Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

[shijing]

So it's useful to have several translations to check, not to mention reading through texts that take the Greek apart and then, check it yourself with a dictionary/lexicon.

I'm not sure how helpful it will be given how much material you've already covered, but the Concordant Publishing Concern is a group of ultra-literalists who spent several decades doing their own translation of the Bible:

http://www.concordant.org/

They're true believers, so they won't be involved in any critical analysis of the authorship of the Bible itself, but they have some interesting ideas based on their work (no eternal hell, for example) and potentially useful tools. Some of their primary documents (including full translations) are here:

http://www.concordant.org/online/index.html

There is also a redirect to an Interlinear Scripture Analyzer here:

http://www.concordant.org/language/index.html

Possibly useful for looking for additional clues, or trying to see things from different angles.

 

[Laura]

So it's useful to have several translations to check, not to mention reading through texts that take the Greek apart and then, check it yourself with a dictionary/lexicon.

I'm not sure how helpful it will be given how much material you've already covered, but the Concordant Publishing Concern is a group of ultra-literalists who spent several decades doing their own translation of the Bible:

http://www.concordant.org/

They're true believers, so they won't be involved in any critical analysis of the authorship of the Bible itself, but they have some interesting ideas based on their work (no eternal hell, for example) and potentially useful tools. Some of their primary documents (including full translations) are here:

http://www.concordant.org/online/index.html

There is also a redirect to an Interlinear Scripture Analyzer here:

http://www.concordant.org/language/index.html

Possibly useful for looking for additional clues, or trying to see things from different angles.

I don't read online or anywhere near my desk nowadays and I have several translations to hand. Thanks.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

First, all references to the cross (stauros) or crucify (stauroo) in Paul’s epistles, plus a couple seemingly related references. I’ve included notes where the relevant passage or word in question is attested as being in Marcion’s collection of Paul’s letters. No note means the passage is unattested (this doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t in Marcion, however - only certain passages are explicitly noted as being missing).

Gal 3:1: You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!

-attested in Marcion
-a public display of Christ crucified

Gal 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"—

-attested in Marcion
-Christ ‘hanging on a tree’

Gal 5:11: But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

-the ‘offence/scandal’ of the cross is associated with freedom from the Law for Gentiles

Gal 5:24: And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

-attested in Marcion
-crucifixion as a metaphor for transcending one’s lower nature

Gal 6:12-14: It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised—only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Even the circumcised do not themselves obey the law, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

-attested in Marcion
-Paul and this world have metaphorically been crucified by Christ’s cross - the old relationship between the two has been made obsolete

1 Cor 1:17-18: For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor 1:21-23: For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

-attested in Marcion
-The ‘message of the cross’ is specifically called the power of God, for those with the eyes to see, so to say. According to Goulder this is foolish (‘a vulgar joke’ (NRSV note) or ’utter nonsense’ (SV)) to Jews because of the nature of salvation (not based on Jewish privilege, but faith). Paul contrasts his gospel to the Petrines’ gospel, based on ‘words of wisdom’ (i.e., Jewish interpretations of the Law). This suggests to me that the cross is uniquely Pauline - the other ‘gospel(s)’ don’t contain it. (only other reference to ‘cross/stauros’ in the NT epistles is in Hebrews) (Cf. Bernard Scott, who thinks it’s ‘utter nonsense’ because the idea of a crucified messiah would have been ridiculous and insulting for Jews - Doherty makes the same point, but adds that Paul isn’t referring to a human messiah)

2 Cor 13:4: For he was crucified in weakness (“appeared to have no power” - SV), but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.

-another linkage of the cross/crucifixion with power
-association between death and crucifixion (i.e., crucified in weakness, but LIVES by power)

Eph 2:16: and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.

