Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

[Anthony]

I was rereading Gary Courtney's book, and something caught my attention.

After Jesus gets arrested at the garden called Gethsemane,
Jesus is said to be taken to the High Priest's Palace.

Peter has followed at a distance, and is now, amazingly enough, in the palace
grounds, warming himself by a fire with the house servants.

...skipping Jesus's talk with the High Priest.

Meanwhile, downstairs and presumably in the forecourt,
Peter has been recognised by one of the maids. She says—
“And thou also was with Jesus of Nazareth!”

This reminded me of another person that was recognised by a
maid, Clodius Pulcher in the Bona Dea scandal.

 

[shijing]

I wanted to mention this book that I came across recently:

Judas of Nazareth: How the Greatest Teacher of First-Century Israel Was Replaced by a Literary Creation

An investigation into the historical Jesus and the veracity of the Gospels

• Reveals the biblical Jesus as a composite figure, a blend of the political revolutionary Judas the Galilean and Paul’s divine-human Christ figure

• Matches the events depicted in the New Testament with historically verifiable events in Josephus’ history, pushing Jesus’ life back more than a decade

• Demonstrates how each New Testament Gospel is dependent upon Paul’s mythologized Christ theology, designed to promote Paul’s Christianity and serve the interests of the fledgling Gentile Christian communities

Scholars have spent years questioning aspects of the historical Jesus. How can we know what Jesus said and did when Jesus himself wrote nothing? Can we trust the Gospels, written by unknown authors 40 to 70 years after Jesus’ death? And why do other sources from the time not speak of this messianic figure known as Christ?

Drawing on the histories of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Daniel Unterbrink contends that the “Jesus” of the Bible was actually a composite figure, a clever blend of the Jewish freedom-fighter Judas the Galilean and Paul’s divine-human Christ figure created in the middle of the first century CE. Revealing why Paul was known as a liar, enemy, and traitor in other Jewish literature, he shows that the New Testament Gospels are not transcripts of actual history but creative works of historical fiction designed to promote Paul’s Christianity and serve the interests of the fledgling Gentile Christian communities. He demonstrates how each Gospel is written in light of the success of Paul’s religion and dependent upon his later perspective.

Matching the events depicted in the New Testament with the historically verifiable events in Josephus’ history, Unterbrink pushes the dating of Jesus’ life back nearly a generation to a revolutionary time in ancient Judea. He shows that the real historical Jesus--the physical man behind the fictional stories in Paul’s Gospels--was Judas the Galilean: a messianic pretender and Torah-observant revolutionary bent on overthrowing the Roman government and galvanizing the Jewish people behind his vision of the coming Kingdom of God. In the greatest cover-up of history, this teacher of first-century Israel was replaced by the literary creation known as Jesus of Nazareth.

I haven't read it yet; but while he doesn't have the whole banana, I wanted to note his book in case it might have a couple of additional clues to contribute to unraveling the mythical Jesus problem.

The author's website is here:

http://www.danielunterbrink.com/

 

[Palinurus]

A quick google search brought me a blog entry from November 9, 2010 called: 40 Similarities Between Jesus and Judas the Galilean with loads of references and book reviews on this subject -- also the one you just mentioned.

I'm interested, as I'm reading the works of Flavius Josephus for the Historical Events Database project. So thanks for bringing this up here. I'll take note of it.

 

[Laura]

It's going to be interesting to see how Josephus stacks up on the database since I'm pretty sure that a whole lot of his "history" was hokum and deliberately designed to blow smoke around quite a few things.

 

[Palinurus]

It's going to be interesting to see how Josephus stacks up on the database since I'm pretty sure that a whole lot of his "history" was hokum and deliberately designed to blow smoke around quite a few things.

It's too early to tell either way, as I'm only half way through his Jewish Wars at the moment and I didn't find much substance there yet that would fit the database requirements. His Jewish Antiquities seems to be indispensable for understanding his earlier work but I cannot read them both at once.

His writing style is awful -- so much I can tell you for sure.

My main problem currently is the lack of precision in almost everything he mentions, i.e. no details to nail an event with, and a rather random method of selection of what he has prioritized in his narrative. You never get the whole picture in an objective sense -- only bits and pieces that don't really match up with one another.

Besides, he's a shameless name dropper without proper accompanying biographic info so I have to look up everybody he mentions to understand whom he is talking about, what their relations are, and so on.

That slows me down quite considerably, but educationally it's a fascinating experience for me to see this historical time period come to life with every new tidbit that fits the mosaic.

Much more work to do, though.

 

[Gaby]

Attached as .doc: Chapter 5 - Petrarch on Caesar

How Caesar did parliament with the Gauls during the war against the Germans, and how Ariovistus their king was defeated.

***

Reference: "The Gallic Wars" by Julius Caesar (Book 1):

_http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html
_http://sacred-texts.com/cla/jcsr/dbg1.htm

Detail of the Caesar tapestry (Tournai, ca 1470): Caesar’s bowmen fighting on the Rhine against the army of Ariovistus
© Bernisches Historisches Museum, Bern. Photo Stefan Rebsamen

:)

 

[Laura]

Got it, thanks!

 

[Gaby]

Attached as .doc: Chapter 6 - Petrarch on Caesar

In which certain movements of the Gallic people are recorded for Caesar’s dismay, and how he returned to Gaul and how they went to fight him and were defeated.

***

Reference: "The Gallic Wars" by Julius Caesar (Book 2):

_http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.2.2.html

The Battle of Aisne (Axona)

 

[Palinurus]

While reading Wars of the Jews by Flavius Josephus I found an intriguing passage in his narrative which could have been the nucleus for the propaganda version about Christ as found in the Gospels. See here for more details and background.

