Was Jesus Caesar?

[Northern Neil]

Salve

There was an interesting book called "The Jesus Puzzle" that came out a while back that argues along the lines of Caldrail and Northern Neill regarding lack of contemporary documentary evidence for the life of Jesus but I think we are forgetting that Jesus's ministry only lasted three years in a rather remote province of the empire. Both his career and crucifixion (according to the gospel story) would have had far too little impact on the contemporary world to merit any type of mention by prominent writers of the time.

...and when you subtract from this brief ministry the tales which are also attributed to other gods and cults, and which often predate Jesus, then reasons for contemporary documentation of this man become scarcer still.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

 

Here goes to an extensive and sometimes heated discussion on New Testament historicity that we almost accidentally began after Fergus Millar's analysis on Imperial law in Iudea. I think much of that argumentation might be pertinent and interesting for the present one.

 

Of course, we have to differentiate historical from theological plausibility; and that applies not only to theist positions, but to agnostic and atheist too. Understandably, any of us may tend to consider any quotation more or less likely depending on the degree of adherence to our own religious (or non-religious) convictions. Anyhow, the potential value of any document as an historical source is clearly aside from its purported (or not) sacred status.

[caldrail]

Both his career and crucifixion (according to the gospel story) would have had far too little impact on the contemporary world to merit any type of mention by prominent writers of the time.

 

Exactly my point. He failed.

 

But we are told that Jesus walked on water, fed thousands from nowhere, cured the sick and disabled by laying on hands. After three years of that, Jesus would have been the talk of the province and beyond. This was a world where no-one had home entertainment, and people would have discussed a miracle worker for sure.

[Gaius Julius Camillus]

So let me ask this, how long after Jesus' death before his followers became substantial, or a movement so to speak? Maybe he did fail, but its kind of hard to believe that the Apostles would base a religious movement on a complete failure. I am in agreement with an earlier reply. Jesus was the political and social answer to the power of the Caesars.

 

But, if he had not achieved anything significant, or failed, would it not be prudent to borrow facts from Caesars life, from Mithras, bacchus, etc? If the man had no substance, you have to fill in the gaps.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Lucius Julius Venustinius

[Northern Neil]

So let me ask this, how long after Jesus' death before his followers became substantial, or a movement so to speak? Maybe he did fail, but its kind of hard to believe that the Apostles would base a religious movement on a complete failure. I am in agreement with an earlier reply. Jesus was the political and social answer to the power of the Caesars.

 

But, if he had not achieved anything significant, or failed, would it not be prudent to borrow facts from Caesars life, from Mithras, bacchus, etc? If the man had no substance, you have to fill in the gaps.

I believe Christianity was quite insubstantial right up to the start of the fourth century, and only really gathered pace after Constantines death - and, of course, the gaps were plugged in the way you describe. Once Christianity contained the bits of other religions the populace liked, and became useful as a means of political control, it really took off. Getting back to the original question of this topic, I do believe elements of Caesar's life may have been tagged on to the Jesus story, but not nearly as fully as the author of this book suggests.

[ASCLEPIADES]

He concludes that the story of Jesus is based on the narrative of the life of Julius Caesar.

 

Carotta: ... Julius Caesar, son of Venus and founder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of Imperial God, Divus Julius, after his violent death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as Christianity surfaced.

 

Carotta's new evidence leads to such an overwhelming amount of similarities between the biography of Caesar and the story of Jesus that coincidence can be ruled out.

 

The most interesting coincidence to me was that the author states that Jesus as well as Caesar hung on a cross. He provides a reconstruction of the crucifixion of Caesar.

 

He credits Suetonius and Appianus for this image.

 

Salve, Amici

 

Judging from the extract of this book linked by LJV, it's extremely hard to see where the "overwhelming amount of similarities" might be.

 

Even if a bit incomplete, Suetonius and Appian quotations are accurate, so you can verify they don't mention any cross at all. The image is clearly not based in what both passages describe and I can't understand how can anyone credit either Suetonius or Appian for it. If this is indeed the most interesting "coincidence" he was able to find, then this book can hardly support the conclusion that "the story of Jesus is based on the narrative of the life of Julius Caesar".

 

BTW, Divus Julius' cult didn't dissolve "as Christianity surfaced". It was displaced by Augustus cult, then this one by Tiberius' and so on. Imperial cult was on the imcumbent Emperor-god and the cult of his antecessors was on a secondary place at best, as long as a procedure of damnatio memoria didn't take place. This kind of cult went on long after Jesus' crucifixion, at least until Constantine's reign.

 

Of course, there is abundant evidence of sincretism operative among most of the major mistery cults that were thriving during the principate period, and our Ursus has worked a lot on it (I suppose they were "filling" each other as required).

I don't think Garotta have shown us any convincing evidence of that being the case for Divus Julius' cult.

I think that, as long as he really wants to, Garotta can find similarities almost everywhere.

Edited June 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

So let me ask this, how long after Jesus' death before his followers became substantial, or a movement so to speak? Maybe he did fail, but its kind of hard to believe that the Apostles would base a religious movement on a complete failure. I am in agreement with an earlier reply. Jesus was the political and social answer to the power of the Caesars.