-another weak association between death and cross

Col 1:20 (attested in Marcion): and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

Rom 3:25 (possibly omitted in Marcion): God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--

Rom 5:9: Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

1 Cor 10:16 (attested in Marcion): Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

1 Cor 11:25, 27 (attested in Marcion): In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." … Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Eph 1:7: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace

Eph 2:13 (attested in Marcion): But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

-association between blood and cross (and other references to Christ’s blood)

Col 2:14: erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross.

-1st half attested in Marcion
-not Jesus, but the legal record, is put on the cross

Phil 2:8: he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross.

-attested in Marcion
-explicit link between death and the cross

Phil 3:18: For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears.

-SV reads “many have adopted a way of life that is opposed to everything the cross … stands for.” i.e., they live an ‘earthly’ existence, valuing those things the satisfy their lowest natures (food, sex, ambition, etc.)

A few times, Paul refers to normal death, but he also uses it metaphorically, i.e., dying to the old, living in the new. Here are the death references with Jesus as the subject:

Gal 2:21: "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

1 Cor 8:11: So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.

1 Cor 15:3 (attested in Marcion): For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

2 Cor 5:14-15: For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

Rom 5:6-8 (attested in Marcion): You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Rom 6:9-10: For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

Rom 8:34 (possibly omitted in Marcion): Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Rom 14:7-9: For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Rom 14:15: For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

1 Thess 4:14: For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died.

1 Thess 5:10 (possibly omitted in Marcion): who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him.

Next, references to triumph:

2 Cor 2:14: But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him.

-Paul is led by God in triumph, but as captive or victor? The text is ambiguous. (many translations either have Paul leading the triumph, or have him as the captive)

Col 2:15: He [Christ] disarmed the rulers and authorities [i.e., demonic forces who control the planet, not earthly rulers] and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.

-Here Christ is triumphant

And allusions to triumphal processions:

1 Thess 4:15-17: Christ’s coming (i.e. parousia) in triumph, to the sound of trumpets (Peter Ellis, in “Seven Pauline Letters”, sees connections with Josephus’ description of Titus’ victorious entry into Antioch - Chrysostom made a similar connection to ‘clarify’ this passage in Paul, showing “there was no great difficulty in understanding the analogy of triumphal procession”)

If Christ was displayed on a tropaeum, that’s interesting, because a triumph displayed the vanquished’s booty on a tree or tropaeum: e.g., the defeated foe’s armour. So why display Christ as conquered?

The cross is associated with death and new life, so maybe it ties in with the way Paul uses these words elsewhere, and what it means to live an earthly as opposed to spiritual life. The cross as a symbol of God’s triumph over poneros (corrupting influence of sin/archons that direct human affairs) and the reality of an alternative.

Christ on a tropaeum is a triumphal display showing the power of God (1 Cor 1:18) to offer redemption to ALL (not just Jews; Gal 2:21, 5:11) who live a life “in Christ” (i.e., those who do the Work to achieve a higher level of being, to die to the ‘world’ and gain new ‘life’). It’s not a matter of magical ethnic or religious privilege. The old way is 'conquered', showing the new way.

 

[Laura]

First, all references to the cross (stauros) or crucify (stauroo) in Paul’s epistles, plus a couple seemingly related references. I’ve included notes where the relevant passage or word in question is attested as being in Marcion’s collection of Paul’s letters. No note means the passage is unattested (this doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t in Marcion, however - only certain passages are explicitly noted as being missing).

Gal 3:1: You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!

Can you look into the word "publicly"? I've had an idea for some time that Paul conducted some kind of Mystery Play that was compelling - at least based on his remarks about the "power" of his gospel.

Gal 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"—

-attested in Marcion
-Christ ‘hanging on a tree’

Gal 5:11: But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

-the ‘offence/scandal’ of the cross is associated with freedom from the Law for Gentiles

Gal 5:24: And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

-attested in Marcion
-crucifixion as a metaphor for transcending one’s lower nature

Gal 6:12-14: It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised—only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Even the circumcised do not themselves obey the law, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

-attested in Marcion
-Paul and this world have metaphorically been crucified by Christ’s cross - the old relationship between the two has been made obsolete

1 Cor 1:17-18: For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor 1:21-23: For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

-attested in Marcion
-The ‘message of the cross’ is specifically called the power of God, for those with the eyes to see, so to say.

