2 Cor. 10:1–2, where Paul writes of Christ’s prautes (mildness, gentleness) and epieikeia (reasonableness, fairness, goodness, clemency). Epieikeia is Greek for clemency, Caesar’s byword. Several Greek writers from the first century AD on used these terms in the same sentence to describe historical and mythological figures (Josephus: Agrippa I; Plutarch: Pericles, Sertorius, the “virtuous man”, and the Pythagoreans; Appian: Numitor; Athenaeus: Dionysius son of Clearchus) and in lists of virtues. Plutarch uses the same phrase, reversed, to describe Caesar (Caes. 15.3, 57.3).
The Latin equivalents are clementia (moderation, mildness, forbearance to the faults and errors of others, clemency, mercy), mansuetudo (mildness, gentleness, clemency), and misericordia (tender-heartedness, compassion, mercy). In Caesar’s Gallic Wars, Divitiacus of the Belgae pleads for Caesar’s accustomed “clementia [and] mansuetudine” (BG 2.14). Sallust (Cat. 54) writes of Caesar’s “mansuetudine [and] misericordia”.
In other words, based on the ancient sources available, it looks like the phrase was associated with Caesar in the 1st century BC, but only became more generalized in the 1st century AD and after, after being translated into Greek.
As far as I can tell. I suppose it's possible that those traits were traditional already by his time, but when I looked into the Greek and Latin sources, I couldn't find those two words used together prior to him. So, barring sources that are no longer accessible, or bad searching on my part, looks like that's the case!
And to think we have a full bookshelf of Cicero's books, speeches, and letters, and only Caesar's commentaries, none of his other writings, which were plenty. At least in Cicero's letters we get to learn what a douche he was, plus there's one beautiful letter written by Caesar himself, which includes my favorite quote from him:
“Let this be our new method of conquering—to fortify ourselves by mercy and generosity.”
This is incredibly interesting and I know nothing about the topic --not enough to reach any conclusions on my own -- but the parallels are fascinating and I’m interested to read more.
Right? I came across this several years ago and was captivated. Whether the specific hypothesis is true or not (obviously, I think there's something to it), it provided the impetus to start reading up on antiquity, which is fascinating in its own right.
Exactly. I definitely want to learn more now. And it’s fascinating — so much of this old stuff is at the base of our culture today, and most of us (me for sure, anyway) are unaware of a lot of it.
I'm convinced that when the classics were excised from the public school curriculum, while the nominal excuse was to make room for more 'relevant' maths and sciences, the real reason was to restrict the population's historical perspective. There are so many parallels in ancient history with the modern world that an appreciation of the former makes the latter much more comprehensible - and, as concerns politics in particular, knowing what has happened before makes it much harder for bad actors to get away with similar tricks.
It also vastly expands one's conception of the socially possible, which social engineers don't appreciate since their efforts are made much easier by the perception that there's no alternative.
If you're interested in looking into it more deeply, in addition to Carotta's book, there are two others dealing with the idea, in whole or in part: Gary Courtney's Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus!, and Laura Knight-Jadczyk's From Paul to Mark: PaleoChristianity. Perhaps the first hint of such a connection was a very brief mention of the overall parallels on the final page of James Anthony Froude's Caesar: A Sketch (1879).
I don't really know or care how much of that or anything is "true".
"What is Truth?" A slippery eel that escapes the moment we grasp it? A dream or dream of dream? An eternally recurring wrestling match between Zeno and Pyrrho?
Who knows!? And humankind (or at least this manifestation of such) cannot bear very much reality—but that was brilliantly executed and superbly written, really had me hanging on the edge of my seat.
Thanks so much for that wonderful, pleasurable journey.
I'm really enjoying this topic. I know much of our history is false and sometimes these little "historical coincidences " make my head spin. What really happened? How many times have we been through this cycle? Very interesting.
Accurate history is going to be a huge topic in the coming age. The existing historical record is absolutely lousy with fabrications and redactions. Academia serves to a large degree as gatekeepers, preserving establishment consensus narratives.
