According to a new theory by Joe Atwill and John Hudson, the works of William Shakespeare were actually those of a "black Jewish woman" Aemilia Johnson-Willoughby-Bossano-Lanier (also spelled Emilia Bassano) and contain encoded information about the Roman authorship of the Gospels. A stage play based on Shakespeare's "Midsummer Night's Dream" is currently touring.
The following information about the play (and theory) was gleaned from various web sites. My comments are listed below each item of interest:
1) Aemilia's Bossano family immigrated to England 30 years prior to her birth, and had converted to Catholicism even earlier.
Comment: The Catholicism of the family is actually just as intriguing as the Judaism, because neither would have been "politically correct" in England at the time.
3) Bossano's mother was an apparently undistinguished Englishwoman, and Bossano was adopted by royalty at the age of seven.
Comment: How does such a thing happen? There has to be more to this arrangement than meets the eye.
4) Bossano received extensive Hebrew language and Bible training, not from her father's family but from her adoptive family, and particularly from her royal tutor the Duchess of Suffolk/Cumberland. Bossano expressed deep gratitude toward this woman.
Comment: During this period the Bible had been translated into English, however women were forbidden to read the Bible in English. This may have however not been an obstacle to well-lettered royal women.
5) Bossano's published writing contained strong anti-Semitism.
Comment: One must wonder why this would have been included (even gratuitously) if Bossano was truly Jewish by blood or conviction.
6) England had relatively recently separated from the Roman Church and authority.
Comment: There would have been considerable anti-Catholic sentiment/hostility surfacing at this time, and the English royal family would have allowed it to surface to some extent. Also around this time, English people seem to have assumed surnames such as Pope, Bishop, Priest, Pryor, etc., possibly in defiance of the Roman Church.
Comment: This was a time in which mockery of Catholic dogma would have been tolerated, especially in a coded form recognizable to the royal family and high nobility.
Comment: According to the Caesar's Messiah thesis, Roman Emperors were responsible for the creation of the Gospels. Therefore, the English royal family, as eventual successors of those Emperors, also would have inherited whatever knowledge remained about that enterprise. The English royal family also seems to have harbored refugees from the Papal court of Rome, who may have happily provided whatever anti-Catholic ammunition they possessed.
Comment: It is not necessary to argue that Bossana gained from her Sephardic/Italian family any knowledge of the Roman creation of the Gospels.
Comment: Nevertheless, it stands to reason that her family was considered royalty in Italy (and perhaps elsewhere), and that they were given asylum in England for some reason. They were not allowed any official status in England beyond that of minstrels, however the early adoption and string of high-profile affairs of Bossano suggests a pedigree. Her relationships may have been of the Romeo and Juliet variety, that is, they were not forbidden, but just not fully legitimate, because her royalty was not publicly recognized in England. Also, how much more titillating in dreary ole' England to maintain the impression of far-fetched exotic masters of music than just another branch of "The Family" that had fallen on hard times!
7) The incorporation of an ass-head within the context of "the passion of Christ" indicates a knowledge of the pagan (Osiris) roots of the Jesus myth. (See appendix below) The abduction of the Indian/Iumean (Idumaean/Edomite/Herodian?) boy/messiah is also potentially consistent with the thesis of Caesar's Messiah, i.e., that Messianic kingship was carried off from Jerusalem to Rome. Although these themes mock Christianity to some extent, they are not necessarily pro-Jewish either. The main concern of royalty was in ruling. Religion was just a tool, and one of their own creation, development, and (at times) destruction.
Comment: The allegories that have been pointed out so far are very basic. It indicates that knowledge of Roman origins was extremely vague.
8) There are indications that Bossano was at least an inspiration (dare I say Muse?) and even a contributor for at least some of the Shakespeare drama, both written and musical.
Comment: Convincing the critics that she was the sole producer or even a major producer is going to be a tough task.
Comment: It isn't necessary to argue that Bossano worked alone. The plays could have been a collaboration of any number of the 80 proposed authors. Shakespeare was perhaps established as a convenient fall guy in case the operation went wrong or lost political favor (a genuine fear).
