New Book -- Creating Christ

Richard Stanley

Between watching Trump docu's and visits to medical wizards, I haven't watched these yet, but I'm looking forward to it. But for just now I'm off to see yet another wizard. :(

Richard Stanley

Here are two recent podcasts featuring Valliant, Fahy, and Robert M. Price discussing the 'Creating Christ' book.
Here is part 2 of the first video you provided:

These MythVision podcasts are pretty good interviews (with Valliant only), as the two hosts are pretty knowledgeable themselves, albeit they act a little goofy (but that's alright). They state that there will be a Part 3.

Richard Stanley

After watching the relevant section of the video again, I'd like to clarify a couple of things about the discussion of Caesar's Messiah in the video.

All of them (Price, Fahy & Valliant) made it clear that they have great respect for Atwill as a scholar, and for his knowledge of the New Testament. Valliant feels that any errors in CM are basically irrelevant to the Roman Origins theory.

About their disagreements with Caesar's Messiah, Price did about 90% of the talking. And he was criticizing the ideas -- it was not an ad hominem attack at all.
I've just watched the second of the first two podcasts in your post here. From that one I generally got the same impression.

In that second one, Price also admitted that there could be a late dating for the Pauline corpus. They also did not discuss the massive parallels between Paul and Josephus. Price discussed that he thinks Nero could be involved in the 'creation', which is my view as well.

I do agree with them that the motivation of creating Christianity was more than pacifying the Jewish militants, actually the Jewish fence sitters, since the Romans killed the militants. It was indeed about creating a syncretized religion, ... for the new zodiacal age. The latter of which was the Science of the day, common to both the prior Hellenistic world and the Judaic. The discussion brought up the pagan source of the use of the dolphin, but I don't think they understand the relation of Castor and Pollux, the twin saviors of the prior millennium, with both the dolphin and Paul's ship ride on the Castor and Pollux. And that Castor and Pollux, the Gemini Twins are prominent members of the Zodiac, and that their (and sister Helen's) ascendance, in conjuction with the Trojan War, marked the transition to a new age, and the end of the Late Bronze Age (the End Times du jour).

In the same vein, they mention Flavia Domitilla, of which I claim that her sarcophagus has heavy Mithraic imagery, of which the Dioscuri Twins, aka Castor and Pollux, play a prominent Zodiacal role.

And so I depart from Joe's view that the creation of Christianity became a basis for later Jewish revenge, when the remaining Jews became otherwise aligned with the Greco-Roman world, even in their role as ongoing scapegoats, part of their occupational hazard - and 'synthetic' cultural framing.

Of course, I depart from Price, Fahy, and Valliant regarding the ability to repurpose the Second Coming for Futurist End Times. It IS being done in front of our eyes for Dogod's sake. And, seriously, here I won't mention Revelation 12. o_O I swear I wont.

It is the contemporary zeitgeist to avoid any connection to zodiacal thinking, even if that was part of the original esoteric underpinnings. And thus the deniers end up projecting modern interpretations where they perhaps should not, perhaps leading to seriosly wrong conclusions, where ironically the opposite position would instead heavily bolster their main thesis.

As Fideler definitively demonstrated in Jesus Christ, Sun of God, the sacred geometry number (the 153 fishes in the net) of the Vesica Piscis is embedded in the Gospels, and this is the esoteric aspect of the Christian Fish symbol, including that of Pisces. And Vespasian and his brother were officers in Emperor Claudius army in Britain during the time the Vesica Piscis shrine was built in the center of the Roman's Dewa Fortress (in today's Chester, England). This even predating Nero.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

8:30 Valliant & Fahy say they've blasted notices about their book to every academic in the field that they've been able to identify, and they've gotten almost no response. But the few responses they've received have been tremendously positive. Eric Hill, Robert Eisenman and of course Dr. Price have been among their few supporters. They don't know of any serious academic scholar who has attempted a rebuttal.
I thought it rather humorous in the intro discussion that Price admitted to be a Trumpist, and thus typologically a modern day Zealot.
About 11:00, Valliant & Fahy get started ragging on Atwill. They say that he believes crazy things like late dates for composition of Pauline epistles, and Price chimes in that he is just as much of a nutcase as Joe on that particular question. (Price basically believes the entire Pauline corpus is a late forgery.)