In the comments to the previous chapter, someone expressed skepticism that the historical records of antiquity can be trusted at all - in other words, that all of it is fraudulent. I don't know that I'd go that far but I can't rule it out. Then there's the Fomenko/revisionist chronology issue: if that school of thought is correct, we don't even know what year it is, and may be off by several centuries.
An essay like this one is meant to push the needle a bit in the direction of probing at history, but certainly isn't intended to be the final word.
Yeah, when you see how readily the ruling class, along with its enablers in academia & mass media, tell preposterous lies about the present, which anyone who cares to investigate can easily debunk in a matter of minutes, it makes you wonder: how many similarly false ruling-class narratives were never debunked and became part of our historical record?
Everyone thinks Winston Smith's function in the Party was science fiction, but altering the historical record has been state policy for a very long time.
Eagerly awaiting the next installment. How does St. Paul figure into all this? Did he exist? Was he really a Jewish tax collector? Is he the one grafted Roman Emperor worship onto a Jewish substrate? And how the heck could he convert so many Gentiles? Do tell!
What I find compelling are the parables of Christ. I'm not a bible purist or any kind of puritan. I think the devil had a hand in compiling and organizing the bible. Popular Christianity is a pseudo-Jewish holiness contest, where status is achieved through devoutness and holy conduct. It's a crock of shit. Understand the parables and ask yourself where they come from. He who has a brain to think let him think.
In your last post on this, I seem to remember something about "Who would name their son "'saviour?'"
I didn't have time to reply then, & can't find the reference now, so I'll answer here:
Only about half of Mexico! 🤓
Seriously, tho, Jesus is just the Greek version of the Aramaic Yeshua or Y'shua, which is a variation on Joshua.
So lots of people may well have named sons Joshua or Yeshua.
I'm about to read the story of a family tomb discovered in the 80s in Jerusalem, inscribed with the names Jesus son of Joseph, Mary, Marieme, Judah son of Jesus" and some others (I forget now). One argument used against it being Jesus the Christ's tomb is that Jesus was a very common name at the time. 🤷
Another argument detractors claim is that he wouldn't have been buried in Jerusalem in a wealthy person's tomb. Apparently ignorant of the New Testament description of his burial in Jerusalem in a wealthy follower's tomb. 🙄
Bauckham did a statistical analysis of all Jewish name references (texts, burial inscriptions, etc.) and found that, in Judea at the time, around 1 in 26 Jews were named Jesus. So, yeah, about as common as being named John in modern-day America. Still a roll of the 26-sided die, though.
It was certainly a common name, and I probably should have mentioned that. The main point I was driving for, though, was that it also sounds like the kind of name an author would pick if he wanted his superheroic character to have everyman appeal. Kind of like, say, 'John Carter'.
Which, actually, I think I'm going to make that point in the next chapter.
If you look at the John Carter mythos, there's a lot of Christian symbolism. Carter dies to this world, and is resurrected in another, where he has superhuman powers. In that environment he becomes a savior figure, rescuing and redeeming an entire civilization.
I don't think for a moment that Edgar Rice Burroughs didn't have that going on at least at a subconscious level. However, in this case at least, it's pretty obvious what direction causality flows in.
The tomb & its inscriptions are real. Whether or not it is Jesus the Christ & his family are what is in dispute.
The arguments I've seen against it so far -- & I've only just stumbled onto it this am -- are pretty flimsy.
I think the best argument is in the commonality of of the names. I think half my kindergarten class was named Mary, and half of those some version of Mary Elizabeth. 😂
"Jesus had an affair with the prostitute Mary Magdalene."
Except, per one text frahment, written in coptic, Jesus referenced "my wife"
Scroll that mentions Jesus's wife is ancient, scientists confirm
The fragment is believed to have come from Egypt and contains writing in the Coptic language that says, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'" Another part reads: "She will be able to be my disciple."
This was exposed as a forgery, right? You're linking to a 2014 story but events have overtaken it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/13/us/jesus-wife-gospel-forgery-sabar/index.html It is unlikley that we will find any surprising, glib, or present day prejudice-confirming revelations that upend millenia of scholarship. When a story seems to be good to be true ("Jesus was really Caesar and no one seems to have noticed till now!"), it is.
