Ancient World Review

Joseph Atwill: Saint Veronica Is Actually Princess Berenice - Mistress Of Titus

This short clip about Princess Berenice, the mistress of the Roman emperor Titus, and her supposed identity with Veronica of the Stations of the Cross, is from the bonus materials included with the Caesar's Messiah documentary by Joseph Atwill. 

Note: Atwill's 2011 book, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, argues that the Christian religion was created by the Flavian emperors as counter-propaganda to the anti-Roman Jewish Messianism which was causing so much trouble in Palestine at the time.

Atwill's theories are interesting, I guess, but they tend to fall apart when you get into the details. For instance, in this particular case there doesn't seem to be any connection between the Saint Veronica of Catholic tradition and Berenice, Titus' mistress, other than their names. Veronica is the Latin version of Berenice (or Bernice -- I'm not sure how it's supposed to be spelled), but the fact that the names are the same doesn't really mean anything.

Atwill's argument assumes that the figure of Veronica existed in Christianity when the religion was first created (supposedly) by the Flavians. After all, if Veronica was actually Berenice, Titus' mistress, and the whole point of including her was to plant a clue as to the true origins of the religion, then she must have been inserted into Christianity during the reign of the Flavians.

Unfortunately for Atwill's argument, there is no mention of Veronica in the Gospels--not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia at least--and the Stations of the Cross tradition seems to have originated during the Middle Ages, perhaps during the Crusades. The whole story is apparently a medieval legend and it has a lot of similarities with the story of the Shroud of Turin.

In the Stations of the Cross tradition, a woman later identified as Saint Veronica gave Jesus her veil to wipe his face while he was being led off to execution. When he gave it back to her, the image of his face had been left imprinted on the veil. The "Veil of Veronica" was supposed to have healing powers like the Shroud of Turin, but the legend apparently never caught on in a big way and a lot of Catholics don't believe the story's authentic.

If the legend originated during the Crusades, the Veil of Veronica was probably just another pious fraud invented by the Crusaders, who brought back all sorts of "holy relics" in order to make a profit off the gullible and superstitious peasants back in Europe.

Atwill's theory that Veronica refers to Titus' mistress collapses entirely if the figure of St. Veronica was created during the Middle Ages, and that seems to be exactly what happened.

The legend of Veronica is based on a miracle reported in the gospel of Luke (and Matthew?) where an unnamed woman "was healed by touching the hem of Jesus’s garment (Luke 8:43–48)..." (Wikipedia) This woman was "later identified as Veronica by the aprocryphal Acts of Pilate," thought to have been written around the middle of the 4th century AD, i.e., almost 300 years after the death of Domitian, the last Flavian emperor.

The church historian Eusebius (260/265 – 339/340 AD) described the origins of the legend of Veronica. Interestingly, she was originally only called Veronica in the East while she was known by a completely different name in the West:

"Eusebius in his Historia Ecclesiastica (vii 18) tells how at Caesarea Philippi lived the woman whom Christ healed of an issue of blood (Matthew 9:20-22). Legend was not long in providing the woman of the Gospel with a name. In the West she was identified with Martha of Bethany; in the East she was called Berenike, or Beronike, the name appearing in as early a work as the 'Acta Pilati', the most ancient form of which goes back to the fourth century." Source: Encyclopedia Britannica (quoted by Wikipedia).

Note: It's unclear, at least to me, how the bleeding woman healed by Jesus morphed into the Veronica who wiped off his sweat and blood with her veil, but we're dealing with a muddled tradition here that evolved over the centuries.

As for the Stations of the Cross ritual, it apparently originated with the pilgrimages to Jerusalem. According to Wikipedia, "The earliest use of the word 'stations', as applied to the accustomed halting-places in the Via Sacra [the route the pilgrims followed] at Jerusalem, occurs in the narrative of an English pilgrim, William Wey, who visited the Holy Land in the mid-15th century, and described pilgrims following the footsteps of Christ to the cross."

Conclusion: I don't see how St. Veronica could actually be Berenice, Titus' mistress, if the woman in question wasn't even given a name until the Acts of Pilate were written some 300 years after the death of the last Flavian emperor. If Atwill is aware of some earlier documents, he should cite them. Otherwise, his whole argument boils down to the fact that the names are the same. This doesn't mean much, however. The Oxford Classical Dictionary (OCD, 3rd ed. revised) lists five different Berenices, so it wasn't exactly an unusual name in the ancient world.

The OCD does verify that Berenice, the niece and later the wife of Herod, king of Chalcis., was Titus' mistress before he became emperor. "Titus fell in love with her while he was in Judea (67-70), and when she visited Rome with [her father] Agrippa, [Titus] openly lived with her, perhaps for some years. He deferred, however, to public opinion and did not marry her, and on his accession [79 AD], he dismissed her with regret on both sides and ignored her when she visited Rome again."

Related: The Caesar's Messiah section on this site.

When Were The Gospels Written?

Synopsis: Christian researchers tend to date the gospels as early as possible, while atheists and militant anti-Christians tend to come up with much later dates. Neither side can be trusted and it's very difficult, if not impossible, to find reliable information on the issue.

