses Mythicism - and the mythical nature of all the major players and scenarios of the Old Nonsense - became discussable),
Richard Carrier has written some interesting stuff regarding Jesus Mythicism - its links to other regional cults surrounding dying-and-rising man-gods (e.g., Zalmoxis, Zoroaster etc) - but this is the first I've seen a proposed link between Julius Caesar and Jeebus.
Then again, it's only this year that I first read of the hypothesis that (roughly) the first millennium didn't happen (give or take). While speculative, it's not something I think can be rejected out of hand - unlike nonsense like the stupid drivel of Exodus... whereby 600,000 men and their entourage wandering around in Sinai for 40 years without leaving any archaeological trace (and take 40 years to travel roughy 250miles, and "conquer" an area that was under Egyptian rule the whole time).
The 'inserted centuries' hypothesis is strangely compelling. Multiple investigators have arrived at it from different directions, and it seems to resolve a number of otherwise very strange archeological mysteries that require academics to twist things into pretzels to match the generally accepted chronology.
As to Moses and Exodus: quite obviously fake in my opinion. There's probably a kernel of truth to it though. My guess is that the story is based on the Hyksos narrative, which is the only thing in Egyptian history that really resembles Exodus. Of course, the Hyksos didn't escape: they were expelled.
GM: i feel i must break a lance in favor of Carotta "accidental" hypotesis.
One of the most virulent heresy in the Third Century was Donatism, that invented the word "traitor" i.e. a Christian who gave (tradére) the holy books to the Romans. By itself, it looks like fanaticsm, but we must remind that literacy and mass accessibility to written text is a very recent development: back in the days, there were very few books and few people that can read and understand them.
So, what if Donatists were not against the traitors but against their reconstruction of the holy books?
Even if you dismiss earlier persecution as bogus and slender aginst populist (Nero, that debased the currency to help the debtors) emperor, we must accept that Christianity (in both Divus Iulius and Pauline flavour) were not beloved by the authority, so it really takes an execution of a priest or the burning of a copy of the Gospel to compleately muddle the content of a belief - I mean, according to Lucio Russo (a polymath capable of writing calculus in Koiné Greek, one of you Anglos should translate him) we lost a whole scientific revolution during the Third Century BEFORE Christ, missing the right spelling of Corfinium looks a lot more plausible!
The last point can also explain why Christianity, although a "Make Rome Great Again" religion, was persecuted since Decius. Contrary to popular belief, Augustus was not Cesar's heir: Mark Anthony was. Augustus was Roman Marco Rubio, the one that fused Cesar method with senatorial aims. I doubt Augustus and his successors loved a cult that divinized a man that would have despised his Sullian restauration.
Lastly, are you familiar with the "Mark's Gospel as a Thragedy" thesy? Upon that a guy in a now lost blog built a thesis according who Mark is Marcion (litterally "big Mark" as an affectionate), they guy beloved by Rurik NAFOwalker.
According that guy, Marcion was the Paul "Father of All Heresy" of Tarsus, a diaspora, lapsed Jew (a rich shipowner, no less) that invented Christianity as a consolatio philosophiae for beaten diaspora Jews: the most compelling argument is that Jesus' prophecies match with Josephus description of the War (e.g. the unveiling of the Temple is literally Titus having his good time with an onager). Marcionism was adoptionist and that is the reason why Matthew (the judizing Gospel par eccellence) added the genealogy of Jesus and interpolated Mark with his death.
Much of this is indeed new to me. Mark's gospel as a tragedy is an interesting take. I'd been operating under the assumption that it is a satirical comedy, intended to skewer the Zealots in the aftermath of their catastrophic defeat by the Romans. Which is not to say that it did not also possess a spiritual payload. Wrapped up in the satire is a religious "off-ramp" that provides Jews with a means of rejoining the civilized world, abandoning their Law, throwing off the rabbis, but doing so while saving face (Jesus fulfilling the Law). It would only make sense for Mark, whoever he was, to have based the Jesus story on the well-known Caesar story, thereby providing the Jews a judaized version of the popular Caesar cult.
But then later the Judaizers come along and subvert the subversion by reifying the satire, obscuring its origins (which may have been far more obvious to everyone originally), and forcibly inserting much of the Jewish stuff back into the new church.
Does coincidences exist? Today Caelano published a post on the Septuaginta (https://librarianofcelaeno.substack.com/p/on-the-septuagint) with many interesting insights - that according my old notes surprisingly I studied at "high school" but never collegate.
I know the Librarian quite well, yes; he's an excellent writer, a very smart guy, and a friend of the blog. Haven't had a chance to read his article on the Septuagint yet, though I did see it posted.
I must confess I belive more in the "demografic" explanation: levantine slave and plebs in I century Rome syncretized the Julianism you described and "post-pharisee" Marcionism in Christianity. The "european" flavor of Julianism conquered the Romans (and then the Europeans) but missing a "Roman" patronage (I doubt the Emperors loved Julianism, if Pliny's letter is to be belived), when the Judizers stroke the semitic virus was permanently ignected in Christianity - Rolo would love that.
I read Caesars Messiah about 10 years ago. The intervening years have somewhat diminished the power of Atwills argumentation for me; however the insight of his premise has grown. That power - and particularly the powerful machinations of empire - always act so as to maintain their power should be self evident, but Atwill helped me to see that power/control is more effectively deployed against ones blind spots. Brute force works, but cognitive manipulation works better.