As pointed out in the comments (here or in the previous chapter), the similarities between Caesar and Jesus have been remarked upon by scholars familiar with both for well over a century.
As to 'millenia of scholarship', first, I'd dispute that much biblical scholarship really merited that description until fairly recently, given that people took it as axiomatic that the Bible is a true an accurate account of historical events. Such scholarship rather took the form of apologetics and exegesis. The second point, which is rather trite but nonetheless true, is that long-standing, accepted ideas - for instance, the geometric centrality of Earth in the cosmos - can be utterly mistaken. That isn't to say that heterodox concepts are a priori correct - plenty are nonsense, and one does not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater - merely that appeals to authority have no truth value.
I'm not appealing to authority at all, just remarking that we are highly unlikely today to find that Jesus was married or that the Gospels were really about Caesar. One can of course quibble about what "scholarship" is but the notion that no one tested the veracity of the Gospels until "fairly recently" is not sustainable in the least. The analogy to science also doesn't work for at least two reasons. One, heliocentric speculation pre-dates even Jesus, and, two, its confirmation depended on the development of new tools. This discussion turns not at all on new measuring sticks or tools but rather on new prejudices and assumptions. Nothing wrong with that at all; they're just completely different processes for pursuing truth.
I think this analysis helps people understand that the character of Jesus was a literary invention that took quite a bit of inspiration from real characters like the original JC.
Once you can accept this frame - it begs the next question: why was the Jesus tale written? What purpose did it serve?
That's where we get into Paul and Mark next, I surmise. What were they saying, what was their purpose, etc. Waiting on the next installment!
Exactly where I'm going with this, yes. But I don't think it's quite as simple as Paul and Mark - the imperial cult played an important role too, I think. As, of course, the Judaizers did.
The similarities you laid out are fascinating! They may not be your ideas but you did an excellent job summarizing them for those, like me, who are unfamiliar with this topic.
Another quote, this time an inscription from Ephesus:
“The cities of Asia and the communities [citizen-bodies] and nations [worship/honor] Gaius Julius Caesar, son of Gaius, Pontifex Maximus and Imperator, twice consul, manifest God [descending] from Ares [Mars] and Aphrodite [Venus Genetrix], universal Savior of all mankind.”
I left out the part about descent from Mars, as Caesar didn't seem to have made much of a big deal about it during his life - it struck me as a late addition, in contrast to the descent from Venus, which was there from the beginning. Nevertheless, simultaneous ancestry from the gods of love and war is rather evocative.
John, you clearly have studied Caesar but your information on Jesus is not well researched. While the parallels you present are interesting, with respect - absent accurate knowledge on the historical Jesus, they seem superficial. I’d encourage you to look more into the historical Jesus. There is much available by both devout and agnostic researchers. You may find a journey into that study life-changing.
If there's anything in the essay which is specifically incorrect, please let me know. I'm always happy to admit I'm wrong about something, and to correct it if so.
I just realized that this is your third (or so) article related to Jesus. Respectfully, I apologize in advance for not having the inclination, time, academic depth to do a deep dive into the various determinations that your Substack argument makes that are not aligned or supported by facts.
I'm going out on a limb but many of your characterizations of Jesus remind me of those coming from the Jesus Seminar or the Lost Gospels crowd. If so, I'd point out that while I'm sure both groups of academics may have been well-meaning, their work came under enormous criticism by scholars and historians. For example, the JS faced with a variety of accounts, they voted to determine the "truth". Similarly the historical basis for the LG's is considered sketch by academic historians (faithful and agnostic).
The historical record of Jesus is as well-documented and their are some great historians who present the detailed research involved in proving Jesus' existence and utilize the same academic methods that historians use to prove the existence of Caesar or other BC historical figures. In addition, there are a variety of archeological discoveries that support Jesus' existence. Quite recently, the childhood home of Jesus appears to have been discovered. With sincerity, I encourage you to take a deep dive. The actual study of the historicity of Jesus is fascinating.
With regard to this specific Substack, I think your comparison of Caesar to Jesus is interesting but in my estimation you are pushing a square peg into the round hole.
