Atwill & Guyenot
In a recent Unz Review article, Joe Atwill published The Roman Invention of Jesus, based on his book Caesar’s Messiah. Laurent Guyenot then posted The Problem with Atwill’s Theory on Substack for his paid subs, although it may show up later on Unz:
This is the most revolutionary critic of the Old Testament dismissing the most revolutionary critic of the New Testament over a misunderstanding. And what’s led to this misunderstanding is semantics, a word that could be seen as Shem Antics from the Shemites, those who ‘Yahweh’ gave the right to rule the world. Just as they intended, the obfuscation of words has led to those closest to figuring out the ruse instead attacking their own side. Sigh.
For your amusement, I’ll start by quoting a comment thread on Guyenot’s stack:
Thank you immensely for clarifying this mess. The conclusion (if I've read it correctly) is that Atwill is controlled opposition, which would explain why he is pushing for a "Roman conspiracy against the Jews": it would thus give the Tribe one more feather in their Perennial Victim cap.
Question: Do you think that he is doing this knowingly—meaning, that he is actively engaged in duplicity—or do you think that he is simply a Useful Idiot—that is, that he genuinely believes his hypothesis, with no higher nefarious purpose?
I say "useful idiot". He is in love with his theory. I would not say "controlled opposition". I just think that people instinctively feel safe believing in a Roman conspiracy against the Jews, while the notion of a Jewish conspiracy against Gentiles makes you sweat. People tend to believe what is safe to believe. Barbiero's theory, although over the top in some parts, is also more demanding, while Atwill's theory is very simple (if you are not too bothered by the contradictions). I recommend reading Barbiero.
Under your theory that Joe is controlling the opposition, who do you theorize is paying him and controlling the opposition to what? I don't know anyone more critical of the Jews, if that's what you mean by 'giving the Tribe one more feather in their Perennial Victim cap.' I'm sure he rivals you, Laurent, in how many times he's been accused of being anti-Semitic. He's been outspoken and unapologetic in pointing to the Jews—or those who control them—as the masterminds of a millennial-old plot to turn Gentiles into slaves. I would think that you both agree with him on that. If the notion of a Jewish conspiracy against Gentiles makes you sweat, don't read Atwill—as it seems neither of you have.
I'm not sure how you go from "The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus," as is his subtitle, to "A Roman conspiracy against the Jews." Can you explain what you mean by that, Theophrastus, and how you reach that conclusion from his research?
I've never heard anyone say before that Joe's theory is simple. I find it extremely hard to follow myself, which is why I first dismissed it. But once I saw it, the evidence was everywhere, even from bible scholars who can't see it—even when it's their own data I use to prove it. The belief in 'Jesus' as a historical figure is the last dogma to go.
Rather than attacking Joe's character as a useful idiot, tell me where my research—which collaborates Joe's that the gospels and Josephus were written by the same people—is wrong. I'm ready to change my mind if you can show me the facts and logic that contradict it: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-rebel-or-imperialist?
You wrote this:
"I'm not sure how you go from "The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus," as is his subtitle, to "A Roman conspiracy against the Jews." Can you explain what you mean by that, Theophrastus, and how you reach that conclusion from his research?"
It comes from the last line in Dr. Guyenot's essay:
"I don’t need to explain to my readers why Atwill’s theory is more widely promoted than Barberio’s: Atwill talks about a Roman conspiracy against the Jews, while Barbiero talks about a Jewish conspiracy against the Gentiles."
Rather than trying to attack me when I was not talking to you in the first place, perhaps you'd best be served by reading the essay in its entirety before you get hoisted by your own petard. Again.
Ta.
I find that men often mistake character attacks for argument and logical argument for character attacks. Your statement on a public forum (not a private message to Laurent, who you could DM if you didn't want public response) was first referring to Joe Atwill's work as a mess. That's a character attack, not a critique of his arguments. You then read Laurent's conclusion as saying he's controlled opposition, another character attack that you're not willing to justify by speculating as to who would pay him and what opposition he's controlling.
You then leave two options for Atwill: either he's knowingly duplicitous or is a useful idiot with no nefarious intent. Gee whiz that's generous of you!
AND THEN when I challenge your facts and logic as being completely contrary to Atwill's work, you say that I'm attacking you. You make baseless attacks on Atwill and when I prove they're nonsense, you say you weren't talking to me. You were just giving Laurent an 'atta' boy' on his attack on Atwill. So RUDE of me to interrupt with what Atwill actually says.