I appreciate the effort you put into your writing and the comment section seems to attract a generally thoughtful and inquiring crowd as well.
p.s - your nom de plume convinced me to stop avoiding the Barsoom books. Of their time no doubt but fun quick reads.
They're fun reads, but just as important, iconic. I was struck when reading them by just how many tropes they'd apparently given rise to. There's also an energy and freshness to the pulp literature of the time that is hard to come by these days.
I’ve attempted to compose several replies that start with “there’s an energy and freshness no doubt, but…’ the rest sounds whiny and nit-picky. The ‘but’ is the dead give away I suppose.
Let’s go with: I appreciate that John Carter loves living life. He is rarely beset by doubt and never fundamentally doubts his personal ethos or impulses. He unashamedly loves beautiful things. I think it is that clarity that carries the freshness and energy you mentioned.
Precisely. You see the same energy in the Conan stories by Robert E. Howard. It's the youthful outlook of the frontier given literary expression. For that reason I've always considered the pulp fiction of the early 20th century to be more representative of the American soul than the depressing, aimless introspection of the modernists one tends to find celebrated in the academy.
Thanks Harrison, I’ve skimmed through that book. Sort of moved on (sounds more pompous/arrogant/dismissive than I mean it) from that genre in general. I was interested in destroying my worldview (or at least, destroy is what happened) when I read Atwill/et al. More interested in cultivating a coherent, robust, life affirming worldview now, so reading that informs that end takes up the majority of my (never enough) time!
p.s enjoy your substack as well. Thank you for your work!
Why I find a book/essay/piece of writing coherent, robust and life affirming is often personally contextual.
For example I read a prayer for the blessing of food last week which moved me take up the practice for the first time. There is nothing obviously coherent about blessing food (not in a rational sense), and the food is still life affirming (in a literal, physical way) without the prayer.
Yet the prayer itself, the reflection it induces and the wider, deeper connections it helps me to make to life itself, have the net effect of increasing the coherence and robustness of my life and affirms that I want to live this life and experience as much of it as I can.
That being said, Gordon White’s Ani.Mystic is one book that overtly affirms life and the mutual flourishing of all. I recently re-read Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World by Haruki Murakami and while I found it ultimately life affirming, I can see how some might see it depressing. As I mentioned in another comment, the Barsoom series is unashamedly about living life and the wonderful adventures that life will take you on when you live it.
Substacks such as From The Forests of Arduinna, Torchlight, The Wonderland Rules, Charles Eisenstein, John Carter (obvs!), Paul Kingsnorth, (and so many more!) have provided many moments which provoke deep thought and reflection and ultimately encourage me to keep on living life.
"For the good Christ, as they said, never ate, nor drank, nor took upon him true flesh, nor ever was in this world, except spiritually in the body of Paul...."
This has been a fascinating journey. I keep wanting to jump naked into the comments section (especially some of the spicier exchanges), but I pass marshmallow tests with flying colors these days.
I'll 'say this much: I've been wondering about your motive since the first installment (which is not to say that anyone needs a particular motive to record the substance of their minds, even when it comes to topics of great importance).
In any caee, thank you for these entertaining and intriguing thoughts so far. I only hope I can be half as lucid with my reaction.
tl;dr on my motive, it's two parts. One, I just think it's cool. Two, figuring this out helped me to reconcile with Christianity - maybe it will help a few others. There are some who are fine with it as it is, and more power to them; but there are also some who see the sense in the message but are held back by the incompatibility between the church injunction to 'just trust us bro' and their Aquarian age skepticism. For the latter - and I'm in that camp - figuring out what really happened (or at least, something more plausible than the biblical account) is a key element to engaging with the deeper truths.
Which is basically what I'll be talking about it chapter 4.
You're not getting off that easy lmao! I expect at least a four-part explanation, no less than 80,000 words. Plus twelve Hail Mary's, and three Our Fathers. On my desk, stat! :)
Up until my twenties I was devout, my father, grandfather and two uncles are ministers. In my teens I discovered Mists of Avalon (of all things) and was opened to the idea that christians could be the bad guys, the destroying of culture - could it ever be justified, did it make things better, did christians really have the answer. R-reading the old testament just seemed like a lesson in how to destroy cultures and take other peoples stuff with an esoteric justification. The doctrine of discovery, codified this. As a previous commenter mentions, Luther was not pleasant. The whole bible seemed obviously full of contradictions, a few other things contributed, but I could no longer believe, whether I wanted to or not.
But nor could I abandon the topic, I very much enjoyed your series, I had not heard of the theory before. I am sure I will be pondering it for some time.
I'm certainly not going to defend the OT, in fact I'm going to be ripping on it hard in the next chapter.
However, before basing too much of your worldview on Marion Zimmer Bradley's 'Mists of Avalon', you should look up what her daughter Moira Greyland had to say in her autobiographical account 'The Last Closet'. Bradley and her husband were sexually abusive pedophiles.
Thats why I said 'of all things; the book is unreadable now and Zimmer-Bradley was an awful person, it is embarrassing to admit that was the book that allowed me to see the 'pagan' perspective. Upon reflection I related to the main character and how she was treated by her family, so it was upsetting to me when her world died, I missed most of the grown up stuff with it being above my head.