Areas where you force it - comparing the Chi Ro symbol to the symbol on back of the Caesar coin - I just don't see the resemblance. And the Chi Ro symbol are the first two Greek letters of Christ's name so I'm not sure what relationship you're trying to make there?
If one were to compare Caesar to anyone, I'd look toward Lincoln, Kennedy, or Trump. I think there's a better historical comparison to be made there.
So far as I know this is the second post on the subject, not the third; there will be two more chapters in this essay.
Regarding the symbolic relationship between the Chi Rho and the Sidum Iulium, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one - to me, they look quite similar; but that's an aesthetic judgement. I also specifically pointed out the alphabetical origin of the Chi Rho, so I'm not sure what your point was there unless you were trying to imply that I didn't know that (which is weird because I say it). In any case, if that particular correspondence is spurious - and it could well be, as could any of the others - it's hardly a deal-killer given the number of other similarities; the case really emerges from a gestalt view of the two, not any one detail as a linchpin.
So far as academics defending the historical existence of Jesus, well, sure, they exist and in large numbers. "Look how many people have conventional views" is not an argument for those views being correct, just for their being conventional. It's especially irrelevant given that a great many of them are theologians with a strong emotional investment in the Jesus narrative being historically true; they proceed from the assumption that it is, and reason from there. It's similar to the media stating that anthropgenic global warming must be a real climate emergency because 99% of climate scientists agree: epistemologically it's a non-sequiter, and furthermore of course climatologists say that, since their funding depends on it.
As to the 'well-documented' historical record, I respectfully disagree. The events in the Gospels stretch credulity, but quite apart from that one cannot use a document as evidence that the document is true. External corroboration is necessary. In my opinion this is true no matter how many Gospels there are; that would be like pointing to all the Star Wars novels ever written, and insisting that this demonstrates that they really describe events in a time long ago and a galaxy far away. Descriptions of Jesus outside the Gospels - for example, Josephus - are complete non-sequiters in their narratives, don't match the styles of the authors, and are therefore almost certainly inserts added by pious monks looking to correct the record. Other accounts either date to a century or two after the fact, and/or reference not the specific personage of Jesus of Nazareth, but rather the more vague personage of Christ - a title. not a name; and most of these references are to Christians and their beliefs (which no one disputes existed), rather than attestations that Jesus (as supposed to Christ) existed. I don't see any particularly compelling evidence for Jesus' historicity in any of that.
The only problem is that Caesar is missing from several ancient sources, such as Philo and Tertullian, who should otherwise mention him. Plus Caligula had the same name and met the same fate as Julius Caesar, and his life overlapped with Jesus for ~18 years on a Christian timeline that is full of major contradictions. The Vatican is built on Caligula’s circus and Caligula’s obelisk is in the middle of St. Peter’s square. See how Philo regards Caligula as a bizarro Christ, intent on forcing the Jews to worship him as a living god. https://kalkallim.substack.com/p/caligula-and-petronius-the-secret
One of the most interesting things I have read on Substack.
Fascinating comparison.
I had no idea that Ceasar was as beloved as George Floyd, peace be upon him. Although, putting a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach isn't in the same league as conquering Gaul, the followers of Floyd burned down buildings in a bigger geographic area.
A key difference in how the two great leaders were mourned is Ceaser's mourners threw jewelry into the funeral pyre while Floyd's mourners stole athletic shoes and alcohol.
From my Jesus Caesar research:
2 Cor. 10:1–2, where Paul writes of Christ’s prautes (mildness, gentleness) and epieikeia (reasonableness, fairness, goodness, clemency). Epieikeia is Greek for clemency, Caesar’s byword. Several Greek writers from the first century AD on used these terms in the same sentence to describe historical and mythological figures (Josephus: Agrippa I; Plutarch: Pericles, Sertorius, the “virtuous man”, and the Pythagoreans; Appian: Numitor; Athenaeus: Dionysius son of Clearchus) and in lists of virtues. Plutarch uses the same phrase, reversed, to describe Caesar (Caes. 15.3, 57.3).