Notice how Paul concentrates on the CROSS and NOT on the RESURRECTION?!

Next, references to triumph:

2 Cor 2:14: But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him.

-Paul is led by God in triumph, but as captive or victor? The text is ambiguous. (many translations either have Paul leading the triumph, or have him as the captive)

Well, considering that he considered himself a "slave of Christ", I would say that he was the captive. And that doesn't necessarily mean he was killed at the end as it was in the early Roman triumphs. Pompey and Caesar often made a point of providing for their captives after the procession.

If Christ was displayed on a tropaeum, that’s interesting, because a triumph displayed the vanquished’s booty on a tree or tropaeum: e.g., the defeated foe’s armour. So why display Christ as conquered?

I think that is what Paul was trying to work out theologically and it stumped him. The Caesar worship must have been going on all over the Mediterranean with a mystery play center-piece as suggested by Courtney and Carotta in reference to Mark's gospel, and based on what Ellegard writes, it must have crossed over to the Essene types since it was base, mainly, on a Platonic model. But here's the thing: most of the dying god models were exactly as Doherty says: everything took place in the cosmic realms. But in the case of Caesar, there was a tremendously charismatic and powerful man who was deified before his death and even more so, after. The Platonic influences on Judaism, which wasn't exactly hardened in the mold at that time, must have been profound based on some of the Qumran literature and the growing gnostic ideas. Heck, just read Philo to see Platonic interpretations of Hebrew scripture!

Notice this one in particular:

1 Cor 1:17-18: For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor 1:21-23: For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

-attested in Marcion
-The ‘message of the cross’ is specifically called the power of God, for those with the eyes to see, so to say. According to Goulder this is foolish (‘a vulgar joke’ (NRSV note) or ’utter nonsense’ (SV)) to Jews because of the nature of salvation (not based on Jewish privilege, but faith). Paul contrasts his gospel to the Petrines’ gospel, based on ‘words of wisdom’ (i.e., Jewish interpretations of the Law). This suggests to me that the cross is uniquely Pauline - the other ‘gospel(s)’ don’t contain it. (only other reference to ‘cross/stauros’ in the NT epistles is in Hebrews) (Cf. Bernard Scott, who thinks it’s ‘utter nonsense’ because the idea of a crucified messiah would have been ridiculous and insulting for Jews - Doherty makes the same point, but adds that Paul isn’t referring to a human messiah)

So, yeah, it suggests that the "other gospels" of the Jerusalem peeps did NOT include the cross and its soteriological meaning which also meant doing away with "The Law". They were probably Zadokites, Zealots, militant Essenes trying to drum up support among all the other Essene groups/ecclesia throughout the empire.

Anyway, respecting Caesar, it seems to me that when Caesar was gone, brutally murdered, people just simply could not believe it nor accept that he was not still all-powerful in some way. So, perhaps the effigy of his wounded body being displayed on a cross meant ascension to heaven very much like what was said to have happened to Romulus who disappeared or died in mysterious circumstances. In later forms of the myth, he ascended to heaven and was identified with Quirinus.

In Roman mythology and religion, Quirinus (/kwɪˈraɪnəs/[2]) is an early god of the Roman state. Quirinus is probably an adjective meaning "wielder of the spear" (Quiris, cf. Janus Quirinus). Other suggested etymologies are: (i) from the Sabine town Cures; (2) from curia, i.e. he was the god of the Roman state as represented by the thirty curies, first proposed by Krestchmer. A. B. Cook (Class. Rev. xviii., p. 368) explains Quirinus as the oak-god (quercus), and Quirites as the men of the oaken spear."....