One of the other issues that contributed to my loss of faith was the forgiveness, and protection of predators within church and scapegoating the child victim - for tempting. So it was quite a shock when I heard her backstory, but explained why I was unable to reread her book as an adult.
I went down some rabbit holes, I have come to more of the Roger Scruton perspective that religion, at its best, is the expression of the sacred - he was really the only christian that resonated, tho I don't know what to make of his fondness for Kant + Hegel - I cannot decode their work. But have also a fascination to pre-christian belief systems - but that is very difficult to uncover without the new age woo.
Ah, gotcha - should have picked up on the 'of all things' qualifier lol.
I share the fascination with pre-Christian religion. Looking at how much Christianity was informed by previous spiritual traditions, my working hypothesis is that there's something very real and deep there, something that goes back a very long time indeed, and that it can be uncovered by following the threads connecting contemporary to historical traditions. The new age stuff certainly adds a lot of noise - it's mostly made up wishful thinking developed up justify the self-indulgence of 70s hedonists. Books like The Ancient City were immensely clarifying in terms of determining what our ancestors in the pre-Christian era really believed.
Knight-Jadzyck's book "From Paul to Mark" is dense, but absolutely wonderful. It did nothing less for me than reconciling my love and respect for the Christian faith with the obvious fact that it is largely based on a fabricated story. Eye-opening.
I'd like to mention another (later) villain in this story that doesn't get nearly as much bashing as he deserves: Martin Luther. Along many, many other things, he completely screwed up Paul's theology and clouded Paul's deep and timeless message in nonsense that affects both Catholics and Protestants to this day.
There are many aspects to the Luther story, one of which is his theological extremism: contrary to popular belief, he didn't start out as a critic of corruption in the church and eventually became more radical. No, his "sola fide" doctrine came first. It is the idea that only Grace can save you, which Luther took to such extremes as to say that all moral actions are sins if unilateral Grace isn't present. Hence the later abolishments of monasteries etc. It was diametrically opposed to fundamental aspects of the church from the very beginning. Luther based most of that on his reading of Paul.
Now, there is a kernel of truth to it, because Paul speaks of the union with the Christ spirit we need to achieve, and that merely following the law to the letter, while beneficial as a sort of childminder, ultimately leads to sin. But Luther misunderstood that and thought "works" are entirely useless or worse, whereas for Paul "faith of Christ" is all about works in communion with the spirit, and certainly not about "belief". (Later protestant theologians have to a degree tried to rectify Luther's errors based no doubt on their common sense, but his shadow still looms large.)
IMO, this "faith vs. works" dispute has kind of stifled theological discourse on both sides. I highly recommend the mentioned book "Paul's Necessary Sin" for more on Paul's real theology.
There is so much more - to appreciate the sheer extremism and destructiveness of Luther's thoughts, I recommend reading some original quotes. After studying this a few years back in some depth, my theory is that he was utterly obsessed with his own salvation despite him being a sinner who can't help it, and desperately tried to come up with some doctrine that would mean he's gonna be saved. It's kind of manic, and did plunge Europe into chaos for sure.
Now, I'm not saying the Catholics were all saints. But the story we've been told - the Reformation as sort of a proto-Enlightenment heroically fighting against the superstitious and corrupt church - is a fabrication, a myth.
That's interesting. I've never dived too deeply into Luther, but given the sheer barbarity of the early protestants during the 30 Years War for instance, none of that surprises me. The tree is known by its fruit.
The mother of Constantine the Great, Helen, collected relics – the three crosses used for the crucifixion in Jerusalem. In order to find out which one Jesus died on she had them put on a corpse one by one. The third cross revived the deceased person so this miracle proved its authenticity. Performing miracles was the essence of relics (and there were hundreds, maybe thousands) and these miracles – and the authenticity of the relic – needed to be verified by reliable witnesses or someone of high authority in the church.
I'd be curious to know how Jews and pagans arrived at this strange concept of relics. There's nothing like it in either groups' concept of the sacred. Paganism represented spiritual images as idealized humans with a canon of proportion relating every part of the human body to the whole. This was a manifestation of a divine being and example of ideal beauty.
Jews viewed God as an abstract but highly personal being, completely tribal.
It could be that the early pagan Christians’ attempt to conceptualize God in more Jewish terms created the concept of the relic as a more abstract representation of divine order. Parts of saints bodies, the cross, and even Christ’s tears were a reaction to the pagan emphasis on the whole body. Since Christians also believed that moral progress was not only possible in this world but also in the next, this would have further alienated them visually from the pagan representation of the soul.
Early Christians also believed that Christ would return from the dead and cast judgement on all human life. Neither Jew nor pagan imagined this.
Me, personally, I don't think a human could conceive of these revolutionary mysteries but I am certainly intrigued by your overarching theme. Thanks for a very interesting read.
Given how imaginative modern speculative fiction can be, to say nothing of European mythology, I'd be hesitant to claim that the human mind is not capable of conceptualizing some pretty out there stuff. I don't see why magic artifacts should be beyond those very wife boundaries.
Interesting point nonetheless. I'll have to look to see if there's any precedent for relics holding numinous powers. I suspect the answer is yes but don't know.