The passage reads as follows:

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for everyone to make tabernacles to God in the temple, 301 began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!” This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. 302 However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say anything for himself, or anything peculiar to those that chastised him, but still he went on with the same words which he cried before. 303 Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, 304 where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” 305 And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. 306 Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” 307 Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. 308 This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; 309 for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!” And just as he added at the last, “Woe, woe to myself also!” there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

Albinus was procurator from 62-64 AD, so adding "seven years and five months" brings us right into the heart of the War period.
The War started in 66 AD and "four years before the war began" would give 62 AD also.

Any comments?

 

[Laura]

Assuming there was some raving prophet at the time, it is likely that the Flavians were responsible for a serious re-write of history with the help of Josephus using the above elements. Their probable intent was to put the Flavians at center stage as "godly beings" and further obscure the worship of Julius Caesar. Such activity is not without precedent. Augustus needed the god Caesar to get into power, and once he was secure, he began to obscure JC and promote himself as "son of the god."

 

[Palinurus]

I agree. At least in Wars of the Jews Josephus goes to great lengths in portraying the Flavians and especially Titus as a paragon of clemency, consideration, moderation, courage in battle and skill in almost whatever they are doing, while all the gods supposedly are on their side. It's sometimes sickening to read. Concurrently the Jews are portrayed as almost the sole perpetrators of their own demise. No wonder Josephus is considered by them to be a traitor and a hagiographer rather than a historian.

 

[Magus]

I wanted to mention this book that I came across recently:

Judas of Nazareth: How the Greatest Teacher of First-Century Israel Was Replaced by a Literary Creation

They never was a 'First Century Israel' so clearly that book is wrong, what is more wrong is the word "Nazareth" which is a non-location in the 1st Century,
the name is a corruption of Caesar, in Book of Mark rather then "Jesus of Nazareth" it was "Jesus Nazara", Carotta writes that Nazara is a corruption of Caesar.

 

[Voyageur]

I didn't have a chance and then forgot to mention that I finished reading the QFG translation of Zohren's "Valerius Antias and Caesar" a couple of days ago. Just wanted to say it was excellent. Not only Zohren's thesis, but the editing and additional information and translation of Latin and Greek texts, and additional footnotes, etc. Lay people could really understand what was being proposed, follow the argument clearly, and see how highly likely it is the the culprit of the original falsification has been identified. Great job on this project, as usual!

Thanks. It was a tough thing to translate because it was written in older, formal, academic, German. Poor Data struggled with it! And then, I struggled to smooth the English. And we wanted it to be accessible to the non-expert.

I think it's a slam-dunk argument. Put it together with Carcopino's study of Cicero and you have a really good idea of what was going on back then.

Finished this book today and can tell it would not have been easy to translate and edit, so thank you each for this, and for discovering it in the first place. I particularly appreciated Zohren's painstaking abilities to suss out what he could - very interesting work arriving at Antias's falsifications.

There were a number of interesting notes also in the citation section, such as on Quintus Ennius, (considered himself the reincarnation of Homer), where he talks about "the gods and the physical operation of the universe". The doctrine suggests then there were no supernatural powers "intervening in the affairs of men", just notable people "commemorated after death in extraordinary ways". Then on Marcus Fronto, who seems to have been appointed "tutor" to the likes of Marcus Aurelius. There was Quintus Pictor, about his travels to the "Oracle at Delphi" - looking for advice. Then with Marcus Cato, there was something about his horror "of the graver stamp, at the license of the Bacchanalian mysteries...not a fan of philosophers, such as Diogenes (his picture is on my desktop) and others it seems, too.

There were many other people - my head was kind of swimming, which tells me I'll need a few reads of this.

Thanks again. :)

 

[Laura]

Data has just finished translating Mommsen's monograph on the legal proceedings against the Scipios written up, again, by Antias, right out of his imagination! And, of course, the reason for it was to serve as an indirect criticism of Caesar. I'll be getting it smoothed out as best I can and write some notes that will help the lay reader to get oriented and we'll publish that, too. One thing is certain, our "history" is a mess.

 

[Mikey]

I didn't have a chance and then forgot to mention that I finished reading the QFG translation of Zohren's "Valerius Antias and Caesar" a couple of days ago. Just wanted to say it was excellent. Not only Zohren's thesis, but the editing and additional information and translation of Latin and Greek texts, and additional footnotes, etc. Lay people could really understand what was being proposed, follow the argument clearly, and see how highly likely it is the the culprit of the original falsification has been identified. Great job on this project, as usual!

Finished this book today and can tell it would not have been easy to translate and edit, so thank you each for this, and for discovering it in the first place. I particularly appreciated Zohren's painstaking abilities to suss out what he could - very interesting work arriving at Antias's falsifications.

I'm really glad that the translation is understandable! "Antias and Caesar" was written in old German typesetting (see picture) and difficult to decipher visually and grammatically. Laura was able to improve the translation, thanks to her historical knowledge, which I don't have.

Mommsen's "Legal proceedings against the Scipios" was written half a century earlier than Zohren's book, in 1866, and I had a really hard time deciphering it. The used German language has extremely high content density in very, very few words. I was entirely unfamiliar with its nested, efficient, intricate grammatical construction, but towards the end I was 'tuned in' a bit more and it got easier. It was written clearly only for academics and requires a certain historical knowledge base to understand. But hopefully we'll be able to publish an annotated version to make it accessible even for the layperson.