....by the end of the first century BC Quirinus was considered to be the deified Romulus.[5][6]

He soon became an important god of the Roman state, being included in the earliest precursor of the Capitoline Triad, along with Mars (then an agriculture god) and Jupiter.....

In the end, he was worshiped almost exclusively by his flamen, the Flamen Quirinalis, who remained, however, one of the patrician flamines maiores, the "greater flamens" who preceded the Pontifex Maximus in precedence. ....

Among the features of Romulus that make of him the human equivalent of Quirinus is his death at the hands of the patres which occurred on the date of the Quirinalia, February 17, also the last day of the Fornacalia or Stultorum Feriae according to Ovid's Fasti II 481 ....

The identity of Quirinus and Romulus would find a further point of support in the parallel with Vofionos, the third god in the triad of the Grabovian gods of Iguvium. Vofionos would be the equivalent of Liber or Teutates, in Latium and among the Celts respectively.

Notice the tripartite god thing: VERY Roman. Also notice the change of name of Romulus to Quirinus. Also, just two days before the Quirinalia:

A memorable celebration of the Lupercalia in February 15, 44 BCE, a month before Caesar's assassination, was described by Cicero. A drunk and naked Mark Antony, one of the new Julian Luperci, offered a crown to Caesar, who was seated during the festival activities in a golden throne on the Rostra and dressed as a triumphant general. In the face of the crowd's disapproval, Caesar rejected the crown twice and then angrily offered his throat to anyone who wished to cut it.

Remember also that Caesar was Pontifex Maxiumus.

The cross is associated with death and new life, so maybe it ties in with the way Paul uses these words elsewhere, and what it means to live an earthly as opposed to spiritual life. The cross as a symbol of God’s triumph over poneros (corrupting influence of sin/archons that direct human affairs) and the reality of an alternative.

Christ on a tropaeum is a triumphal display showing the power of God (1 Cor 1:18) to offer redemption to ALL (not just Jews; Gal 2:21, 5:11) who live a life “in Christ” (i.e., those who do the Work to achieve a higher level of being, to die to the ‘world’ and gain new ‘life’). It’s not a matter of magical ethnic or religious privilege. The old way is 'conquered', showing the new way.

Since, for Paul, the cross meant ascension, I wonder how much other stuff may have been edited into the text by our slimey pal, Polycarp? Otherwise, some of Paul's references to the cross become rather confusing.

I'm also reminded of this:

Q: In reading the transcripts, I came across a reference to a
'pact' made by a group of STS individuals, and it was
called 'Rosteem,' and that this was the origin of the
Rosicrucians. In the book 'The Orion Mystery,' it talks
about the fact that Giza was formerlay known as RosTau,
which is 'Rose Cross.' Essentially, I would like to
understand the symbology of the Rose affixed to the Cross.
It seems to me that the imagery of Jesus nailed to the
Cross is actually the Rose affixed to the Cross. How does
Jesus relate to the Rose?
A: No, it is from the Rose arose the Cross.
Q: Oh.... I see...
A: Said the blind man.
Q: Elaborate, please. Are you saying that what I am seeing
is not correct?
A: No, mirth!
Q: It is from the Rose that the Cross arose... and,
therefore, the cross symbolizes...
A: Ask.
Q: What does the cross symbolize?
A: The symbology is not the issue. It is the effect.
Q: What is the effect of the cross?
A: All that has followed it.
Q: Could you list some of these to give me a clue?
A: You know these.

I think we are beginning to understand a little - through a glass darkly.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Gal 3:1: You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!

Can you look into the word "publicly"? I've had an idea for some time that Paul conducted some kind of Mystery Play that was compelling - at least based on his remarks about the "power" of his gospel. [/quote]

The SV translates it as "your own eyes saw ... graphically portrayed" (as in, graphic art, not HBO).