As to an abstract God of everything, this is the God of the philosophers. Gmirkin's research has given good reason to suspect that Jewish priests got this idea from Plato.
Interesting write up. I'll have to read it again so I can respond to this in a sort of intelligent way. Hopefully you read comments that are several days or weeks old.
Fun fact: the Fortress of Solitude predates Action Comics 1. Doc Savage, The Man of Bronze, had his Fortress of Solitude in the Arctic before Superman existed.
(The 1975 Doc Savage movie well worth watching. The choice of music alone makes it stand out.)
I've heard of him. Wandering healer or something, yes? My shoot from the hip response is that those guys were fairly common back then - a personality cult is easy to imagine, but would it have the name recognition to go world-historic?
Very interesting per usual. If I have the faith of Christ, does that make me a Christian? It seems like it might... Of course my priors are a little different, a priori truths and the implied principles that follow, but I leverage the technology just as much as any traditional Christian I've met. It seems like understanding this narrative has critical implications in counteracting the worship of teotl pulling us inexorably towards a hellscape where the elite bathe in the blood of the serfs in the technological singularity. Looking forward to what I am sure will be an immensely satisfying conclusion!
The conclusion will mostly just be my personal reflections ... hadn't thought of connecting it to tlotl worshippers, but actually, now that you mention it ... there are implications....
This Faith of Christ thing is huge. I've been reflecting on it more and I wanted to share something with you. When I conducted my chaplain interview as a part of the religious accommodation process pertaining to the C19 vaccine mandate I had to do some hard reflection on my most deeply held beliefs about morality, spirituality, and purpose. There were a lot of questions that were pretty invasive, but I engaged with the process in good faith, and I actually enjoyed distilling it all down on paper. Without further adieu, a relevant section answering questions on the form given to me by my chaplain:
"I believe in good and evil. I believe all people have the capacity for both. I believe the only
way to ensure that I do not become an evil person is to act in accordance with my conscience. I believe to act against my conscience is to abandon my faith that I am a good and just human being. Further, I know taking such an action would degrade my conviction that my existence on this earth as a husband, father, son, brother, friend, and associate is necessary to avoid humanity’s darkest future contingencies. It is this conviction that I draw strength from when confronted with adversity. I have faith that if I can control my behavior such that my actions are consistent with my most deeply held convictions, then so can we all."
I think this exemplifies a faith of Christ that is resistant to the spiritual bankruptcy that accompanies faithless materialism. If all beliefs are just probabilities with error bars in an uncaring, indifferent universe, why should we have faith in anything? This isn't an easy question for an atheist to answer. Whether or not I've answered it to anyone else's satisfaction is unimportant. What is important is that I have the faith of Christ, and that I can leverage this technology in the service of achieving my purpose (cont'd chaplain questionnaire):
"I have found deep purpose in life in the pursuit of raising a family and helping others to recover from injuries and pursue optimal health and fitness. I believe that optimizing the health and fitness of others provides the bedrock they can stand on to their achievement of their own noble callings. The only tool I can rely upon to direct me towards achieving this purpose is my conscience. I believe I am responsible for each of the decisions I make. To be clear this means I am unable to excuse any of my behaviors by attributing them to the actions of others, even if those actions include coercion. This obviously includes all decisions related to health and wellbeing."
Thank you for distilling out the aspects of Christianity that resonate with me most strongly. It will be incredibly helpful communicating with my Christian brothers and sisters in the ongoing spiritual conflict.
John, once again, a thought-provoking piece. You may be interested in another addition to the cottage industry of Flavian origins: Flavio Barbiero's The Secret Society of Moses. Barbiero claims Flavius Josephus founded the Catholic Church as a family business.
Given that there were likely strong institutional connections between the early church and the imperial cult, and that the latter had strong connections to the emperor, that sounds quite plausible.
Sorry for the long read. I thought about breaking this in two but the topic seemed like it should be treated as a whole.
Well we’re certainly getting our money’s worth! Fascinating idea that makes a lot of sense.
Given that I haven't set up a paid option yet I'm not sure that's a compliment ;)
It seems fine as a whole. I'm only about halfway through it though and already it seems there are a dozen points you could spin into their own articles-and please do if you feel so inclined. You give a lot to chew on.
No apologies necessary.
I've been persuaded that Jesus Mythicism is the correct answer since the 1980s (when Moses Mythicism - and the mythical nature of all the major players and scenarios of the Old Nonsense - became discussable),
Richard Carrier has written some interesting stuff regarding Jesus Mythicism - its links to other regional cults surrounding dying-and-rising man-gods (e.g., Zalmoxis, Zoroaster etc) - but this is the first I've seen a proposed link between Julius Caesar and Jeebus.
Then again, it's only this year that I first read of the hypothesis that (roughly) the first millennium didn't happen (give or take). While speculative, it's not something I think can be rejected out of hand - unlike nonsense like the stupid drivel of Exodus... whereby 600,000 men and their entourage wandering around in Sinai for 40 years without leaving any archaeological trace (and take 40 years to travel roughy 250miles, and "conquer" an area that was under Egyptian rule the whole time).