The Roman conspiracy to invent Jesus was an attack on the anti-Yahwist, anti-Hellenist, anti-imperialist zealots called by the Greeks the Ἰουδαϊσμός. A Hellenic Ἰουδαϊσμός is a contradiction in terms. When you talk about 'the Tribe' you mean the Hellenist priestly caste of Yahwists. You're talking about the 'Romans' who now call themselves Jews, but are in the same hierarchy. You and Laurent are on the same side as Atwill in being against this hierarchy. You're attacking your own side, just as they meant you to.
I find that women often think that they've proved something when instead they have simply presented their opinion as fact. One can in fact address a comment in a public forum to a particular person without expecting to be interrupted by, or engaging with, uninvited and unwanted others.
I don't bloody much care what your opinions are, Madame. And you do not know how much time I've wasted reading Atwill's mess. Dr. Guyenot has cleared that up. My question was a minor one, and he answered it to my complete satisfaction. You may continue talking to the wall, if you wish, but the wall owes you no explanation.
As an aside, the name Theophrastus means divine speaker. No hubris there. And I’ve attached my article on Jesus: Rebel or Imperialist? The reader can decide if this is the opinion of a mere woman interrupting the godly phraser and the good ‘Dr. Guyenot.’
my jesus epiphany
I am a great admirer of Joe Atwill, who I am pleased to call my friend and fellow conspiracy theorist. We’ve been in touch for twenty years when I first contacted him after reading Caesar’s Messiah. He was enthusiastic about my own research into the fictional Jesus, and has encouraged me to write a book about it. We have geeked out over implications few other people would get, if not so deep into the weeds. He was also the first to confirm my suspicions about Robert Malone. I hope to visit him soon.
I am also an avid admirer of Laurent Guyenot, who is one of only two Substacks I pay for, with Vanessa Beeley. He has also subscribed to me, as one of only 20 Substacks he reads, saying my research interested him. I’ve purchased two of his books and have done several enthusiastic episodes in response to them, which I’ll attach at the end. He’s confirmed things I thought I was the only one to suspect and has furthered my thinking in ways I never anticipated. He’s one of the clearest analysts, most meticulous researchers, and open-minded thinkers I’ve ever read.
I don’t always agree with either of them—as it should be if we’re at the growing tip together. And in this case, I think the misunderstanding has been caused by the mistranslation by both of them of one word. And that word is Jew.
Here is my original thread to Laurent:
When I first started Caesar's Messiah, I literally threw it across the room in disgust. I then picked up Elaine Pagel's On the Origin of Satan, and read her description of Satan as the intimate enemy, the Judeans. Hmmm ... I thought, this validates that crazy book that says the gospels were written by Josephus, who hates the Judean rebels. Then I read John Dominic Crossan on the archeology of Rome, where he says that 'Lord of lord, light of light, true god from true god, begotten not made' are like graffiti in stone inscriptions—all referring to Caesar. And for the next twenty years, as I attended the international bible conference called The Jesus Seminars, everything I learned validated Atwill's theory that Josephus and the gospels have the same author--whether Josephus is a pseudonym also, I don't know.
In From Yahweh to Zion, you do an excellent job of distinguishing the religion from the race, by calling the religion Yahwists. But here you conflate race, religion and politics by using the word Jew, which never existed until the 18th century. The Greek word used by the bible is Ioudaismos (Ἰουδαϊσμός; from ἰουδαΐζειν, “to side with or imitate the [Judeans]”), Its antonym is Hellenismos, meaning acceptance of Hellenism or Sun/ Sky God worshippers of Dyeus, god of the Aryans. There's no such thing as a Hellenist ουδαϊσμός, they're completely opposite.
The Messiah of the υδαϊσμός or Judeans was the founder of the zealots Judas the Sicariot, the Healer, the Nazarene, the Galilean. Were they called Judeans as followers of Judas? When Greek writers talk about a messianic movement against the Hellenic Empire, they're talking about the zealots. Messiah and Christ are the same word. This Christianity has nothing to do with the nonexistent Hebrew name 'Jesus'. The only mention of a person by this name is in Josephus.