The Latin equivalents are clementia (moderation, mildness, forbearance to the faults and errors of others, clemency, mercy), mansuetudo (mildness, gentleness, clemency), and misericordia (tender-heartedness, compassion, mercy). In Caesar’s Gallic Wars, Divitiacus of the Belgae pleads for Caesar’s accustomed “clementia [and] mansuetudine” (BG 2.14). Sallust (Cat. 54) writes of Caesar’s “mansuetudine [and] misericordia”.
In other words, based on the ancient sources available, it looks like the phrase was associated with Caesar in the 1st century BC, but only became more generalized in the 1st century AD and after, after being translated into Greek.
You've done your homework.
So, historically, Caesar was the first to be associated with these traits, it seems.
As far as I can tell. I suppose it's possible that those traits were traditional already by his time, but when I looked into the Greek and Latin sources, I couldn't find those two words used together prior to him. So, barring sources that are no longer accessible, or bad searching on my part, looks like that's the case!
God the inaccessible source question. We're missing, what, 90% of Latin literature? More? Similar for Greek literature.
Still, we can only see the ground illuminated by the street light.
And to think we have a full bookshelf of Cicero's books, speeches, and letters, and only Caesar's commentaries, none of his other writings, which were plenty. At least in Cicero's letters we get to learn what a douche he was, plus there's one beautiful letter written by Caesar himself, which includes my favorite quote from him:
“Let this be our new method of conquering—to fortify ourselves by mercy and generosity.”
WE have that.
I am extremely curious about what the Vatican library has.
Also, what a truly remarkable quote.
Someone needs to form an elite Dan Brown squad for a "special bibliotechnical operation."
Well, as a Christian, I give you credit for some REALLY creative writing, John.
As a Christian, I acknowledge your praise with humility, but must humbly admit that the ideas are those of others, who should get the credit ;)
This is incredibly interesting and I know nothing about the topic --not enough to reach any conclusions on my own -- but the parallels are fascinating and I’m interested to read more.
Right? I came across this several years ago and was captivated. Whether the specific hypothesis is true or not (obviously, I think there's something to it), it provided the impetus to start reading up on antiquity, which is fascinating in its own right.
Exactly. I definitely want to learn more now. And it’s fascinating — so much of this old stuff is at the base of our culture today, and most of us (me for sure, anyway) are unaware of a lot of it.
I'm convinced that when the classics were excised from the public school curriculum, while the nominal excuse was to make room for more 'relevant' maths and sciences, the real reason was to restrict the population's historical perspective. There are so many parallels in ancient history with the modern world that an appreciation of the former makes the latter much more comprehensible - and, as concerns politics in particular, knowing what has happened before makes it much harder for bad actors to get away with similar tricks.
It also vastly expands one's conception of the socially possible, which social engineers don't appreciate since their efforts are made much easier by the perception that there's no alternative.
I think there’s something to the idea that an uninformed populace is a much weaker and more malleable populace.
If you're interested in looking into it more deeply, in addition to Carotta's book, there are two others dealing with the idea, in whole or in part: Gary Courtney's Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus!, and Laura Knight-Jadczyk's From Paul to Mark: PaleoChristianity. Perhaps the first hint of such a connection was a very brief mention of the overall parallels on the final page of James Anthony Froude's Caesar: A Sketch (1879).
From Paul to Mark will play a role in the next chapter. Excellent book.
Thank you, Harrison! I always appreciate book recommendations!
You're welcome! Hope you enjoy.
BRAVO!
I don't really know or care how much of that or anything is "true".
"What is Truth?" A slippery eel that escapes the moment we grasp it? A dream or dream of dream? An eternally recurring wrestling match between Zeno and Pyrrho?
Who knows!? And humankind (or at least this manifestation of such) cannot bear very much reality—but that was brilliantly executed and superbly written, really had me hanging on the edge of my seat.
Thanks so much for that wonderful, pleasurable journey.
Hail Caesar!
AVE!
I'm really enjoying this topic. I know much of our history is false and sometimes these little "historical coincidences " make my head spin. What really happened? How many times have we been through this cycle? Very interesting.
Accurate history is going to be a huge topic in the coming age. The existing historical record is absolutely lousy with fabrications and redactions. Academia serves to a large degree as gatekeepers, preserving establishment consensus narratives.