The 'inserted centuries' hypothesis is strangely compelling. Multiple investigators have arrived at it from different directions, and it seems to resolve a number of otherwise very strange archeological mysteries that require academics to twist things into pretzels to match the generally accepted chronology.
As to Moses and Exodus: quite obviously fake in my opinion. There's probably a kernel of truth to it though. My guess is that the story is based on the Hyksos narrative, which is the only thing in Egyptian history that really resembles Exodus. Of course, the Hyksos didn't escape: they were expelled.
GM: i feel i must break a lance in favor of Carotta "accidental" hypotesis.
One of the most virulent heresy in the Third Century was Donatism, that invented the word "traitor" i.e. a Christian who gave (tradére) the holy books to the Romans. By itself, it looks like fanaticsm, but we must remind that literacy and mass accessibility to written text is a very recent development: back in the days, there were very few books and few people that can read and understand them.
So, what if Donatists were not against the traitors but against their reconstruction of the holy books?
Even if you dismiss earlier persecution as bogus and slender aginst populist (Nero, that debased the currency to help the debtors) emperor, we must accept that Christianity (in both Divus Iulius and Pauline flavour) were not beloved by the authority, so it really takes an execution of a priest or the burning of a copy of the Gospel to compleately muddle the content of a belief - I mean, according to Lucio Russo (a polymath capable of writing calculus in Koiné Greek, one of you Anglos should translate him) we lost a whole scientific revolution during the Third Century BEFORE Christ, missing the right spelling of Corfinium looks a lot more plausible!
There is also another explanation why Pauline Christianity won over "Roman" one: immigration. "all suggest that Roman urban populations in the 1st through 3rd centuries AD were largely of Anatolian and Levantine origin - though with minorities from northern Europe, northwestern Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa" (https://open.substack.com/pub/nemets/p/peoples-of-rome?r=1m606h&selection=1e55b26f-7889-46c6-8300-4df106f8c975&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web): were those levantine greeks and aggregated asians going to read about Corfinium or Cafarnaum?
The last point can also explain why Christianity, although a "Make Rome Great Again" religion, was persecuted since Decius. Contrary to popular belief, Augustus was not Cesar's heir: Mark Anthony was. Augustus was Roman Marco Rubio, the one that fused Cesar method with senatorial aims. I doubt Augustus and his successors loved a cult that divinized a man that would have despised his Sullian restauration.
Lastly, are you familiar with the "Mark's Gospel as a Thragedy" thesy? Upon that a guy in a now lost blog built a thesis according who Mark is Marcion (litterally "big Mark" as an affectionate), they guy beloved by Rurik NAFOwalker.
According that guy, Marcion was the Paul "Father of All Heresy" of Tarsus, a diaspora, lapsed Jew (a rich shipowner, no less) that invented Christianity as a consolatio philosophiae for beaten diaspora Jews: the most compelling argument is that Jesus' prophecies match with Josephus description of the War (e.g. the unveiling of the Temple is literally Titus having his good time with an onager). Marcionism was adoptionist and that is the reason why Matthew (the judizing Gospel par eccellence) added the genealogy of Jesus and interpolated Mark with his death.
BTW, can I ask how you came across this essay?
IDK. I put this essay on the "reading list" when you republished it on telegram, but i have no idea how i reached the BArsoom constellation.
Ah, okay. Cool, thanks for letting me know!
Excellent comment. Pinned.
Much of this is indeed new to me. Mark's gospel as a tragedy is an interesting take. I'd been operating under the assumption that it is a satirical comedy, intended to skewer the Zealots in the aftermath of their catastrophic defeat by the Romans. Which is not to say that it did not also possess a spiritual payload. Wrapped up in the satire is a religious "off-ramp" that provides Jews with a means of rejoining the civilized world, abandoning their Law, throwing off the rabbis, but doing so while saving face (Jesus fulfilling the Law). It would only make sense for Mark, whoever he was, to have based the Jesus story on the well-known Caesar story, thereby providing the Jews a judaized version of the popular Caesar cult.
But then later the Judaizers come along and subvert the subversion by reifying the satire, obscuring its origins (which may have been far more obvious to everyone originally), and forcibly inserting much of the Jewish stuff back into the new church.
Does coincidences exist? Today Caelano published a post on the Septuaginta (https://librarianofcelaeno.substack.com/p/on-the-septuagint) with many interesting insights - that according my old notes surprisingly I studied at "high school" but never collegate.
1. the Evangelists knew the greek Septuaginta, not the hebrew Pentateuch (e.g. parthenos instead of "young woman" https://academic.oup.com/book/6258/chapter-abstract/149903383?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false or https://tyndalehouse.com/explore/articles/did-jesus-speak-greek/);
2. Constantine's Bible is Origen's Hexapla, again a Greek compilation from an Alexandrine greek (not Jew).
Imvho those are new clues that Christianity is a Greek-latin cult developed for the Levantine demography: do you know Caelano personally?
I know the Librarian quite well, yes; he's an excellent writer, a very smart guy, and a friend of the blog. Haven't had a chance to read his article on the Septuagint yet, though I did see it posted.
"Mark as a tragedy" is a common trope in gospel critique: e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1561221
I must confess I belive more in the "demografic" explanation: levantine slave and plebs in I century Rome syncretized the Julianism you described and "post-pharisee" Marcionism in Christianity. The "european" flavor of Julianism conquered the Romans (and then the Europeans) but missing a "Roman" patronage (I doubt the Emperors loved Julianism, if Pliny's letter is to be belived), when the Judizers stroke the semitic virus was permanently ignected in Christianity - Rolo would love that.