The original spelling of Aryan is heiro. Those who opposed the Hellenist Aryan heir-archy were the followers of Judas the Sicariot. In the gospels he becomes Judas Iscariot, portrayed as Satan. Is that just a coincidence? The Hellenists worshipped Set/h, who becomes Yahweh. The Sky Father Dyeus become Dios, Sky Father of Jesus. When you talk about the Hellenists, the Roman Empire, the Sanhedrin, the authors of Jesus, and Constantine, they're all in the Aryan hierarchy. Constantine is a Royal Scyth, which is to say a Royal Seth.
You say: "...the word Jew, which never existed until the 18th century." I don't agree: the word existed from antiquity, it was Ioudaios in Greek, Judaeus in Latin, Yehudi in Hebrew. Simply, it was not distinguished from Judaeans, meaning, not so much "inhabitant of Judaea", but "member of the tribe of Judah" (nationality was not primarily geographical, for the Romans, but ethnic). Romans (Cicero, Tacitus, etc.) used those terms exactly like us, without worrying that Judah was only one of the twelve tribes, or that Judea was just a part of Palestine. I think nitpicking on lexicology is not so useful. Nominalist definitions are sometimes good enough: A Jew is someone who regards himself as a Jew and who is regarded as a Jew by other Jews, and it was like that in Roman Antiquity just like it is today.
I really appreciate your response, Laurent. One of my rules for a good argument is to say why it matters. If this was nitpicking on lexicology, we'd both agree that it doesn't. Here's why I think it's important to never use hex-words whose meaning has been changed to protect the guilty:
The indigenous population of Canaan spoke Aramaic. The Habiru/ Hebrew were invaders who had been the terrorist thugs of the Aryan/ Heka Khasut in Egypt, before they were kicked out by Ahmoses I. Whatever the Aramaic name was by which the indigenous population called itself, we know it wasn't Judah or Yehudi, which is three languages removed.
The Torah refers to Judah and her sister IsRaEl as whores who 'let their virgin bosoms be pressed in Egypt.' But Yahweh exhorts them to return to him and all will be forgiven! The territories that the Torah calls Judah and IsRaEl were not Yahwist. From the Torah's own testimony, they were Goddess cultures, which it calls idolotry.
So what the gospels call Ioudaismos is not a follower of Yahweh. It exists in opposition to the hierarchy [from Aryan/ heir-archons] of the Torah. Zadok/ Saduc was the partner of Judas in founding the zealots and, from a Hasidic rabbi, the Sadducees reject the genealogy of the Torah to this day.
If Ioudaismos was a religious movement, it was anti-Yahweh. It's also not a geography or tribe. From the etymology, ἰουδαΐζειν is “to side with or imitate the ουδαϊσμός." We know that Magdala was in full revolt against the Hellenists, resulting in so many being crucified they ran out of trees according to 'Josephus.' And Samaria was likewise, so that the 'good Samaritan' becomes a collaborator with the Hellenists, protecting those set on by 'robbers,' which my article shows irrefutably to mean rebels.
To turn the greatest anti-imperial, anti-hierarchy, anti-Yahwist, anti-Hellenist revolution into 'Jews' is to defeat them linguistically, who were never defeated through violence. A Jew worships Yahweh and is subject to the patriarchs/ patri- [Sky Father] Aryan heir-archy of rulers. They are subsumed into IsisRaEl, the usurping of three gods into the priestly caste of Yahweh. All while the true tribe of Judah were dark-skinned matrilineal Moors.
And now we have AshkeNazis who self-identify as Jews, which is how that word should always be prefaced. We know from the genealogy of the Torah they have no lineage as Shemites/ Semites, and no relationship to the tribe of Judah, mythical or not. Their lineage is from Japheth through Gomer. They come from the Pale of Settlement in Ukraine/ Russia and spoke Yiddish. When they came to 'IsRaEl', Yiddish had to be banned and Hebrew imposed in order to force a dead language to be revived. They have no racial, geographic or linguistic ties to ancient Canaan. They're just the newest recruits to be Yews/ ewes/ used.
lost in translation
Both Guyenot and Atwill translate ουδαϊσμός as Jew—a religious Hebrew ruled by the Torah’s genealogy of patriarchs—or Judean—a tribal of Israel located in Judea, the southern part of Canaan. They worship Yahweh and are Semites descended from Shem, siblings squabbling over the right to rule the world. Aramaic denotes their linguistic origins.
