The Lost Posts from Caesar's Messiah Forum

Below are posts I made on Caesar's Messiah Forum and were addressed to various other posters:


Technically, it was not "the Romans" that were responsible for the creation of the New Testament, but the royal family based in Rome. It's a small but important distinction. "The Romans" were not in fact responsible for writing the Old Testament either, however the books of the Old Testament were also products of the royal family, just like those of the New Testament. Understanding the dynamics of ancient royalty is the key to understanding ancient history and religion.

Rodeph Emet,

Can you tone down the Jewish rah-rah just a little? We're all trying to survive in this world. We've all been exploited. We're all trying to muster the courage to change the world.


Congrats on your latest announcement. Now we know what all those fast and furious trips to New York were about!

Rodeph Emet, Nelson:

Quintus Thorn stumbled into the forum and was slapped around, because he somehow gave the impression of being a Christian!! He wasn't even flaunting it. There's a double standard here.

I was married to a black woman and have a son by her. I feel the pain of never being able to do enough to overcome another person's sense of being persecuted.

We all can claim ancestors that were unfairly treated and even killed. We have to make the most of our situations and not expect other people to cater to us. I don't want to deny anyone their chosen identity, and I realize that it is difficult to divorce one's convictions when investigating history and religion, but we must try to be objective. Please, no -isms on the dance floor.

It looks like this Amelia Bassano is being put forth as a "poster child" for Jews, persons of color, and women. Be careful. Once we take a closer look, her qualities may turn out to be something different than they first appear. Not that it should matter, but it will if you decide to champion her for those reasons.

Joe, I don't mean to detract from what looks like a sensational discovery, every bit as amazing as Caesar's Messiah. I just can't buy into the Feminism, Jewish Pride and Black Pride aspect of it, at least not so quickly. I've learned to be suspicious of heroes/heroines, especially ones that run in royal circles.

DonL, Nelson:

Each successive imperial/royal dynasty was very closely related to the previous one. It's referred to as the "Scarlet Thread" of Messianic kingship and it extended from the first dynasties of Egypt and Sumer all the way through Roman times. No exceptions! Don't be fooled by the "business of names".

Joe, I don't seem to be getting through on this issue. I hate harping on it, but it is a critical aspect of all ancient history, and I suspect it even has an impact on our understanding of Ms. Amelia Bassano.

To Rodeph Emet [after she suggested that I should be shot]:

Joe can bag a reindeer any time he likes. It's always open season for him on his own forum. You fire blanks and can't see the broad side of elephant, much less hit it.

I don't think any more or less of Joe because he is not Jewish, nor of this John Hudson because he is. Is your self-esteem so low that you need to feel better about yourself through identification with the achievements of others? And what if you find out that your darling Amelia Bassano Lanier was a fraud in terms of her Jewishness. A Marrano Jew of Venetian-Moroccan origin? That sounds highly dubious. This has "play in three acts" written all over it.

After researching the royal family over many, many generations, I found that there were "conscientious objectors" to tyranny. However, criticism (and the occasional change) came from within the royal family, not from outsiders. We should expect that Ms. Bassano was of European royalty, and simply delighted in role playing and cross-cultural studies.

Jews were not the only group victimized by the ancient royal family. Don't feel special on account of that! And for gods-sake don't be so ready to believe in fairy tales of commoners (including and especially Jews) that rose from obscurity to do great and wonderful things in the royal age. Do you enjoy being duped?


Rodeph wants to shoot the messenger and that makes me the abusive one?

All I am trying to say is that "something is rotten in Denmark" in what I've heard thus far about the new Atwill-Hudson theory, and how Rodeph is responding to it as a Jew.

The royal family revealed what they wanted to about themselves, when they wanted to, and how they wanted to. If the "black Jewish woman" in question knew intimate details of the royal family and their authorship of the Gospels, then she was a member of the royal family. If not, then you have to speculate as to how that knowledge was preserved secretly by some non-royal group over centuries only to be divulged in a set of fanciful plays. But, maybe to a "Piso Theory" person that seems reasonable.

I'll reserve any further comments and judgments until I read the full disclosure of the theory.

In the meantime, I would suggest extreme caution in overselling the ethnic identity of Bassano.

A word to the wise should be sufficient.

Rodeph Emet,

The story of Esther/Hadassah is a pious fraud. Esther did in fact become the Queen of Persia, but she was not a true Jewess. She was the daughter of Cyrus the Great named Atossa. Mordecai was likewise a Persian prince.