Comment: There is no reason to conclude that the real William Shakespeare was a country bumpkin simply because he maintained a country identity. Again, this looks like an ideal cover for someone far better connected to the royal court and want to dabble in scandalous mysteries.
Comment: We have every reason to suspect that royals maintained ethnic identities as late as 1600. We have every reason to suspect that some royals even assumed Jewish identities. For example, European royalty did not engage directly in banking, but they very well could have done so under assumed Jewish names. Likewise, in the days of the Caesars, Roman Senators could not engage in certain kinds of business, however they most certainly did so as closet equestrian. In the first century BC it was also all the rage for royal persons to adopt a trade, such a tentmaker, tanner, coppersmith, etc., just as it had been done by the aristocrats of Periclean Athens.
9) Bossano is billed as an "African-American" in the promotional material for John Hudson's play.
Comment: This is totally reprehensible, shameless marketeering!! Bossano was not black and she was probably not Jewish. About all we can say with total confidence is that she was a woman.
10) John Hudson has written an unpublished 800-page opus on the subject of Bossano. He describes himself as a “cognitive scientist” although his formal education is in sociology.
Here are some additional links I found useful:
These links that were already posted earlier, but worth repeating:
Jesus and the Ass
(formerly posted at Caesar’s Messiah but removed from that site)
The Jewish god was apparently long associated with a donkey/ass, even prior to Christian times. In his novel "King Jesus", Robert Graves has King Herod playing a trick on the priests by putting the image of a donkey in the Holy of Holies. I found some additional background by googling: “Iao YHWH ass”.
The superficial argument is that Iao, an Egyptian form of YHWH, was similar to an Egyptian word for donkey/ass. However, the actual relationship runs much deeper. It has more to do with the derivation of the Jewish god and religion from the Egyptian cult of Amen/Amun, which was itself a proto-monotheistic composite of all the major Egyptian gods (and goddesses).
The Torah in fact completely subsumes the ancient pagan pantheon. Former gods become Patriarchs and namesakes of tribes of Israel. For example:
Atum = Adam, and later Dan
Set/Leviathan = Seth, and later Levi
Osiris/Sokar = Mehujael ("killed by God"), and later Issachar
The Egyptian god Set was popularly symbolized by the hippo and crocodile (leviathan/sea monster). There was also a “donkey-like” animal associated with Set (Gk. Apollo). However, it was Osiris that was most clearly likened to the donkey, at least in Hebrew tradition:
The ‘Blessing of Issachar’ in Genesis 49:14-15 (KJV) reads.
“Issachar is a strong ass couching down between two burdens: And he saw that rest was good, and the land that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant to tribute.”
The name Issachar means, “he brings his reward”. The way of Issachar was rewarding, especially for those who benefited from the devotee’s sacrificial labor. There was rest for an Issachar only in the sense of unconditional surrender to the higher authority.
Osiris was the god who was savagely dismembered. In the cult of Osiris the detached head and phallus (in Hebrew male genitalia is often referred to euphemistically as “feet”) are especially venerated. Osiris, in addition to becoming the god of death and resurrection was associated with plant regeneration and reproduction. There was a significant sexual aspect to the cult of Osiris (as there was in the corresponding Greek cult of Dionysus). Osiris was also characterized as effeminate, but not necessarily homosexual, at least perhaps no more so than other gods and goddesses.
We are told in the Old Testament that the Temple of Jerusalem was built over the “threshing floor of Araunah”, that is, a place sacred to Osiris/Tammuz.
As you have already surmised, Christianity was a religion designed to promote amiable acquiescence to Roman rule. In essence, Rome intended that the masses become happy “creatures that bear burdens”, who could be whipped like Osiris with “a great many stripes” if they did not “minister to us (the rulers) in our husbandry (tyranny)”.
