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.
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.
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.
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. 🙄
"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."
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!
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.”
Aug 11, 2022·edited Aug 12, 2022Liked by John Carter
Rashly jumping in before reading Chapter 3...
Coming from approximately group 1 type perspective, subtype physicalist/non-supernaturalist/"atheist"...
And finding my reaction most nearly in agreement with beth02, who is apparently a Christian...
I think these parallels are very interesting, and likely do play into the later Christian tradition. However, I concur with Beth that trying to build the entire Jesus story from the life of Caesar is probably fitting a square peg into a round hole.
The basic Jesus story is unique in its own right. For a physicalist, there are some tall tales written into it, but none that are essential to the history itself. I would suggest that Jesus was the last of a line of messianic preachers, whose personal misfortune was that the Return of the King was prophetically scheduled to happen just at the height of his own career. Since the date required was precise and looming, and no other candidate had appeared, Jesus himself at the end had to take on the role. Further, his own politics and that of his order were scorchingly critical of the Powers that Were in his own part of the world, notably the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and possibly the Romans as well. To accept the kingship of Israel at the right time, he had to go to Jerusalem to receive it on the day of the great Passover of the designated year. His Sadducee enemies were frantic to get him dead before that day, and, by threatening to riot, coerced the Roman governor to crucify him in the nick of time, the day before. His movement was huge, with lots of excitement over what would happen the prophecied day. His disciples, country kids who were expecting to join the ruling class when Jesus became King, were shamed, terrified, and devastated. They waited, stunned, through the Passover in desperate hope that some miracle would happen. The following night, Jesus's body disappeared from the tomb, and his remaining followers took that to mean that he had risen from the dead, and would be coming back to them soon. Short of confessing that everything their beloved leader had been preaching was a lie, that was the only thing they could do.
Jesus was a very charismatic preacher and had a gift for brilliantly astute moral metaphors. Many of our proverbs to this day are from him. But what made early Christianity into a hard cult that would not go away was simply the fact that his promise was defeated so cruelly that his followers had no honorable choice but to double down on a new lie too absurd to be disproved, and to commit themselves to preaching it to the world.
Caesar was a great man too, and his tradition was surely as you say. But they were two very different men, in quite different circumstances. Caesar's was the imperial tradition, and it supplied a mantle with which the later Jesus cult eventually cloaked itself. So, at least, it seems to me is the most reasonable explanation.
With Rome and local powers portending to persecute Christians, it makes sense that early Christians would formulate their gospels to reflect things that Romans would recognize and appreciate. To get the earliest Gospel, with the least Romanization, it would be the Gospel of John. Most people think it was the latest, but many scholars whisper that it was the first. If that is true, then we have some support for later Romanization.
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.
Well, as a Christian, I give you credit for some REALLY creative writing, John.
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.
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!
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.
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. 🙄
"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
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!
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.”
GM: yes, in italian is Cafarnào, that is italianization of Cafarnaum.
Rashly jumping in before reading Chapter 3...
Coming from approximately group 1 type perspective, subtype physicalist/non-supernaturalist/"atheist"...
And finding my reaction most nearly in agreement with beth02, who is apparently a Christian...
I think these parallels are very interesting, and likely do play into the later Christian tradition. However, I concur with Beth that trying to build the entire Jesus story from the life of Caesar is probably fitting a square peg into a round hole.
The basic Jesus story is unique in its own right. For a physicalist, there are some tall tales written into it, but none that are essential to the history itself. I would suggest that Jesus was the last of a line of messianic preachers, whose personal misfortune was that the Return of the King was prophetically scheduled to happen just at the height of his own career. Since the date required was precise and looming, and no other candidate had appeared, Jesus himself at the end had to take on the role. Further, his own politics and that of his order were scorchingly critical of the Powers that Were in his own part of the world, notably the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and possibly the Romans as well. To accept the kingship of Israel at the right time, he had to go to Jerusalem to receive it on the day of the great Passover of the designated year. His Sadducee enemies were frantic to get him dead before that day, and, by threatening to riot, coerced the Roman governor to crucify him in the nick of time, the day before. His movement was huge, with lots of excitement over what would happen the prophecied day. His disciples, country kids who were expecting to join the ruling class when Jesus became King, were shamed, terrified, and devastated. They waited, stunned, through the Passover in desperate hope that some miracle would happen. The following night, Jesus's body disappeared from the tomb, and his remaining followers took that to mean that he had risen from the dead, and would be coming back to them soon. Short of confessing that everything their beloved leader had been preaching was a lie, that was the only thing they could do.
Jesus was a very charismatic preacher and had a gift for brilliantly astute moral metaphors. Many of our proverbs to this day are from him. But what made early Christianity into a hard cult that would not go away was simply the fact that his promise was defeated so cruelly that his followers had no honorable choice but to double down on a new lie too absurd to be disproved, and to commit themselves to preaching it to the world.
Caesar was a great man too, and his tradition was surely as you say. But they were two very different men, in quite different circumstances. Caesar's was the imperial tradition, and it supplied a mantle with which the later Jesus cult eventually cloaked itself. So, at least, it seems to me is the most reasonable explanation.
With Rome and local powers portending to persecute Christians, it makes sense that early Christians would formulate their gospels to reflect things that Romans would recognize and appreciate. To get the earliest Gospel, with the least Romanization, it would be the Gospel of John. Most people think it was the latest, but many scholars whisper that it was the first. If that is true, then we have some support for later Romanization.