Paul's only other use of that exact form of the word (in fact, the only other use of it in the whole Greek Bible) is in Romans 15:4 (omitted in Marcion): "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope." And another form of the word in Ephesians 3 ("as I wrote before"). Paul uses egraphē 4 times - 'was written' (http://biblehub.com/greek/egraphe__1125.htm).

Here's a concordance for the word: http://biblehub.com/greek/4270.htm

Since the simple γράφειν is often used of painters, and προγράφειν certainly signifies also to write before the eyes of all who can read (Plutarch, Demetr. 46 at the end, προγραφει τίς αὐτοῦ πρό τῆς σκηνῆς τήν τοῦ Ὀιδιποδος ἀρχήν), I see no reason why προγράφειν may not mean to depict (paint, portray) before the eyes; (R. V. openly set forth).

Here's a list of its use in classic sources: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lang=greek&lookup=progra%2Ffw

On the same site, the LSJ dictionary lists one meaning as: "was proclaimed or set forth publicly, Ep.Gal.3.1, cf. Supp.Epigr.4.263.13, 15 (Panamara, i A.D.):—Med., “περὶ ὧν προεγράψατο εἰς τὴν βουλήν” Milet.6.43 (iii B.C.), cf. SIG562.3(Paros, iii B.C.), etc."

 

[Approaching Infinity]

If Christ was displayed on a tropaeum, that’s interesting, because a triumph displayed the vanquished’s booty on a tree or tropaeum: e.g., the defeated foe’s armour. So why display Christ as conquered?

I think that is what Paul was trying to work out theologically and it stumped him. The Caesar worship must have been going on all over the Mediterranean with a mystery play center-piece as suggested by Courtney and Carotta in reference to Mark's gospel, and based on what Ellegard writes, it must have crossed over to the Essene types since it was base, mainly, on a Platonic model.

Then in a sense, Caesar worshipers would have been in a similar position to the Essenes/Zealots described by Knohl. Assuming his reconstruction is correct, those groups got quite a shock when their messiah was killed, giving rise to apocalyptic messianism (Son of Man/suffering servant). The tried to spin his death into something positive: "But look, it was actually prophesied that this would happen! And he'll come again, so don't worry!"

Same would go for Caesar. Perhaps they would think: His death - and the iconic image of him displayed on the tropaeum - was not a defeat, it was a victory. He may have been killed in 'this world', but being deified, he actually ascended into heaven and was now more powerful. The paradox goes right back to Caesar: Caesar the all-powerful god, displayed dead as a trophy. But for those "with eyes to see", Caesar actually went on to bigger and better things. The fact that he was killed was actually a sign of how GOOD he was.

 

[Laura]

If Christ was displayed on a tropaeum, that’s interesting, because a triumph displayed the vanquished’s booty on a tree or tropaeum: e.g., the defeated foe’s armour. So why display Christ as conquered?

I think that is what Paul was trying to work out theologically and it stumped him. The Caesar worship must have been going on all over the Mediterranean with a mystery play center-piece as suggested by Courtney and Carotta in reference to Mark's gospel, and based on what Ellegard writes, it must have crossed over to the Essene types since it was base, mainly, on a Platonic model.

Then in a sense, Caesar worshipers would have been in a similar position to the Essenes/Zealots described by Knohl. Assuming his reconstruction is correct, those groups got quite a shock when their messiah was killed, giving rise to apocalyptic messianism (Son of Man/suffering servant). The tried to spin his death into something positive: "But look, it was actually prophesied that this would happen! And he'll come again, so don't worry!"

Same would go for Caesar. Perhaps they would think: His death - and the iconic image of him displayed on the tropaeum - was not a defeat, it was a victory. He may have been killed in 'this world', but being deified, he actually ascended into heaven and was now more powerful. The paradox goes right back to Caesar: Caesar the all-powerful god, displayed dead as a trophy. But for those "with eyes to see", Caesar actually went on to bigger and better things. The fact that he was killed was actually a sign of how GOOD he was.