The devout Jews scattered throughout the empire were not considered a threat during the Persian Period (as they became in the Roman Period), but a stabilizing influence that promoted health and welfare, especially royal welfare. They received allowance and even honor for their customs, including relief from the abject subservience expected from the less endowed. Their recently crowned champions Esther and Mordecai, now the leading Jews of the world, were attired in the royal purple.
(In this post substitue Darius for Xerxes. Darius, a.k.a., Ahasuerus was the correct king associated with Esther/Hadassah.)

The feast of Purim commemorates an absolutely hideous event that no Jew should be proud of. It celebrates a sting operation and genocide against all those that might resent and resist the status of Jews throughout the Persian Empire as facilitators of that empire.

I want Joe to get all the credit he deserves, but let's not kid ourselves that this is a "feel good moment" for Jews or anyone else in the world. It is a sad commentary on our tragic history. It's a day that should evoke the emotion of collective shame and repentance, not pride in our great ancestors.


To Nelson [after he suggested that I didn't know anything about English history],

What do you mean? I've seen all the Black Adder episodes! What else is there to know about English royalty? (By the way, can you believe that Hugh Laurie now "plays House"!)

Seriously, I haven't found enough in the links provided to evaluate the "typologies" that Joe mentions, or the extent of information that is claimed to be encoded in the Shakespeare plays relating to Roman authorship of the Gospels. Until I do, then I have to conclude this is "much to do about nothing". I'm not discounting the idea that a woman wrote much of the material. That much at least seems quite plausible.

Rodeph Emet,

Oh, let's just have us one big pity party then!

Rodeph, you brought up Esther, not me. Don't you realize that Judaism was just as nasty in displacing older cults as Christianity was later on toward Judaism? Don't you realize that it was the same royal culture that brought both into the world for its own purposes? Don't you realize that celebrating Purim is a celebration of state-sponsored genocide? You may as well go ahead and celebrate the Holocaust with it.

Caesar's Messiah has gone a long way toward exposing the anti-Judaism at the heart of the Christian religion. But it does not vindicate Judaism, not by any means. Sure there have been good Jews and bad Jews, just as there have been good Christians and bad ones, just as there have been good atheists and bad ones. But don't hold up the life of one person and claim that they validate the inherent goodness of an entire group or way of life. Cherish your faith for whatever treasure it has preserved from the ancient world and might still be valuable today. Don't wear it like a badge or carry it like a cross. Don't think that it makes you different from anybody else.
Joe, my bro, you invited me into your home, you let me work on the "habitat for humanity" in your backyard, you took me out for Ophrah watching, we're buds, but in your eternal quest for traction, you've lost your way. A hero to Jews? Is that how you are willing to be addressed? A hero for mankind I can accept, but don't be co-opted into somebody else's agenda just for a bit of press.

To your own tents, O Prancer!!


I'm not attacking any collaboration between Joe and John Hudson. I'm attacking the rush to judgment on any discovery, Atwill-Hudson or otherwise, in terms of its ability to score points for one group or another. (Last year, Borat, this year Atwill-Hudson, my goodness, time to buy some stock in Jewry!) The point I'm making is that a historian needs to maintain as much neutrality as possible.

By the way, the webmaster of my own site is Jewish. I assure you, he's not looking for any more heroes. I am not anti-Jewish. I am against hurtful, unnecessary ignorance.

I am also actually for Reuchlin, if you can believe that. I think it is great that he wants to associate Josephus with the likes of Arrius Varus, who was appointed by Vespatian to be "Commissioner over the Grain Supply", just like the Joseph of the Bible! But there was no Piso Conspiracy, per se. Josephus may have been adopted by the Flavians, but he was already a member of the extended royal family of Rome.

We have to take our noses out of the Torah long enough to see through the rest of the royal smoke screen. The royal family always insisted that various of its members be considered the pre-eminent examples of any given ethnic group. Each ethnic group was an apple produced by the royal tree, therefore the trunk of that tree representing each successive generation of royalty was by definition the purest strain of Jews, the purest Arabs, the purest Parthians, the purest Greeks, the purest of whatever. The royal family continually "refreshed the bowels" of all major ethnic groups with "pure bred" leaders from their own immediate stock. The story of Esther and Mordecai is a tutorial on that process.

What does all this have to do with Madame Bassanova? Everything. Granted, by 1600 there were more than a few chinks in the royal armor. The royal family had continued to evolve in an attempt to survive, and had adopted new strategies and new deceptions. Renaissance Italy is definitely a special case. It all deserves a fresh look, and through an entirely new telescope.


