A Critical Review of Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity by Dennis McDonald

A Critical Review of Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity by Dennis McDonald

By Bishop Ray Taylor, Ph.D.

Dennis McDonald's Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity ventures into a realm of speculative theorizing that seeks to reshape the foundational narrative of Christianity. The thesis—that Christianity was a deliberate construct of Roman emperors to pacify rebellious Jewish populations—rests on tenuous evidence, a patchwork of dubious assumptions, and a staggering disregard for established scholarship. While the book may appeal to those drawn to sensationalist revisions of history, it fails to meet even the minimum standards of serious academic inquiry.

Summary of the Thesis

McDonald posits that the Flavian emperors (specifically Vespasian and Titus) created Christianity as a tool for political control. He suggests that key elements of the faith, including the figure of Jesus Christ, were designed to subvert Jewish messianic expectations and to promote loyalty to Rome. According to McDonald, the New Testament is filled with covert Roman propaganda, and its authors were agents of imperial influence.

Major Flaws in Creating Christ

1. An Absurd and Unsubstantiated Central Premise

McDonald’s central argument—that Roman emperors invented Christianity—flies in the face of overwhelming evidence regarding the early Christian movement’s grassroots, Jewish origins. The New Testament writings, Pauline epistles, and archaeological findings consistently demonstrate that Christianity arose as a Jewish sect before expanding into the Greco-Roman world. Scholars like N.T. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003) and James D.G. Dunn (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 1977) have meticulously documented this historical trajectory, which McDonald completely disregards.

His suggestion that the Romans engineered the Gospels to pacify Jews is equally implausible. The Gospels frequently critique Roman authority (e.g., the crucifixion of Jesus as a symbol of Roman oppression) and reflect a theological framework incompatible with imperial propaganda.

2. Misinterpretation and Misuse of Sources

McDonald’s interpretation of historical texts is riddled with inaccuracies. He cherry-picks phrases and ideas from Josephus, Tacitus, and the New Testament, twisting them to support his narrative. For instance, his claim that Josephus served as a secret architect of Christian ideology grossly misrepresents Josephus’s works, which are explicitly rooted in Jewish history and apologetics.

Furthermore, McDonald’s interpretation of New Testament passages as coded messages supporting Roman authority betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of literary context. His readings often border on conspiracy theory rather than scholarly exegesis.

3. Ignorance of Early Christian Diversity

The early Christian movement was far from a monolithic entity. McDonald’s theory ignores the rich diversity of thought within early Christianity, including the conflicts between Pauline and Jewish-Christian factions, Gnostic groups, and later heresies. If Christianity were a Roman invention, why would it give rise to such internal division and resistance, including widespread martyrdom at the hands of Roman authorities?

4. Conflation of Correlation and Causation

McDonald frequently confuses correlation with causation. For example, he argues that the spread of Christianity coinciding with the Pax Romana indicates Roman orchestration. This ignores the fact that the Pax Romana provided a conducive environment for the natural spread of ideas, including Christianity, rather than being evidence of deliberate engineering.

5. Lack of Peer-Reviewed Support

Serious academic works undergo rigorous peer review to ensure credibility and validity. McDonald’s book, however, lacks the endorsement of any reputable scholars in the fields of biblical studies, Roman history, or early Christianity. His arguments have not withstood critical scrutiny, which is unsurprising given their speculative and often fantastical nature.

Extreme Speculation and Absurdity

At times, McDonald’s arguments descend into outright absurdity. His theory that Jesus is a symbolic stand-in for Titus or Vespasian demonstrates a gross oversimplification of both Jewish messianic traditions and early Christian theology. The notion that such a contrived figure would inspire centuries of devotion and sacrifice defies psychological, cultural, and historical plausibility.

The book’s tendency to treat ancient texts as cryptic puzzles awaiting a modern “decoder” is reminiscent of fringe theories like the Da Vinci Code rather than serious historical research.

Conclusion

Dennis McDonald’s Creating Christ represents a low point in pseudo-historical literature. While its provocative premise may attract those eager to challenge traditional narratives, it offers little more than sensationalism dressed up as scholarship. Its methodological flaws, misrepresentation of evidence, and dismissal of established scholarship render it a work unworthy of serious academic consideration.

Christianity’s origins are complex, rooted in profound theological, cultural, and historical currents that deserve rigorous study—not reductionist conspiracy theories. Scholars like E.P. Sanders, N.T. Wright, and Richard Bauckham provide well-researched alternatives to McDonald’s fantastical claims, offering insights grounded in evidence rather than conjecture.

Ultimately, Creating Christ is less an exploration of history than an exercise in speculative fiction. To call it a scholarly contribution would be a disservice to the field of biblical studies. It should be approached with extreme caution—or better yet, avoided altogether.