In the comments to the previous chapter, someone expressed skepticism that the historical records of antiquity can be trusted at all - in other words, that all of it is fraudulent. I don't know that I'd go that far but I can't rule it out. Then there's the Fomenko/revisionist chronology issue: if that school of thought is correct, we don't even know what year it is, and may be off by several centuries.
An essay like this one is meant to push the needle a bit in the direction of probing at history, but certainly isn't intended to be the final word.
Yeah, when you see how readily the ruling class, along with its enablers in academia & mass media, tell preposterous lies about the present, which anyone who cares to investigate can easily debunk in a matter of minutes, it makes you wonder: how many similarly false ruling-class narratives were never debunked and became part of our historical record?
Precisely.
Everyone thinks Winston Smith's function in the Party was science fiction, but altering the historical record has been state policy for a very long time.
Eagerly awaiting the next installment. How does St. Paul figure into all this? Did he exist? Was he really a Jewish tax collector? Is he the one grafted Roman Emperor worship onto a Jewish substrate? And how the heck could he convert so many Gentiles? Do tell!
That's exactly what I'll be discussing in chapter 3.
What I find compelling are the parables of Christ. I'm not a bible purist or any kind of puritan. I think the devil had a hand in compiling and organizing the bible. Popular Christianity is a pseudo-Jewish holiness contest, where status is achieved through devoutness and holy conduct. It's a crock of shit. Understand the parables and ask yourself where they come from. He who has a brain to think let him think.
In your last post on this, I seem to remember something about "Who would name their son "'saviour?'"
I didn't have time to reply then, & can't find the reference now, so I'll answer here:
Only about half of Mexico! 🤓
Seriously, tho, Jesus is just the Greek version of the Aramaic Yeshua or Y'shua, which is a variation on Joshua.
So lots of people may well have named sons Joshua or Yeshua.
I'm about to read the story of a family tomb discovered in the 80s in Jerusalem, inscribed with the names Jesus son of Joseph, Mary, Marieme, Judah son of Jesus" and some others (I forget now). One argument used against it being Jesus the Christ's tomb is that Jesus was a very common name at the time. 🤷
Another argument detractors claim is that he wouldn't have been buried in Jerusalem in a wealthy person's tomb. Apparently ignorant of the New Testament description of his burial in Jerusalem in a wealthy follower's tomb. 🙄
That's a fair point.
The tomb sounds much too good to be true, though.
Bauckham did a statistical analysis of all Jewish name references (texts, burial inscriptions, etc.) and found that, in Judea at the time, around 1 in 26 Jews were named Jesus. So, yeah, about as common as being named John in modern-day America. Still a roll of the 26-sided die, though.
It was certainly a common name, and I probably should have mentioned that. The main point I was driving for, though, was that it also sounds like the kind of name an author would pick if he wanted his superheroic character to have everyman appeal. Kind of like, say, 'John Carter'.
Which, actually, I think I'm going to make that point in the next chapter.
Jesus Christ, Julius Caesar, John Carter. I do not believe in coincidence!
I was waiting for someone to notice that ;)
If you look at the John Carter mythos, there's a lot of Christian symbolism. Carter dies to this world, and is resurrected in another, where he has superhuman powers. In that environment he becomes a savior figure, rescuing and redeeming an entire civilization.
I don't think for a moment that Edgar Rice Burroughs didn't have that going on at least at a subconscious level. However, in this case at least, it's pretty obvious what direction causality flows in.
The tomb & its inscriptions are real. Whether or not it is Jesus the Christ & his family are what is in dispute.
The arguments I've seen against it so far -- & I've only just stumbled onto it this am -- are pretty flimsy.
I think the best argument is in the commonality of of the names. I think half my kindergarten class was named Mary, and half of those some version of Mary Elizabeth. 😂
"Jesus had an affair with the prostitute Mary Magdalene."