I'm just now beginning to sift through the available material and get some basic first impressions. I was surprised to see that the play is getting reviewed seriously although not all that positively. I'll see if I can post something later this evening on a new thread and we'll try to make a new start on it.

Comments made by Joe Atwill:

I made the basic discovery that all of Shakespeare was a Jewish response to the Roman Gospels in which the typology was reversed so that the Gentile nobility cannibalized themselves. I showed the discovery to John Hudson and asked him to develop it. I did not wish to take on all Shakespearian scholarship at the same time I was defending CM.

I had identified Emilia Bassano as a likely candidate as the author in that I saw that Salve Deus was linked to the symbolic level of Shakespeare. John then confirmed this by unraveling a number of coded messages whereby Emilia identified herself as the author. I had done a detailed decoding of a few plays and the Sonnets, and John took up the task for the whole body of work.

If you look at the dedication in CM you will see it was to Emilia and Kit i.e. Emilia Bassano and Chris Marlowe. Marlowe gave his life trying to make the typology in the Gospels public. Emilia dedicated hers to creating a response to it.

I hate to say it but my career as a Shakespearian scholar lasted about a month, so it hard to claim that it was thorough. It was simply that the literature was written for whoever decoded the Gospels, so its meaning was impossible for me to miss.

However, once we get the Gospels and the Shakespearian typology widely understood we can move into the really interesting stuff where I can show some analysis that I think can be called thorough.

Buckle up the seatbelts my friends.

[While we were waiting for Joe to produce something even remotely thorough, I posted the following.]

Here is my Late Night top ten list (gleaned from various web reviews) along with my initial comments regarding the "black Jewish feminist" Aemilia Johnson-Willoughby-Bossano-Lanyer:

1) Her 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: Such an education does seem to go above and beyond that of the typical making of a courtesan. It also parallels the intense interest in re-translating the Bible for anti-Catholic purposes in newly Protestant England.

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 strictly 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 upon 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 previous thread on this topic on this forum, [This post is no longer on the Caesars Messiah forum, I will have to repost it at DomainOfMan in a separate thread.] The abduction of the Indian/Iudean (Idumaean/Edomite/Herodian?) boy/messiah by the Romans is also 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. [It occurred to me later that concern over the Indian Boy might also reflect the competition for New World territories between Catholic and Protestant rulers.]

Comment: The allegories that have been pointed out so far are very basic. It indicates that knowledge of Roman origins (of the Gospels) 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. William 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 equestrians. 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.

Comment: Hudson's formal education is in sociology. He stretches his qualifications by referring to himself as a "social engineer" and "cognitive scientist". He seems to share Joe's penchant for statistics and the dubious application of statistics to literary works. He also seems more interested in social change than historical accuracy.

Comment: The all female cast (save one) of the play emphasizes the feminist theme. This may be the only element of the play (and the life of Bossana) that is not over-hyped.

Comment: The only male member of the cast is placed in the role of the "Fairy Queen" Titania, consort of the "Fairy King" Oberon. If Titania does in fact represent Titus the sacker of Jerusalem, then the casting is appropriate. The mocking of Titus as the Lady of Oberon is nonetheless shocking. In ancient Rome, conquered nations were often depicted as violated women. Rome perhaps could also be personified as a woman, but Titus representing Rome as a woman and as consort of the Hebrew God (cast in the play as a woman) is curious and requires further interpretation. This material is truly a "social engineer's" midsummer's night wet dream!

Comment: Thus concludes my fully published 24-hour stint as a Shags-Parr scholar!

Here are some additional links I found useful:

These links were already posted earlier, but worth repeating:

--Last edited by Mr. Prancer on 2008-03-07 12:12:47 --

I made a first reading of Salve Deus Rex Iudorum ("Hail God, King of the Jews")

This came across to me as a school-girl's senior project paper at an all-girl academy. She flatters her respected female mentors with comparisons to Greek goddesses, to the beauty of Helen of Troy, to the love of Cleopatra for Antony, and so on.

The title of the work itself seems to imply some form of mockery for Christ and the Jewish God, even as the placard set above Jesus on the cross (reading, "King of the Jews") was a form of mockery and condemnation, both of Jesus and the Jews. Bossano also seems to be mocking her own pretensions of poverty and chastity.

The mixture of Christian and Pagan references in the work is fascinating, but possibly superficial. I leave that to the "experts" to decide.

Here's some additional links I came across that relate to earlier research on the "Dark Lady" by Rowse and ongoing research by Roger Prior:

And the tradition goes on ...

Aemilla Bossano Research Bibliography

A humorous look at the Dark Lady Players: