frankq

All interesting replies. Thanks. But everyone has attacked the 2nd question while basically not addressing the first and third. And if anybody out there knowns of a list and chronology of titles bestowed upon Caesar, I'd be grateful if you provide the Link. I actually had one but seemed to have lost the bookmark. It was on a French website devoted to Mommsen. I was rather sceptical about the info, I don't know why. It said that as part of Caesar's honors, he was given 70 lictors.

This verifies the historian Ballard, who claims he did not officially adopt the title.

Yes I recently read that in Smith's work and it somehow escaped me again. Attempting to compile and frame data on Caesar is a burdensome task. Thanks for the reminder! It's a great website, Smith's dictionaries, isn't it?

three questions RE Caesar: When exactly did he start wearing the purple robe? After Thapsus or Munda? Secondly, I have read opposing arguments that he used or didnt use the title imperator officially, which is it? Thirdly, Appian states that statues of him were put in all the temples. This is an exaggeration? Does anyone have a list handy of the chronology of Caesar's honors? I did a search and can't find one.

Thus, it's entirely possible that the Lupercalia was meant to more ostentatiously repeat the events of 26 Jan 44, and having found that the crowd was in fact divided, Caesar was emboldened to foster the monarchical cult by suppressing the tribunes who discouraged it. Plutarch's chronology makes perfect sense from this standpoint, and even more sense if we assume that the suppression of the tribunes was meant to clear the way for the Sibylline prophesies. Interesting counter argument. But why would Caesar, having found a divided audience, then take the risk of stripping the tribunes of their powers? He would only be placing himself on shakier ground and undermining Helvius Cinna's move to introduce the Sibylline business. That's speaking from a diplomatic and not an authoritative stance, of course.

No one

my theory is the incident with Marullus and Flavius occurred first and as an attempt at damage control of how he dealt with the tribunes, Caesar rejected the diadem at the Lupericalia festival. EUREKA!!!!!!!! I have always been convinced that Caesar and Antony set this up, but following the tribune incident had my theory on shaky ground. This answers it entirely. Puts it in place. Thanks to you both for your input.

These I had naturally read, save for Paterculus and Cicero. Paterculus puts the score now 5 to 1, and I can't access Cicero save in Latin and my Latin is sub-nominal at best.

Curious to know what people think and which came first, the Lupercalia or the tribune incident where Caesar stripped Maullus and Flavius of their posts. Only Plutarch has the Lupercalia happening first. Appian and Dio Cassius have the reverse, so too does Suetonius.

The problem is, Jesus knows his ancestors were part of the royal family of Judaea <<<< The only real hard basis for the story of Jesus is the bible, which is not a history book <<<< I like your scenario. It might not be very far from the truth. But two matters need to be pointed out. Jesus was a Galilean. Galilee was forced to convert to Judaism under Aristobulus I only "recently" toward the end of the 2nd Century BC. Galileans were looked down upon by the Judeans in the same way as were Idumeans, who were forced to convert even earlier under John Hyrcanus. The Jesus House of David connection is sheer propaganda, devised because the messiah was supposed to come from the Davidic line. It's one of the more blatant and offensive fronts in Christianity. What was the line? "What good can come from Galilee?" The place was a home of zealots. One other note, knocking the Bible as a historical source isn

I just caught (by chance) the first episode of "Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire". I was very impressed. Because of its semi-documentary style, it was able to cut out all the dramatic flesh that was in ROME, and get right down to the point. Sure it tunnels a bit, but it was well done. I like much better the actor they used for Pompey. Though they had a better Cato age wise, I found him too wimpy. Cato as I see him was a pitbull scrapper, far more resolved. Instead they passed all this onto what's his name who played Cato in Rome and now portrays Marecellus. Caesar was interesting. Those who are not fans of the man will probably like the maniacal and scheming slant. But nicest of all was giving Labienus some of the attention he deserved. Does the show continue to be as good as the first episode?