I read Caesars Messiah about 10 years ago. The intervening years have somewhat diminished the power of Atwills argumentation for me; however the insight of his premise has grown. That power - and particularly the powerful machinations of empire - always act so as to maintain their power should be self evident, but Atwill helped me to see that power/control is more effectively deployed against ones blind spots. Brute force works, but cognitive manipulation works better.
I appreciate the effort you put into your writing and the comment section seems to attract a generally thoughtful and inquiring crowd as well.
p.s - your nom de plume convinced me to stop avoiding the Barsoom books. Of their time no doubt but fun quick reads.
They're fun reads, but just as important, iconic. I was struck when reading them by just how many tropes they'd apparently given rise to. There's also an energy and freshness to the pulp literature of the time that is hard to come by these days.
I’ve attempted to compose several replies that start with “there’s an energy and freshness no doubt, but…’ the rest sounds whiny and nit-picky. The ‘but’ is the dead give away I suppose.
Let’s go with: I appreciate that John Carter loves living life. He is rarely beset by doubt and never fundamentally doubts his personal ethos or impulses. He unashamedly loves beautiful things. I think it is that clarity that carries the freshness and energy you mentioned.
Precisely. You see the same energy in the Conan stories by Robert E. Howard. It's the youthful outlook of the frontier given literary expression. For that reason I've always considered the pulp fiction of the early 20th century to be more representative of the American soul than the depressing, aimless introspection of the modernists one tends to find celebrated in the academy.
I've only read parts, but there's another Atwill-esque book out there offering a similar position with different and better (?) arguments: https://smile.amazon.com/Creating-Christ-Emperors-Invented-Christianity/dp/1949914615/ Been meaning to read all of it, but you might find it worth checking out!
Thanks Harrison, I’ve skimmed through that book. Sort of moved on (sounds more pompous/arrogant/dismissive than I mean it) from that genre in general. I was interested in destroying my worldview (or at least, destroy is what happened) when I read Atwill/et al. More interested in cultivating a coherent, robust, life affirming worldview now, so reading that informs that end takes up the majority of my (never enough) time!
p.s enjoy your substack as well. Thank you for your work!
Tough question!
Why I find a book/essay/piece of writing coherent, robust and life affirming is often personally contextual.
For example I read a prayer for the blessing of food last week which moved me take up the practice for the first time. There is nothing obviously coherent about blessing food (not in a rational sense), and the food is still life affirming (in a literal, physical way) without the prayer.
Yet the prayer itself, the reflection it induces and the wider, deeper connections it helps me to make to life itself, have the net effect of increasing the coherence and robustness of my life and affirms that I want to live this life and experience as much of it as I can.
That being said, Gordon White’s Ani.Mystic is one book that overtly affirms life and the mutual flourishing of all. I recently re-read Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World by Haruki Murakami and while I found it ultimately life affirming, I can see how some might see it depressing. As I mentioned in another comment, the Barsoom series is unashamedly about living life and the wonderful adventures that life will take you on when you live it.
Substacks such as From The Forests of Arduinna, Torchlight, The Wonderland Rules, Charles Eisenstein, John Carter (obvs!), Paul Kingsnorth, (and so many more!) have provided many moments which provoke deep thought and reflection and ultimately encourage me to keep on living life.
Apologies for the long winded answer.
I'm really enjoying this explanation, far more than I thought I would.
Now that.
That is the kind of comment that makes it all worthwhile.
Interesting:
Raynaldus on the Accusations against the Cathars:
"For the good Christ, as they said, never ate, nor drank, nor took upon him true flesh, nor ever was in this world, except spiritually in the body of Paul...."
https://www.cathar.info/121202_raynaldus.htm
This has been a fascinating journey. I keep wanting to jump naked into the comments section (especially some of the spicier exchanges), but I pass marshmallow tests with flying colors these days.
I'll 'say this much: I've been wondering about your motive since the first installment (which is not to say that anyone needs a particular motive to record the substance of their minds, even when it comes to topics of great importance).
In any caee, thank you for these entertaining and intriguing thoughts so far. I only hope I can be half as lucid with my reaction.
tl;dr on my motive, it's two parts. One, I just think it's cool. Two, figuring this out helped me to reconcile with Christianity - maybe it will help a few others. There are some who are fine with it as it is, and more power to them; but there are also some who see the sense in the message but are held back by the incompatibility between the church injunction to 'just trust us bro' and their Aquarian age skepticism. For the latter - and I'm in that camp - figuring out what really happened (or at least, something more plausible than the biblical account) is a key element to engaging with the deeper truths.
Which is basically what I'll be talking about it chapter 4.
You're not getting off that easy lmao! I expect at least a four-part explanation, no less than 80,000 words. Plus twelve Hail Mary's, and three Our Fathers. On my desk, stat! :)
I think this series is already something like 12,000 words lol.