Something like that. It's difficult to sort out all the threads. Note what Doherty writes in his section on 2nd century apologists. http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/century2.htm

I provided a picture of the origins and growth of Christianity which rejects the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth. One of the key features of that picture is the unusual diversity of expression to be found in the early Christian record: about the figure of Jesus, about Christian theology, ritual practice and views of salvation. This diversity points not to a human founder and single missionary movement proceeding out of him, but to a widespread and uncoordinated religious movement founded on various beliefs in a divine, intermediary Son of God, a wholly spiritual entity. A related feature is the virtually universal silence in that early record on anything to do with the human man and events known to us from the Gospels.

What do we find as Christianity enters its second 100 years? In fact, we find more of the same. Those who have studied the apologists have tended to make some surprising observations. They note how little continuity these writers show with earlier traditions. Their ideas often have nothing in common with those of the New Testament epistles and even the Gospels. There is no dependence on Paul. Moreover, such writers seem not to move in ecclesiastical circles. Even Justin, though he worked in Rome, has nothing to say about bishops and church organizations. And almost all of them before the year 180 (Justin being the major exception) are silent on the Gospels and the figure of Jesus contained in them. In fact, one could say that they pointedly ignore any historical figure at all.

This astonishing state of affairs, taken with the fact that the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles show no sign of surfacing in any other Christian writers until the middle of the second century, supports the conclusion that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth was a development in Christian thought which came to life only in the Gospels and gradually, throughout the course of the second century, imposed itself on the movement as a whole.

.... And what was this 'Christian philosophy' as presented by the apologists as a group? There is no question that it had roots in Jewish ideas. It preached the monotheistic worship of the Jewish God, a God touted as superior to those of the pagans. For information about this God it looked to the Hebrew scriptures. It placed great value on a mode of life founded on Jewish ethics; again, something touted as superior to the ethical philosophy of the pagans. At the same time, it derived from Platonism the concept of a Son of God, a 'second God' or Logos (Word), a force active in the world and serving as an intermediary between God and humanity. This idea of the Logos was floating in the air of most Greek philosophies and even Hellenistic Judaism.

Thus the religion of the apologists has been styled "Platonic-biblical" or "religious Platonism with a Judaistic cast." It would seem to have grown out of Jewish Diaspora circles which had immersed themselves in Greek philosophy. (Justin and others, including the movement known as Gnosticism, provide evidence of heretical Jewish sects, with many gentiles attached, which had evolved a great distance from traditional Jewish thinking.) There is little to suggest that this religion proceeded out of the first century branch of Christian development surrounding Paul. There is none of Paul's or the Gospels' focus on the Messiah/Christ or the end of the world, and the apologists' views of salvation are rooted in Greek mysticism, not Jewish martyrology for sin. Instead, the two expressions seem like separate branches of a very broad tree.

I think the whole trend was begun by the death and apotheosis of Caesar evidenced by his "star" or comet. And if we look at these things closely, we see more of Caesar in Paul's theology than anywhere else. One just wonders how much editing Polycarp did to his letters!

Justin, and whoever recast the Gospel of John to include the Prologue, with its hymn equating the Logos with Jesus, came to believe that the intermediary Word, the spiritual Son of God, had been incarnated in a human figure as recounted in the Gospels. But is this true of the apologists as a whole? The amazing fact is, that of the five or six major apologists up to the year 180 (after that, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen are all firmly anchored in Gospel tradition), none, with the exception of Justin, introduces an historical Jesus into their defences of Christianity to the pagans.

It is notable that the gospel of John tends toward Pauline theology.