Interesting response. <<<<On this matter, there is simply no scholarly consensus, but I tend to agree with scholars who take Jesus to have visited Jerusalem on more than one occasion, just as John claimed.<<<<< You are not alone here. The general swing of the pendulum has scholars these days leaning to one trip to Jerusalem at the end of his ministry, but there are many now who are insisting that several visits were possible and are trying to pull the pendulum back. I

No. See HERE. I don

See my post on Luke above. Also, the key to the superiority of John to Matthew is that the latter makes a hash of the chronology of the Passover feast, which must have occurred after the crucifixion and not at Jesus' last supper. Do you mean: "In the case of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I agree. Judging by outside evidence, however, John is much more reliable about historically verifiable matters than the other three, and since the four narratives were each presented as a coherent whole, it's not possible to pick and choose from each of the books. In any case, rules of thumb like "the gospels were meant to portray the Romans in a favorable light" don't tell us anything about historical accuracy, and the books of the Bible (as well as Josephus) occasionally provide unique information that is (at least in principle) verifiable. Finally, I'd much prefer to rely on John's record of what the Romans actually did than to rely on worthless generalities like "the Romans did whatever they wanted on a case-by-case basis". " If so, then that's not enough. I need more. And I know you want more from me which you'll get, I'm in Europe so I'm presently under certain social time restraints...

Don't quote authority at me. Give me reasons. Don't dictate terms. I find it rude. And you give me some reason, which you haven't, on why you find John chronologically more accurate.

Also from the German theologian Adolf von Harnack: "In particular, the fourth Gospel, which does not emanate or profess to emanate from the apostle John, cannot be taken as an historical authority in the ordinary meaning of the word. The author of it acted with sovereign freedom, transposed events and put them in a strange light, drew up the discourses himself, and illustrated 22 great thoughts by imaginary situations. Although, his work is not altogether devoid of a real, if scarcely recognisable, traditional element, it can hardly make any claim to be considered an authority for Jesus

Part of an article from the New Advent: VI. HISTORICAL GENUINENESS Objections Raised against the Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church. Since David Friedrich Strauss and Ferdinand Christian Baur this denial has been postulated in advance in most of the critical inquiries into the Gospels and the life of Jesus. Influenced by this prevailing tendency, Alfred Loisy also reached the point where he openly denied the historicity of the Fourth Gospel; in his opinion the author desired, not to write a history, but to clothe in symbolical garb his religious ideas and theological speculations. The writings of Loisy and their rationalistic prototypes, especially those of the German critics, have influenced many later exegetes, who while wishing to maintain the Catholic standpoint in general, concede only a very limited measure of historical genuineness to the Fourth Gospel. Among this class are included those who acknowledge as historical the main outlines of the Evangelist's narrative, but see in many individual portions only symbolical embellishments. Others hold with H. J. Holtzmann that we must recognize in the Gospel a mixture of the subjective, theological speculations of the author and the objective, personal recollections of his intercourse with Christ, without any possibility of our distinguishing by sure criteria these different elements. That such a hypothesis precludes any further question as to the historical genuineness of the Johannine narrative, is evident, and is indeed candidly admitted by the representatives of these views. On examining the grounds for this denial or limitation of the historical genuineness of John we find that they are drawn by the critics almost exclusively from the relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptic narrative. On comparison three points of contrast are discovered: (1) with respect to the events which are related; (2) in regard to the mode of presentation; and (3) in the doctrine which is contained in the narrative.

I think you have it backwards. John is most reliable. What's your argument that he's the least reliable? Reread my initial statement. I said he was the least reliable chronology wise. Reread my initial reply: I said you have it backwards. John is the most reliable--chronology wise too. You have it backwards. In fact you have the sock inside out. John is the least reliable source for any kind of historical analysis of Jesus, and is paled by the others when it comes to covering events in Jesus

I think you have it backwards. John is most reliable. What's your argument that he's the least reliable? Reread my initial statement. I said he was the least reliable chronology wise.

Was it that they weren't generally empowered to condemn a man to death--or that they couldn't do so for religious reasons on the day before the feast of Passover (since it would mean that they would have to execute him the following day)? The relevant passage from John admits both interpretations. John is the least reliable chronicler chronology wise of the four gospels. The law was officially that only Rome had the power to pass the death sentence. This didn

The administration of Judea is a tricky issue, especially since, due to its troublesome nature well up into the 2nd century AD, it went from being an equestrian run province to one of praetorian and then finally consular rank. Roman annexation, followed by its short period as a client kingdom under Agrippa I, then its return to a province complicates matters, too. Another pointed matter is the fact that, because Judea was a trouble spot, the Romans were always changing their administrative control. Basically, however, they modified on the local self-governing level the Hasmonean-Herodian bureaucracy which was in turn inherited from the Ptolemaic bureaucracy when Judea was a province of Egypt. Rome collected the taxes, conducted all policy as far as Judea

This from the Italian Wikipedia: Patrizio appartenente alla Gens Cornelia fu genero di Cicerone ed amico ed alleato di Giulio Cesare. Mentre Cesare era in Egitto, Dolabella si fece adottare da una plebea per poter diventare tribuno della plebe e cancellare i suoi spaventosi debiti. Roughly translated, he was a patrician but pulled a Clodius Pulcher, he had himself adopted by a plebeian family to get the tribunate post which wiped out his horrendous debts. Now my question, I didn't know that serving as people's tribune wiped out one's debts. Did it?