Quote: "Dating the gospels is very important.  If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year A.D. 70, then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus himself.  If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated.  Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them.  Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts; and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical." Source: Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry.

Comment: This is about as straightforward a declaration of research bias as you can get and it's not an isolated case. Christian scholars have traditionally dated the gospels and epistles as early as possible because they think that this tends to support the authenticity of the content and supposed authorship of these documents. In other words, the earlier the gospel, the more likely it is that it's true and was written by an apostle of Jesus.

Putting aside the admission of bias for a minute, there are some obvious problems with this argument. First of all, when it comes to transmission errors, even if it could be shown that the Book of Mark, for instance, was written in, say, 50 AD, there's no way to know if our copy of the document is the same as the original. We would have to have an original copy before we could say it was free of transmission errors and interpolations introduced by later copyists. Also, while it's true that early documents are less likely to contain mythical material inserted by later copyists, that doesn't mean that the original writer didn't insert a lot of mythical material himself.

Secondly, while it's true in a general sense that a document written around the time of the events it describes is probably more historically reliable than one written hundreds of years later, the dating of a document has nothing to do with its authenticity or accuracy. Even if we had the original Book of Matthew, for instance, and could prove that it dated to around the time of Jesus' supposed death, that doesn't prove that it was actually written by the apostle himself or that the events it describes actually happened. After all, someone else could have written it under the apostle's name and contemporary accounts don't always provide accurate descriptions of events. You can see that just be reading the news today.

Another problem with Christian dating methods is that even if they're correct, nobody really knows when Jesus was born. The assumption that he died around 30 AD is just that--an assumption based on Biblical legends like the Slaughter Of The Innocents, a story which is so absurd it couldn't possibly have happened (besides being totally implausible, the story isn't mentioned in Josephus or any pagan sources). So these Christian scholars are trying to date the gospels as close as they can to the date of Jesus' death, a date which probably isn't accurate in the first place.

But never mind all that. The main issue here is the obvious bias of modern Christian scholars. They start with the conclusion and then look for evidence to support it. I should qualify this by saying that not all Christian scholars work this way, but it's hard to believe that any Christian scholar would conclude, for example, that the gospels were actually written in 200 AD or any other late date that would cast doubt on their authenticity. They need to come up with early dates in order to support their religious beliefs and, sure enough, that's exactly what they come up with.

I have to point out, though, that this kind of bias works both ways. If Christian scholars can't be trusted when it comes to the dating of the gospels, then neither can militantly atheist or anti-Christian scholars. If the Christians want to find early dates to support their argument that the gospels are authentic, the atheists want to find later dates to support their argument that the gospels aren't authentic. As a general rule, Christian research always ends up supporting Christianity and research by atheists always ends up undermining Christianity. They all have their agendas.

Needless to say, all this bias complicates the issue, as anyone can testify who's tried to find a trustworthy source for the dating of the gospels. Scholars who research this stuff always seem to end up supporting their own preconceived conclusions, and while I don't claim to be a scholar, I guess I'm no exception. At this point, all I can say is that the canonical gospels were probably written sometime during the period between, say, 50 AD and 200 AD, which is more or less what I thought before I started this fruitless search.

To be continued, maybe...

Tacitus And Caesar's Messiah - Part 1/2

According to Joseph Atwill, author of Caesar's Messiah and Shakespeare's Secret Messiah, Christianity was invented by the Flavian dynasty of Roman emperors as a kind of "counter-religion" to prevent the spread of militant Jewish messianism. This is an interesting idea because it can be falsified, at least in theory, unlike so many other alternate histories of the origin of Christianity.

If Atwill is correct, it means that Christianity couldn't have come into existence until at least 69-70 AD when Vespasian, the first Flavian emperor, rose to power. That's the earliest possible date. Atwill's theory runs into problems at this point, however, because we have documents from Roman historians--Tacitus, in particular--which describe Christianity as already being in existence during the reign of Nero, the emperor who came just before Vespasian.

Tacitus And Caesar's Messiah - Part 2/2

Tacitus wasn't a "Flavian court historian." He was in favor with the Flavians, but as far as I can tell he was never a member of their inner circle. During the period when Atwill says that Christianity was being invented, Tacitus was an orator, a magistrate, a senator, a financial administrator, a priest, etc., and he may have commanded a legion in Asia from 81-96 AD. Like many other Roman politicians of the time, he kept his head down and watched what he said during the reign of Domitian. When Domitian finally died in 96 AD, Tacitus felt free to start writing history and his aim seems to have been to correct Flavian propaganda:

Caesar's Messiah: The Conspiracy That Failed

Joseph Atwill, author of Caesar's Messiah and Shakespeare's Secret Messiah, believes that the Flavian Roman emperors invented Christianity as a peaceful "counter-religion" to offset the spread of militant Jewish messianism. If that was the Romans' plan, however, it didn't work out very well.