Next Doherty talks about Theophilus of Antioch

And what is Theophilus' Son of God? He is the Word through whom God created the world, who was begat by him along with Wisdom (II.10). He is the governing principle and Lord of all creation, inspiring the prophets and the world in general to a knowledge of God. Yet Theophilus has not a thing to say about this Word's incarnation into flesh, or any deed performed by him on earth. In fact, he hastens to say (II.22) that this is not a Son in the sense of begetting, but as innate in the heart of God. Here he seems to quote part of the opening lines of the Gospel of John, the Word as God and instrumental in creation, but nothing else. Is this from the full-blown Gospel, or perhaps from the Logos hymn John drew upon? (The name "John", the only evangelist mentioned, could be a later marginal gloss inserted into the text; but see below.) Such writers, Theophilus says, are inspired men, not witnesses to an historical Jesus.

So it seems that the gospel of John may have been "harmonized" with Pauline Christology.

As for redemption, all will gain eternal life who are obedient to the commandments of God (II.27). There is no concept in Theophilus of an atoning sacrificial death of Jesus, a death he never mentions. And when challenged on his doctrine that the dead will be raised (Autolycus has demanded: "Show me even one who has been raised from the dead!"), this Christian has not a word to say about Jesus' own resurrection. He even accuses the pagans of worshiping "dead men" (I.9) and ridicules them for believing that Hercules and Aesclepius were raised from the dead (I.13). All this, in answer to an Autolycus who has asked: "Show me thy God."

Since Caesar was so clearly a man who was godlike on Earth, it's easy to think how he would have been assessed as a "son of god, representation of the deity, a true creative Logos, who came to earth and was later take back with a great sign in heaven. He is certainly the only figure of the time who truly displayed such characteristics. So, even if Theophilus was down on the worship of men, Hercules, and Aesclepius, etc, the idea of Caesar's apotheosis was no doubt heavily influential in other strands of these developing ideas and was most like, because of the cross imagery, at the foundation of what Paul was teaching. I can see no other explanation for it considering all the other factors.

Next, Doherty discusses Athenagoras of Athens, located in Alexandria (and recall the slim evidence for early Christianity there!) dated to around the same time or a bit earlier:

He was a philosopher who had embraced Christianity, but he shows no involvement in any church, or interest in rituals and sacraments. In A Plea For the Christians addressed to the emperor, he says this of his new beliefs (10): "We acknowledge one God . . . by whom the Universe has been created through his Logos, and set in order and kept in being . . . for we acknowledge also a Son of God . . . If it occurs to you to enquire what is meant by the Son, I will state that he is the first product of the Father (who) had the Logos in himself. He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things."

Whether Athenagoras realizes it or not, this ideology may very well have originated with Caesar, so highly was he esteemed.

Unfortunately, in the course of 37 chapters, Athenagoras neglects to tell the emperor that Christians believe this Logos to have been incarnated in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He dissects contemporary Platonic and Stoic philosophy, angels and demons, as well as details of various Greek myths, but he offers not a scrap about the life of the Savior. He presents (11) Christian doctrine as things "not from a human source, but uttered and taught by God," and proceeds to quote ethical maxims very close to parts of the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you . . . ." Other quotations he labels as coming from scripture, or from "our teaching." Are these ethical collections that are unattributed to Jesus? Athenagoras never uses the term "gospel"; he speaks of "the witness to God and the things of God" and enumerates the prophets and other men, yet he ignores what should have been the greatest witness of them all, Jesus of Nazareth.

He also ignores Caesar, or at least the surviving manuscripts exhibit this characteristic. Nevertheless, Caesar's clemency toward his enemies was so famous that we can see it here in the "Love your enemies" dictum. It was, in fact, "love of his enemies" that brought about his death.

With no incarnation, there is in Athenagoras' presentation of the Christian faith no death and resurrection of Jesus, no sacrifice and Atonement. Eternal life is gained "by this one thing alone: that (we) know God and his Logos" (12). In fact, the names Jesus and Christ never appear in Athenagoras.

This last is actually quite promising because it relates in an indirect way to the Roman patron-client system. How to know god? Hook up with his son and it also suggests Paul's "faith" approach.