 

But, if he had not achieved anything significant, or failed, would it not be prudent to borrow facts from Caesars life, from Mithras, bacchus, etc? If the man had no substance, you have to fill in the gaps.

Of course that depends on which "followers" you're talking about. The people that knew him personally and followed his teachings were part of what historians have called the Jerusalem Church. The name is misleading to begin with because nothing these people preached or practiced deviated in any substantial way from mainstream Judaism of the time. They followed the dietary laws of Moses, kept the Sabbath, circumcised their children, worshiped in the Temple (which is an indication they did not worship Jesus himself), and drew upon Jesus' immediate family for their leadership. The head of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus was his brother James the Just. This group did not survive the upheaval of the '60s and '70s but were hunted down and practically exterminated, although there is evidence some possible survivors may have fled further east.

On the other hand the following of Paul survived because of its apolitical nature and its anthropomorphic concept of a Divine Saviour which did not differ in content from the pagan milieu in which it found fruit.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[DDickey]

But, if he had not achieved anything significant, or failed, would it not be prudent to borrow facts from Caesars life, from Mithras, bacchus, etc? If the man had no substance, you have to fill in the gaps.

 

All of the gaps were filled in largely with Old Testament prophecy. The four gospels, which were written between 30 and 60 years after Jesus' death, go out of their way to squeeze old Testament myths into Jesus' story. A good example is Jesus' birth in Bethelem. Mighty contrivances were made in order to present him as having been born there, contrivances that aren't factually accurate or make little sense--like the absurd notion in "Luke" that Augustus had ordered an empire-wide census, and, as part of that census, everyone in the empire had to return to the land of their ancestors in order to participate in the census; so, according to "Luke," Joseph and Mary returned to Bethelem, which was where Joseph's ancenstors were from, ancenstors from a thousand years previous.

[Faustus]

contrivances that aren't factually accurate or make little sense--like the absurd notion in "Luke" that Augustus had ordered an empire-wide census, and, as part of that census, everyone in the empire had to return to the land of their ancestors in order to participate in the census; so, according to "Luke," Joseph and Mary returned to Bethelem, which was where Joseph's ancenstors were from, ancenstors from a thousand years previous.

Could it have been that they had in the recent past come from there, and during the census returned so as to give the home town proper credit for reasons unknown to us now? I agree, it would seem that people should stay put during a proper census, at least by our own modern concept of a census, however other "political" motivations may have entered into the situation:

 

The Census of Quirinius

...However, (Raymond E. Brown suggested that)

[caldrail]

The zealot movement in Judaea had more to do with a clash of culture than any specific event. The more hard line jewish people didn't like the roman morality or their insistence on emperor worship, nor were they overly impressed with the roman occupation.

[Zanatos]

I believe the stories of several men and gods have been woven into the Jesus tale. His origins, death and some of his miracles are very similar to stories about Bacchus and Dionysus.

 

Don't forget Horus of Egyptian Mythology

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/264189...b7d580fd0_o.jpg

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

The zealot movement in Judaea had more to do with a clash of culture than any specific event. The more hard line jewish people didn't like the roman morality or their insistence on emperor worship, nor were they overly impressed with the roman occupation.

I agree. It was probably a whole series linked circumstances rather than a specific event. One has to really study the careers of the Roman procurators in Judea to feel sympathy for the rebels - in my case that wasn't too hard.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Don't forget Horus of Egyptian Mythology

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/264189...b7d580fd0_o.jpg

Salve, Z.

 

You better forget it; your link is just an unsourced statement, aka gossip.

 

Nothing to do with the famous falcon-headed solar God.

 

In fact, the even more famous Osiris (commonly but not always depicted as Horus' father) is a far better candidate for being a Jesus' antecedent taken from the Egyptian mythology.

 

(...evem if not following the gospels word by word as "Egypt-3000" pretends).

[ASCLEPIADES]

The zealot movement in Judaea had more to do with a clash of culture than any specific event. The more hard line jewish people didn't like the roman morality or their insistence on emperor worship, nor were they overly impressed with the roman occupation.

I agree. It was probably a whole series linked circumstances rather than a specific event. One has to really study the careers of the Roman procurators in Judea to feel sympathy for the rebels - in my case that wasn't too hard.

Salve, Amici.

Just remember that according to Titus Flavius Josephus, by far our most important primary source on the zealots, they were the closest you can get to a Roman version of Al Quaeda (particularly the sicarii).

Here comes Ioudaike Archaiologia, book XX, cp. VIII, sec V to VI:

 

"Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together with the robbers...

Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest..: Certain of those robbers went up to the city, as if they were going to worship God, while they had daggers under their garments, and by thus mingling themselves among the multitude they slew Jonathan and as this murder was never avenged, the robbers went up with the greatest security at the festivals after this time; and having weapons concealed in like manner as before, and mingling themselves among the multitude, they slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and slew others, not only in remote parts of the city...

These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God...

And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them...

Upon Festus's coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous.

They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay.

They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire."

 

Admittedly, all this comes from the Roman-Jewish version of Vidkun Quisling.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Yes. But to be perfectly fair to the Jewish-Roman Quisling, he does mention the abuses committed by the likes of Pilate and Felix and does not make excuses for them.