The royal family was privy to the history of Jerusalem and the development of Judaism out of pagan roots. It generally was in the best interest of rulers however to keep local people in ignorance, even about the origins of their own history and religion, and even to the point of being murderously intolerant of outsiders. A problem only arose when those locals refused to acknowledge the supremacy of their overlords. It generally led to decimation and deportation.
Josephus upholds that tradition. He rails against the anti-Jewish propaganda of Apion, but is himself only a Jew when among Jews. While pretending to be a champion of the Jews, he implicitly mocks the faith of over 100,000 of them who died in the siege of Jerusalem. Their putrefied bodies were described as being transported for hire out of the city gates by a “son of Lazarus/Osiris”, and in a parody of Egyptian beliefs where the dead were thought to be conveyed to the Netherworld of Osiris through various passages.
In ancient Egypt, the burial tradition connected to Osiris called for a funerary meal to be eaten in the tomb of a deceased pharaoh (and later anyone who could afford to build a tomb) prior to its sealing. This probably replaced an earlier custom of actually eating the dead in order to assume his powers. The rite lived on, and became fully democratized, in Christianity. Believers must symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of their god.
Regarding Balaam and the Donkey …
In the Talmud, Jesus is referred to as "Balaam" and it is asserted that he deserved to die because he practiced sorcery and led Israel astray. Typologically speaking, Balaam is a “twin” to the main Joshua/Jesus. The original Balaam was a rather pathetic figure. He was also a bit of a prankster, especially within a context where people were suffering and dying. His own father chastised him for his lack of diligence and asked sarcastically if he was even capable of mounting a donkey. As with all types, the Balaam type was recycled. In the time of the early divided kingdom of Israel, the role of Balaam was assigned to Elisha.
Most if not all of the various episodes involving Elisha in the Book of 2 Kings have a punch line. Even in the most desperate of circumstances, Elisha was encouraged to indulge in a little comic relief. In 2 Kings 6-7, there is a very lengthy descrďption of a wickedly childish prank played by Elisha on Ahab. During a siege of Samaria by Ben-Hadad, two women come to "the king of Israel" with the most horrifying story imaginable. They are two mothers who agreed to eat one another's children in order to survive the siege. After one of the children was eaten, the other woman supposedly refused to “serve” hers up. Possibly it was true, but in this case it was probably a ruse to trick Ahab. Conditions were however so deplorable that such a situation was at least conceivable and believable. We are told that quality food could not be purchased at any price. Yet, Elisha was flippantly boasting on behalf of "the Lord" that flour and barley would be both cheap and plentiful within a day's time.
The reputation of Ahab to publicly grieve, perhaps insincerely, over the welfare of his subjects, made the joke all the more funny for Elisha and his attendants, and truly painful for Ahab. Elisha obviously had already been informed that the army of Aram was going to withdraw from Samaria and leave their provisions behind. The very presence of Elisha (a royal prince) in the city was the likely reason. Although the unnamed “Lord” of this narrative wanted to humble and even kill Ahab in the worst way, he would not have risked the life of Elisha (his son) in order to do so. Word was therefore sent by “the Lord” directing Ben-Hadad to lift the siege. The ministers attending to Elisha would also have been notified. However, in order to add insult to injury Ahab was kept in the dark about this decision.
Does this anecdote reflect the genius or madness of the Biblical kings? Well, the joke is on us as well. Ahab has not been the only one made to play the fool.
Adapted from: www.domainofman.com/book/chap-27.html
Other details further link Elisha/Balaam II with the donkey motif. Everything in the scrďptures and elsewhere that was written about Elisha was carefully woven into the narrative of Jesus in the Gospels and claimed to be fulfilled. The passage in Zechariah 9:9 is a further example. It certainly alludes to Elisha, who was attacked and killed after riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. This of course is not divulged directly in the Biblical accounts, but can be deduced from other evidence. There is no tradition (that I’m aware of) that Osiris himself was riding a donkey when he was brutally murdered, but the passage in Zechariah probably reflects a general aspect of the Osiris typology as it had evolved by the time of that "prophesy".
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.