Except, per one text frahment, written in coptic, Jesus referenced "my wife"
Scroll that mentions Jesus's wife is ancient, scientists confirm
The fragment is believed to have come from Egypt and contains writing in the Coptic language that says, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'" Another part reads: "She will be able to be my disciple."
https://phys.org/news/2014-04-scroll-mentions-jesus-wife-ancient.html
This was exposed as a forgery, right? You're linking to a 2014 story but events have overtaken it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/13/us/jesus-wife-gospel-forgery-sabar/index.html It is unlikley that we will find any surprising, glib, or present day prejudice-confirming revelations that upend millenia of scholarship. When a story seems to be good to be true ("Jesus was really Caesar and no one seems to have noticed till now!"), it is.
As pointed out in the comments (here or in the previous chapter), the similarities between Caesar and Jesus have been remarked upon by scholars familiar with both for well over a century.
As to 'millenia of scholarship', first, I'd dispute that much biblical scholarship really merited that description until fairly recently, given that people took it as axiomatic that the Bible is a true an accurate account of historical events. Such scholarship rather took the form of apologetics and exegesis. The second point, which is rather trite but nonetheless true, is that long-standing, accepted ideas - for instance, the geometric centrality of Earth in the cosmos - can be utterly mistaken. That isn't to say that heterodox concepts are a priori correct - plenty are nonsense, and one does not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater - merely that appeals to authority have no truth value.
I'm not appealing to authority at all, just remarking that we are highly unlikely today to find that Jesus was married or that the Gospels were really about Caesar. One can of course quibble about what "scholarship" is but the notion that no one tested the veracity of the Gospels until "fairly recently" is not sustainable in the least. The analogy to science also doesn't work for at least two reasons. One, heliocentric speculation pre-dates even Jesus, and, two, its confirmation depended on the development of new tools. This discussion turns not at all on new measuring sticks or tools but rather on new prejudices and assumptions. Nothing wrong with that at all; they're just completely different processes for pursuing truth.
Wow. Yup!
I think this analysis helps people understand that the character of Jesus was a literary invention that took quite a bit of inspiration from real characters like the original JC.
Once you can accept this frame - it begs the next question: why was the Jesus tale written? What purpose did it serve?
That's where we get into Paul and Mark next, I surmise. What were they saying, what was their purpose, etc. Waiting on the next installment!
Exactly where I'm going with this, yes. But I don't think it's quite as simple as Paul and Mark - the imperial cult played an important role too, I think. As, of course, the Judaizers did.
And then, later, the Nicene Council well and truly invented a new religion.
The similarities you laid out are fascinating! They may not be your ideas but you did an excellent job summarizing them for those, like me, who are unfamiliar with this topic.
I can’t wait to read the next installment.
Bang on! Or so I feel!
Another quote, this time an inscription from Ephesus:
“The cities of Asia and the communities [citizen-bodies] and nations [worship/honor] Gaius Julius Caesar, son of Gaius, Pontifex Maximus and Imperator, twice consul, manifest God [descending] from Ares [Mars] and Aphrodite [Venus Genetrix], universal Savior of all mankind.”
Universal Savior is pretty unambiguous, isn't it?
I left out the part about descent from Mars, as Caesar didn't seem to have made much of a big deal about it during his life - it struck me as a late addition, in contrast to the descent from Venus, which was there from the beginning. Nevertheless, simultaneous ancestry from the gods of love and war is rather evocative.
And interestingly, this inscription seems to have been from 48 BC. So the Ephesians at least were making a big deal about it.
John, you clearly have studied Caesar but your information on Jesus is not well researched. While the parallels you present are interesting, with respect - absent accurate knowledge on the historical Jesus, they seem superficial. I’d encourage you to look more into the historical Jesus. There is much available by both devout and agnostic researchers. You may find a journey into that study life-changing.
If there's anything in the essay which is specifically incorrect, please let me know. I'm always happy to admit I'm wrong about something, and to correct it if so.
I just realized that this is your third (or so) article related to Jesus. Respectfully, I apologize in advance for not having the inclination, time, academic depth to do a deep dive into the various determinations that your Substack argument makes that are not aligned or supported by facts.
I'm going out on a limb but many of your characterizations of Jesus remind me of those coming from the Jesus Seminar or the Lost Gospels crowd. If so, I'd point out that while I'm sure both groups of academics may have been well-meaning, their work came under enormous criticism by scholars and historians. For example, the JS faced with a variety of accounts, they voted to determine the "truth". Similarly the historical basis for the LG's is considered sketch by academic historians (faithful and agnostic).