Up until my twenties I was devout, my father, grandfather and two uncles are ministers. In my teens I discovered Mists of Avalon (of all things) and was opened to the idea that christians could be the bad guys, the destroying of culture - could it ever be justified, did it make things better, did christians really have the answer. R-reading the old testament just seemed like a lesson in how to destroy cultures and take other peoples stuff with an esoteric justification. The doctrine of discovery, codified this. As a previous commenter mentions, Luther was not pleasant. The whole bible seemed obviously full of contradictions, a few other things contributed, but I could no longer believe, whether I wanted to or not.
But nor could I abandon the topic, I very much enjoyed your series, I had not heard of the theory before. I am sure I will be pondering it for some time.
I'm certainly not going to defend the OT, in fact I'm going to be ripping on it hard in the next chapter.
However, before basing too much of your worldview on Marion Zimmer Bradley's 'Mists of Avalon', you should look up what her daughter Moira Greyland had to say in her autobiographical account 'The Last Closet'. Bradley and her husband were sexually abusive pedophiles.
Thats why I said 'of all things; the book is unreadable now and Zimmer-Bradley was an awful person, it is embarrassing to admit that was the book that allowed me to see the 'pagan' perspective. Upon reflection I related to the main character and how she was treated by her family, so it was upsetting to me when her world died, I missed most of the grown up stuff with it being above my head.
One of the other issues that contributed to my loss of faith was the forgiveness, and protection of predators within church and scapegoating the child victim - for tempting. So it was quite a shock when I heard her backstory, but explained why I was unable to reread her book as an adult.
I went down some rabbit holes, I have come to more of the Roger Scruton perspective that religion, at its best, is the expression of the sacred - he was really the only christian that resonated, tho I don't know what to make of his fondness for Kant + Hegel - I cannot decode their work. But have also a fascination to pre-christian belief systems - but that is very difficult to uncover without the new age woo.
Ah, gotcha - should have picked up on the 'of all things' qualifier lol.
I share the fascination with pre-Christian religion. Looking at how much Christianity was informed by previous spiritual traditions, my working hypothesis is that there's something very real and deep there, something that goes back a very long time indeed, and that it can be uncovered by following the threads connecting contemporary to historical traditions. The new age stuff certainly adds a lot of noise - it's mostly made up wishful thinking developed up justify the self-indulgence of 70s hedonists. Books like The Ancient City were immensely clarifying in terms of determining what our ancestors in the pre-Christian era really believed.
Recommend “Yahweh, the two-faced God” an analysis by DeHart and Farrell, both PhDs in Patristics from Oxford.
Knight-Jadzyck's book "From Paul to Mark" is dense, but absolutely wonderful. It did nothing less for me than reconciling my love and respect for the Christian faith with the obvious fact that it is largely based on a fabricated story. Eye-opening.
I'd like to mention another (later) villain in this story that doesn't get nearly as much bashing as he deserves: Martin Luther. Along many, many other things, he completely screwed up Paul's theology and clouded Paul's deep and timeless message in nonsense that affects both Catholics and Protestants to this day.
There are many aspects to the Luther story, one of which is his theological extremism: contrary to popular belief, he didn't start out as a critic of corruption in the church and eventually became more radical. No, his "sola fide" doctrine came first. It is the idea that only Grace can save you, which Luther took to such extremes as to say that all moral actions are sins if unilateral Grace isn't present. Hence the later abolishments of monasteries etc. It was diametrically opposed to fundamental aspects of the church from the very beginning. Luther based most of that on his reading of Paul.
Now, there is a kernel of truth to it, because Paul speaks of the union with the Christ spirit we need to achieve, and that merely following the law to the letter, while beneficial as a sort of childminder, ultimately leads to sin. But Luther misunderstood that and thought "works" are entirely useless or worse, whereas for Paul "faith of Christ" is all about works in communion with the spirit, and certainly not about "belief". (Later protestant theologians have to a degree tried to rectify Luther's errors based no doubt on their common sense, but his shadow still looms large.)
IMO, this "faith vs. works" dispute has kind of stifled theological discourse on both sides. I highly recommend the mentioned book "Paul's Necessary Sin" for more on Paul's real theology.
There is so much more - to appreciate the sheer extremism and destructiveness of Luther's thoughts, I recommend reading some original quotes. After studying this a few years back in some depth, my theory is that he was utterly obsessed with his own salvation despite him being a sinner who can't help it, and desperately tried to come up with some doctrine that would mean he's gonna be saved. It's kind of manic, and did plunge Europe into chaos for sure.
Now, I'm not saying the Catholics were all saints. But the story we've been told - the Reformation as sort of a proto-Enlightenment heroically fighting against the superstitious and corrupt church - is a fabrication, a myth.
That's interesting. I've never dived too deeply into Luther, but given the sheer barbarity of the early protestants during the 30 Years War for instance, none of that surprises me. The tree is known by its fruit.
The mother of Constantine the Great, Helen, collected relics – the three crosses used for the crucifixion in Jerusalem. In order to find out which one Jesus died on she had them put on a corpse one by one. The third cross revived the deceased person so this miracle proved its authenticity. Performing miracles was the essence of relics (and there were hundreds, maybe thousands) and these miracles – and the authenticity of the relic – needed to be verified by reliable witnesses or someone of high authority in the church.
I'd be curious to know how Jews and pagans arrived at this strange concept of relics. There's nothing like it in either groups' concept of the sacred. Paganism represented spiritual images as idealized humans with a canon of proportion relating every part of the human body to the whole. This was a manifestation of a divine being and example of ideal beauty.