I wonder if all this is a ruse. The important distinction we need to make is between indigenous and invaders, sovereignty and heir-archy, those who serve the people and those who serve the rulers.
I propose that we call those who believe they’re Yahweh’s chosen people YahChoPeeps or Yahwists. This is a religion, not an ethnicity. It’s a cult of superiority over others, since the basis of the scripture is the right to rule divinely conferred by God to the heir-archy/ Ayrarchy/ Aryan archons. This would include anyone who self-identifies as a Jew today like the AshkeNazis.
Those who lived in ancient Canaan should be called Canaanites, not Israelis or Judeans.
The militant insurgency against the invaders of Canaan should be called Judasites, as followers of Judas, founder of the zealots. The Canaanite resistance to imperialism was Judismos, opposite to Hellenismos, the imperialists.
The followers of Jesus the Hellenist should be called Jesusites. To call them Christians is to usurp the identity of the messiah so that, if there was one, it must be Jesus. It conquers linguistically those who were not conquered in real life and turns the revolutionaries into imperialists.
Anyone who identifies as a Christian should be asked if they’re a Judasite or Jesusite, following a messiah of sovereignty or a christ of imperialism.
The Aryans picked up their linguists and mythmakers in ancient Anatolia. They were called the Luvians and wrote the religions for the Aryan invaders in Egypt, Iran, India, Greece and Rome. They invented all the languages that used to be called Aryan but are now called proto-Indo-European or PIE.
If you take Luvian, which becomes the Levites of the bible, disregard the vowels that didn’t exist in Hebrew and add an F, it becomes Flavian. They were perfectly capable of inventing two new religions in Canaan that seemed to be opposed but answered to the same Ayrarchy.
Looking at etymology and Bible genealogies, I examine the puzzle of the Ashkenazi, quote Laurent Guyenot on Yahweh as 'a sociopath among the gods,' and ask whether Judean meant rebel against the Roman empire and the high priests who enabled it through taxation.
Questions whether Jesus was a rebel against the Roman Empire or in league with Rome against the Judean insurgency. Examines the Greek word translated as robber in the Gospels and rebel in Josephus' War of the Jews. Looks at the 'den of thieves,' 'good thief/ bad thief,' Good Samaritan and shepherd as for or against self-rule. Compares the zealot revolt of Judea to the simultaneous story of Jesus for where it stands on empire vs. sovereignty.
Who are Yahweh's Chosen People and why have they been evicted from countries around the world over the course of two millennia? I respond to a blogger called Librarian who presents long quotes from Shlomo Sand and Victor Kattan. I add more research from Laurent Guyenot's From Yahweh to Zion and Benjamin Freedman's 1961 speech.
Looks at Biblical analysis from the interviews by Rurik Skywalker of Laurent Guyenot, author of From Yahweh to Zion and Anno Domini. Asks whether the scriptures have turned hate into love and love into hate, sacralizing it. Some Bible critics reject the subservience to God but accept the superiority or cold hatred over others. Examines the metaphysics conspiracy of one Creator god who is good.
Examines Laurent Guyenot's book, From Yahweh to Zion, focusing on the first chapter, The People of Seth. Adds my own biblical analysis for the Hapiru (Hebrew) and inversions of Egyptian myths and ancient histories.
Laurent Guyenot's book Anno Domini presents evidence that the first millennia is a web of fraud that adds 300 to 700 years to the chronology. Rome was really Byzantium, Latin is a synthetic shorthand for imperial accountants and historical figures from Julius Caesar to Tacitus to Constantine the Fake are fictional characters. The real Constantine was a Scythian from the Balkans. Examine the evidence for yourself!
I put together the Egyptian history of the Hyksos--foreign usurpers--and the Biblical narrative of Joseph who steals the grain and turns free Egyptian farmers into sharecroppers on their own land. Taxation is introduced through an engineered famine that makes Egypt slaves to the Pharaoh. In the Amarna Letters, the terrorism of Habiru nomadic shepherds puts Egyptian cities under siege. I look at the origins of usury and usurped, taxation and terror.
Everybody, please reach for your wallet. Take out $15.00 and buy Laurent Guyenot's new book "The Pope's Curse."
It is overwhelming in its understanding, "The Donation of Constantine" being a key event.
Very happy to find your work, I think you're right on the money.