14:20, Price reveals that he's restarted publication of the old "Journal of Higher Criticism" and that one of Joe's articles will be in an upcoming issue.

But at 14:30, they really get serious with the attack on Joe, and exclaim how absolutely hilarious, outrageous and unbelievable they find his analysis. At 16:20 they single out his Easter story for ridicule.
Price and the others thought it insane that Joe would advance Josephus as being the author of the gospels, that it is too much work and stylistically different from Josephus's acknowledged corpus of work.

If memory serves me, Joe advanced the proposition that Josephus lead an imperial team of writers, and so this would address stylistic issues. But, moreover, it would be impossible for a goy team of writers to write the Gospels, because of the massive number of references to the OT, albeit that many of these were garbled - on purpose for theological reasons. And besides, as Barbiero discussed, Josephus also had at his beck and call, a large number of his extended Hasmonean family (~250) that came with him and Titus to Rome. Also, imitatio (as opposed to inventio) was the accepted writing style for such as a religious corpus (that was intended for imperial acceptance at some point). As such, imitatio is one big reason that the Judaic corpus and culture mirrored (including the massive inversion) the Classical Greek corpus and culture, as per Moses Hadas's thesis in Hellenistic Culture, Fusion and Diffusion.

Price et al. still have to deal with a Flavian (or other early initiation of Christianity/Chrestianity) and have the project come to fruition over 200 years later, via 'Flavius' Constantine's efforts. Now, that's kooky ... in contemporary scholarship's and other 'modern' minds.

At 17:30 they say that the Christian religion is not just some big joke, it's "addressing broader philosophical needs as a religion".
I believe this is true, but there is no reason at all that such a rich work could not, or would not, contain some dark insider jokes. Ones which reflect attitudes towards those stiff-necked people that are otherwise making their lives, as rulers and profiteers, more difficult. There certainly was a wealth of insider knowledge about such as Pythagorean wisdom, which they never revealed to the hoi polloi. So why not mix in some insider humor, dark humor which would serve to fuel ongoing class attitudes till even today, these looking down upon the 'Greek pigs' as well as the Jewish rural Zealots?

The Christian pacifism would also have been understood, by its creators, to pacify the northern palefaces, whose culture and religion was as, or more, violently reactionary than the Jewish Zealots.

Price brought up the anti-Hellenistic aspect of the Hasmonean period, but we have discussed on the forum that Hadas demonstrated that the Hasmoneans were really Hellenistic. Just like today's duplicitous pols, like the Clintons and Trump, etc., they cynically played both sides. Such elites are not of their sheeple.
72:00, Valliant says that there is a stunning similarity between Josephus's theological and political positions on a wide variety of views, as compared to Gospel views of the same issues. Price replies that he thinks this is parallelomania on Valliant's part, and then Fahy agrees with Price that it's "a little too neat"? WTF?
Yes, and what if it's really true, and including the stunning Josephus / Paul parallels. And the Jewish War to Jesus's Galilean ministry parallels - not to mention Pollio's account of Julius Caesar's Civil War details, which Carotta noted (as well as the massive Julius Caesar Passion parallels). There was likely no law which prevented such pious imitatio, especially when its your job to create religions.
72:00, Valliant says that there is a stunning similarity between Josephus's theological and political positions on a wide variety of views, as compared to Gospel views of the same issues. Price replies that he thinks this is parallelomania on Valliant's part, and then Fahy agrees with Price that it's "a little too neat"? WTF?

Then Fahy changes the topic, explaining that the Romans had a "syncretistic religious machine" and reiterating that Christianity fits right in to the pattern; and Valliant made another quick segue into revisiting the topic of Christian persecutions, and Candida Moss's work.
Funny, and Fahy also chimes in that the Romans had a pre-existing team of people that created religions, in support of what I stated early about Price's objection to Josephus's sole role.
And at the same time, I think they've thrown out some of the most valuable aspects of Joe's work, along with the bathwater. Caesar's Messiah does a great job of portraying the wicked humor and the sheer evil of the Christian project, the irony in Josephus's satire of Christianity, and the role of Christianity in creating a thousand-year reich of European feudalism.
Agreed. There is some odd presumption that those elites that were otherwise sincerely creating a new religion could not have otherwise typical elite attitudes towards their human sheep.