Jews viewed God as an abstract but highly personal being, completely tribal.
It could be that the early pagan Christians’ attempt to conceptualize God in more Jewish terms created the concept of the relic as a more abstract representation of divine order. Parts of saints bodies, the cross, and even Christ’s tears were a reaction to the pagan emphasis on the whole body. Since Christians also believed that moral progress was not only possible in this world but also in the next, this would have further alienated them visually from the pagan representation of the soul.
Early Christians also believed that Christ would return from the dead and cast judgement on all human life. Neither Jew nor pagan imagined this.
Me, personally, I don't think a human could conceive of these revolutionary mysteries but I am certainly intrigued by your overarching theme. Thanks for a very interesting read.
Given how imaginative modern speculative fiction can be, to say nothing of European mythology, I'd be hesitant to claim that the human mind is not capable of conceptualizing some pretty out there stuff. I don't see why magic artifacts should be beyond those very wife boundaries.
Interesting point nonetheless. I'll have to look to see if there's any precedent for relics holding numinous powers. I suspect the answer is yes but don't know.
As to an abstract God of everything, this is the God of the philosophers. Gmirkin's research has given good reason to suspect that Jewish priests got this idea from Plato.
precedent for relics holding numinous powers - don’t know whether they preceded crucifixion relics but I think they’re called sigils.
Interesting write up. I'll have to read it again so I can respond to this in a sort of intelligent way. Hopefully you read comments that are several days or weeks old.
I do.
Fun fact: the Fortress of Solitude predates Action Comics 1. Doc Savage, The Man of Bronze, had his Fortress of Solitude in the Arctic before Superman existed.
(The 1975 Doc Savage movie well worth watching. The choice of music alone makes it stand out.)
What about Apollonius of Tiana?
I've heard of him. Wandering healer or something, yes? My shoot from the hip response is that those guys were fairly common back then - a personality cult is easy to imagine, but would it have the name recognition to go world-historic?
Fascinating. COVID, Climate Change wokism are working exactly like that. Of course common sense is the enemy of any dictators message.
Very interesting per usual. If I have the faith of Christ, does that make me a Christian? It seems like it might... Of course my priors are a little different, a priori truths and the implied principles that follow, but I leverage the technology just as much as any traditional Christian I've met. It seems like understanding this narrative has critical implications in counteracting the worship of teotl pulling us inexorably towards a hellscape where the elite bathe in the blood of the serfs in the technological singularity. Looking forward to what I am sure will be an immensely satisfying conclusion!
The conclusion will mostly just be my personal reflections ... hadn't thought of connecting it to tlotl worshippers, but actually, now that you mention it ... there are implications....
This Faith of Christ thing is huge. I've been reflecting on it more and I wanted to share something with you. When I conducted my chaplain interview as a part of the religious accommodation process pertaining to the C19 vaccine mandate I had to do some hard reflection on my most deeply held beliefs about morality, spirituality, and purpose. There were a lot of questions that were pretty invasive, but I engaged with the process in good faith, and I actually enjoyed distilling it all down on paper. Without further adieu, a relevant section answering questions on the form given to me by my chaplain:
"I believe in good and evil. I believe all people have the capacity for both. I believe the only
way to ensure that I do not become an evil person is to act in accordance with my conscience. I believe to act against my conscience is to abandon my faith that I am a good and just human being. Further, I know taking such an action would degrade my conviction that my existence on this earth as a husband, father, son, brother, friend, and associate is necessary to avoid humanity’s darkest future contingencies. It is this conviction that I draw strength from when confronted with adversity. I have faith that if I can control my behavior such that my actions are consistent with my most deeply held convictions, then so can we all."
I think this exemplifies a faith of Christ that is resistant to the spiritual bankruptcy that accompanies faithless materialism. If all beliefs are just probabilities with error bars in an uncaring, indifferent universe, why should we have faith in anything? This isn't an easy question for an atheist to answer. Whether or not I've answered it to anyone else's satisfaction is unimportant. What is important is that I have the faith of Christ, and that I can leverage this technology in the service of achieving my purpose (cont'd chaplain questionnaire):
"I have found deep purpose in life in the pursuit of raising a family and helping others to recover from injuries and pursue optimal health and fitness. I believe that optimizing the health and fitness of others provides the bedrock they can stand on to their achievement of their own noble callings. The only tool I can rely upon to direct me towards achieving this purpose is my conscience. I believe I am responsible for each of the decisions I make. To be clear this means I am unable to excuse any of my behaviors by attributing them to the actions of others, even if those actions include coercion. This obviously includes all decisions related to health and wellbeing."
Thank you for distilling out the aspects of Christianity that resonate with me most strongly. It will be incredibly helpful communicating with my Christian brothers and sisters in the ongoing spiritual conflict.
Bravo.
John, once again, a thought-provoking piece. You may be interested in another addition to the cottage industry of Flavian origins: Flavio Barbiero's The Secret Society of Moses. Barbiero claims Flavius Josephus founded the Catholic Church as a family business.
Given that there were likely strong institutional connections between the early church and the imperial cult, and that the latter had strong connections to the emperor, that sounds quite plausible.