Dating The New Testament Manuscripts

"The New Testament books appear to have been completed within the 1st century. However, the original manuscripts of the New Testament books do not survive today. The autographs [documents written in the handwriting of the author] were lost or destroyed a long time ago. What survives are copies of the original. Generally speaking, these copies were made centuries after the originals from other copies rather than from the autograph." Source: Wikipedia.

Note: Paleography is apparently more accurate than radiocarbon tests when it comes to dating really old manuscripts. The contents of the manuscripts are also used to establish tentative dates. For instance, some Biblical scholars -- mostly Christians as far as I can tell -- believe that some of the gospels were probably written before 69-70 AD because they don't mention the destruction of the Temple in Judaea.

Most scholars seem to accept the idea that the earliest extant gospels were based on earlier manuscripts like the hypothetical "Q Source" believed to have been used by the writers of Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of Matthew "is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90..," according to Wikipedia, and "The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100CE," also according to Wikipedia.

Note: if these dates are accurate, they would support Joseph Atwill's theory that the gospels were written by the Flavian Dynasty of Roman Emperors who were in power from ~69 AD to 96 AD. The dating of the gospels is critical to Atwill's theory that the Romans invented Christianity.

Joseph Atwill: Shakespeare's Secret Messiah

Comment: I have a lot of problems with Atwill's new book, Shakespeare's Secret Messiah, and I'm still skeptical about his basic theory that the Roman Flavian emperors invented Christianity as counter-propaganda to prevent the spread of militant Jewish messianism, but he's right about the danger to Rome presented by Jewish rebels. I had never realized the extent of the Jewish insurrections at the time until I listened to this particular interview and started to do some research for myself. The Romans had a serious problem with Jewish insurgents, but Atwill's theory about the origins of Christianity needs a lot more support, to say the least.

Tacitus On The Christians (Updated 7/21/14)

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor [Nero], and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration [the Great Fire of Rome, 64 AD] was the result of an order [from Nero]. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called 'Chrestians' by the populace.

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

"Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." Source: "Tacitus on the Christians," Livius.org.

Note: If I understand him correctly, Joseph Atwill, author of Caesar's Messiah and Shakespeare's Secret Messiah believes that this passage from Tacitus was either an interpolation or based on earlier sources such as Josephus and the early gospels themselves (see his response to my review of Shakespeare's Secret Messiah in the post below). As far as I know, however, this remains conjectural.

The authenticity of Tacitus' material on the Christians is critical to Atwill's theory that the Flavian emperors invented Christianity. I'm hoping that Atwill will cover the issue in more detail in future books, but in the meantime I'm going to see if I can track down more information on it myself. Tacitus used a lot of different sources, but so far I haven't been able to find anything on the source for his story about the Christians and the Great Fire. It's possible that Tacitus was simply describing what happened based on his own experience; he was a student in Rome at the time of the fire (???-see below).

Update: Tacitus was born in Gaul in 55 AD, according to Livius.org. He was sent to Rome "as a young man" to study rhetoric, but I'm still trying to find out exactly when he went to the capital. The Great Fire of Rome occured in 64 AD, so if Tacitus was there, he would have been nine years old (assuming these dates are accurate). At this point, it doesn't seem likely that he was an eyewitness.

I'm also trying to find out if there's a consensus about the authenticity of Tacitus' description of the Christians in Rome at the time of the fire. Stephen Dando-Collins, author of the "The Great Fire of Rome"--a fantastic book, by the way--says on page 6 of his introduction that the description is an interpolation:

"...many modern-day historians believe that this tale of Christian persecution was apocryphal and was inserted in Tacitus' Annals by a Christian copyist, centuries later."

Note the qualifier "many modern-day historians." Some historians apparently disagree. For instance, according to Wikipedia, "[s]cholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source."

Three sources are cited for the statement in Wikipedia. Two of the sources appear to have been written or edited by Christian apologists. The third, a researcher in Edinburgh, doesn't appear to have any particular religious axe to grind.

This is the problem with researching this stuff. You start off with a simple question: "Are these passages in Tacitus authentic?" and you end up trying to make judgments about the credibility of various scholars and independent researchers you've never heard of before. It's a bottomless well, but this is common with ancient history.

Joseph Atwill's Response To My Review Of Shakespeare's Secret Messiah

Note: Last week, I reviewed Joseph Atwill's new book, Shakespeare's Secret Messiah. This is his response to that review:

Book Review: Shakespeare's Secret Messiah by Joseph Atwill

When I heard that Joseph Atwill, author of Caesar's Messiah, had come out with a second book, I was hoping that he would clarify his original arguments and address the major objections that have been raised about his theory that the Romans invented Christianity. In particular, I wanted to see what he had to say about the documentary evidence that Christianity was already in existence before he says it was created.

Unfortunately, Atwill completely ignores the serious problems with his basic theory. In his new book, Shakespeare's Secret Messiah, he assumes that he already proved his case in his first book and proceeds to develop some new and extremely baffling ideas about Shakespeare, Domitian, the apostle Paul. the Book of Revelations, etc. These ideas are cryptic, to say the least, not to mention fantastically obscure and complex. I tried reading Shakespeare's Secret Messiah, but I couldn't make any sense out of it.