The reason why I concocted the rather corny and lame thread title

Exactly. Mommsen's idolatry has had a tremendously pernicious influence on the understanding of the Roman republic, and it was borne of an ideology that was very much in keeping with the rising tide of totalitarianism in the first half of the 20th century. Well, on that note, while Caesar browsing, I found this: http://www.annourbis.com/JuliusCaesar/ It's very well written. And researched. And frigging biased to the highest degree. Fans of Caesar will love it. Our own Cato Ohii will be appalled. I can't help but feel the author was on a total Mommsen high. I have never run into this link and website before, I think its new, but the tone and style doesn't seem recent. Check out his take on the agrarian law.

Swinging the pendulum the other way, this from Mommsen: Opposition Of The Aristocracy The opposition had a difficult task in resisting this proposal. It could not rationally be denied, that the state-finances ought after the erection of the provinces of Pontus and Syria to be in a position to dispense with the moneys from the Campanian leases; that it was unwarrantable to withhold one of the finest districts of Italy, and one peculiarly fitted for small holdings, from private enterprise; and, lastly, that it was as unjust as it was ridiculous, after the extension of the franchise to all Italy, still to withhold municipal rights from the township of Capua. The whole proposal bore the stamp of moderation, honesty, and solidity, with which a democratic party-character was very dexterously combined; for in substance it amounted to the re-establishment of the Capuan colony founded in the time of Marius and again done away by Sulla.(6) In form too Caesar observed all possible consideration. He laid the project of the agrarian law, as well as the proposal to ratify collectively the ordinances issued by Pompeius in the east, and the petition of the farmers of the taxes for remission of a third of the sums payable by them, in the first instance before the senate for approval, and declared himself ready to entertain and discuss proposals for alterations. The corporation had now opportunity of convincing itself how foolishly it had acted in driving Pompeius and the equites into the arms of the adversary by refusing these requests. Perhaps it was the secret sense of this, that drove the high-born lords to the most vehement opposition, which contrasted ill with the calm demeanour of Caesar. The agrarian law was rejected by them nakedly and even without discussion. The decree as to the arrangements of Pompeius in Asia found quite as little favour in their eyes. Cato attempted, in accordance with the disreputable custom of Roman parliamentary debate, to kill the proposal regarding the farmers of the taxes by speaking, that is, to prolong his speech up to the legal hour for closing the sitting; when Caesar threatened to have the stubborn man arrested, this proposal too was at length rejected. Proposals Before The Burgesses Of course all the proposals were now brought before the burgesses. Without deviating far from the truth, Caesar could tell the multitude that the senate had scornfully rejected most rational and most necessary proposals submitted to it in the most respectful form, simply because they came from the democratic consul. When he added that the aristocrats had contrived a plot to procure the rejection of the proposals, and summoned the burgesses, and more especially Pompeius himself and his old soldiers, to stand by him against fraud and force, this too was by no means a mere invention. The aristocracy, with the obstinate weak creature Bibulus and the unbending dogmatical fool Cato at their head, in reality intended to push the matter to open violence. Pompeius, instigated by Caesar to proclaim his position with reference to the pending question, declared bluntly, as was not his wont on other occasions, that if any one should venture to draw the sword, he too would grasp his, and in that case would not leave the shield at home; Crassus expressed himself to the same effect The old soldiers of Pompeius were directed to appear on the day of the vote-- which in fact primarily concerned them--in great numbers, and with arms under their dress, at the place of voting. The nobility however left no means untried to frustrate the proposals of Caesar. On each day when Caesar appeared before the people, his colleague Bibulus instituted the well-known political observations of the weather which interrupted all public business;(7) Caesar did not trouble himself about the skies, but continued to prosecute his terrestrial occupation. The tribunician veto was interposed; Caesar contented himself with disregarding it. Bibulus and Cato sprang to the rostra, harangued the multitude, and instigated the usual riot; Caesar ordered that they should be led away by lictors from the Forum, and took care that otherwise no harm should befall them--it was for his interest that the political comedy should remain such as it was. The rest at: http://italian.classic-literature.co.uk/hi...ook-page-77.asp