The historical record of Jesus is as well-documented and their are some great historians who present the detailed research involved in proving Jesus' existence and utilize the same academic methods that historians use to prove the existence of Caesar or other BC historical figures. In addition, there are a variety of archeological discoveries that support Jesus' existence. Quite recently, the childhood home of Jesus appears to have been discovered. With sincerity, I encourage you to take a deep dive. The actual study of the historicity of Jesus is fascinating.
With regard to this specific Substack, I think your comparison of Caesar to Jesus is interesting but in my estimation you are pushing a square peg into the round hole.
Areas where you force it - comparing the Chi Ro symbol to the symbol on back of the Caesar coin - I just don't see the resemblance. And the Chi Ro symbol are the first two Greek letters of Christ's name so I'm not sure what relationship you're trying to make there?
If one were to compare Caesar to anyone, I'd look toward Lincoln, Kennedy, or Trump. I think there's a better historical comparison to be made there.
So far as I know this is the second post on the subject, not the third; there will be two more chapters in this essay.
Regarding the symbolic relationship between the Chi Rho and the Sidum Iulium, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one - to me, they look quite similar; but that's an aesthetic judgement. I also specifically pointed out the alphabetical origin of the Chi Rho, so I'm not sure what your point was there unless you were trying to imply that I didn't know that (which is weird because I say it). In any case, if that particular correspondence is spurious - and it could well be, as could any of the others - it's hardly a deal-killer given the number of other similarities; the case really emerges from a gestalt view of the two, not any one detail as a linchpin.
So far as academics defending the historical existence of Jesus, well, sure, they exist and in large numbers. "Look how many people have conventional views" is not an argument for those views being correct, just for their being conventional. It's especially irrelevant given that a great many of them are theologians with a strong emotional investment in the Jesus narrative being historically true; they proceed from the assumption that it is, and reason from there. It's similar to the media stating that anthropgenic global warming must be a real climate emergency because 99% of climate scientists agree: epistemologically it's a non-sequiter, and furthermore of course climatologists say that, since their funding depends on it.
As to the 'well-documented' historical record, I respectfully disagree. The events in the Gospels stretch credulity, but quite apart from that one cannot use a document as evidence that the document is true. External corroboration is necessary. In my opinion this is true no matter how many Gospels there are; that would be like pointing to all the Star Wars novels ever written, and insisting that this demonstrates that they really describe events in a time long ago and a galaxy far away. Descriptions of Jesus outside the Gospels - for example, Josephus - are complete non-sequiters in their narratives, don't match the styles of the authors, and are therefore almost certainly inserts added by pious monks looking to correct the record. Other accounts either date to a century or two after the fact, and/or reference not the specific personage of Jesus of Nazareth, but rather the more vague personage of Christ - a title. not a name; and most of these references are to Christians and their beliefs (which no one disputes existed), rather than attestations that Jesus (as supposed to Christ) existed. I don't see any particularly compelling evidence for Jesus' historicity in any of that.
The only problem is that Caesar is missing from several ancient sources, such as Philo and Tertullian, who should otherwise mention him. Plus Caligula had the same name and met the same fate as Julius Caesar, and his life overlapped with Jesus for ~18 years on a Christian timeline that is full of major contradictions. The Vatican is built on Caligula’s circus and Caligula’s obelisk is in the middle of St. Peter’s square. See how Philo regards Caligula as a bizarro Christ, intent on forcing the Jews to worship him as a living god. https://kalkallim.substack.com/p/caligula-and-petronius-the-secret
One of the most interesting things I have read on Substack.
Fascinating comparison.
I had no idea that Ceasar was as beloved as George Floyd, peace be upon him. Although, putting a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach isn't in the same league as conquering Gaul, the followers of Floyd burned down buildings in a bigger geographic area.
A key difference in how the two great leaders were mourned is Ceaser's mourners threw jewelry into the funeral pyre while Floyd's mourners stole athletic shoes and alcohol.