Then:

The anonymous Epistle to Diognetus is often included with the Apostolic Fathers. But it is really an apology, a defence of Christianity addressed probably to an emperor, either Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius. Most scholars lean to the earlier date (c.130). The writer goes so far as to say that the ultimate God sent the Logos, his Son, down to earth, but no time, place, or identity for this incarnation are provided. The name Jesus never appears. The Son revealed God, but is not portrayed as a human teacher.

Certainly sounds like Caesar.

We find an allusion (9) to the Atonement: "He (God) took our sins upon himself and gave his own Son as a ransom for us," but his description of this act is based on scripture. No Gospel details are mentioned, no manner of the Son's death (if that's what it was), no resurrection. All this is in response to Diognetus' "close and careful inquiries" about the Christian religion. (The final two chapters of the sole surviving manuscript, which contain a reference to apostles and disciples of the Word, have been identified as belonging to a separate document, probably a homily from the mid to late second century.)

And so on. Then he writes:

Something extremely odd is going on here. If one leaves aside Justin, there is a silence in the second century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is almost the equal to that in the first century letter writers. Commentators on these works, like those studying the earlier epistles, have scrambled to come up with explanations.

Yes, something very weird was going on and it has all been hidden from us by the "Greek Enforcers" so to say.

There seems to be only one way to interpret all this. We can assume that the philosopher-apologists were familiar with the Gospel story and its figure of Jesus of Nazareth. But, with the exception of Justin, they have chosen not to integrate these elements into their own faith, not to identify this reputed historical founder-teacher with their divine Logos and Son of God, not to regard him as the source of Christian teachings.

This is possible only if the Logos religion the apologists subscribed to, especially at the time of their conversion, was lacking the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. Only if they could view the Gospel story and its central character as a recent graft, a fictional tale like those of the Greeks, was it possible for them to reject it, to feel that they could be presenting the Christian faith legitimately. Only if they felt it were possible for pagans to accept the story of Jesus as a myth like their own religious myths, was it acceptable for the apologists to present to them a Christianity which ignored or rejected the figure of Jesus.

As a mix of Platonism and Hellenistic Judaism, the apologists' branch of Christianity had become prominent throughout the empire in the second century. (Paulinism had gone into eclipse until the ascendancy of the church of Rome and its rehabilitation of Paul as the latter half of the century progressed.) As we have seen, this Platonic Christianity defined itself in ways which had nothing to do with an historical Jesus. Nor is it likely to have grown out of Paulinism, as they have virtually nothing in common.

This, of course, is very interesting: that Paul's teachings were not dominant until he needed to be rehabilitated by Polycarp so as to quash the growing influence of Marcion.

If development had been as the scholars like to present it, a shift in emphasis from the 'Palestinian' style of Christianity to one based on Greek philosophy and Hellenistic Judaism, the figure of Jesus would hardly have been dropped; he would have been integrated into the Platonic picture. This is not a Christian 'utilization' of Greek philosophy. The apologists' faith is the religious Platonism of the time brought into a Jewish theological and ethical setting (which rendered the Logos and the faith "anointed" or Christian). It is significant that none of them (possibly excepting Theophilus) have connections with a church.

Such a picture supports the view that Christianity, for its first 150 years, was a mosaic of uncoordinated expressions. It was a variegated organism which took root and flowered across the landscape of the empire, a widely divergent mix of Jewish and Greek features. As time went on, the distillation of Jesus of Nazareth out of certain pores in this organism spread inexorably across its entire surface, until by the year 200 he was firmly entrenched in every aspect of the faith.

Even Justin gives evidence of this picture. After reaching Rome in the 140s, he encountered some of the Gospels and embraced the historical man-god they told of. In his apologetic writings, penned in the 150s, Jesus and the Gospels occupy center stage. For Justin, the Word/Logos "took shape, became man, and was called Jesus Christ" (Apology, 5). But he has left us an inadvertent record of the nature of the faith he joined before his encounter with the story of a human Jesus.

Interesting clue here:

In passing, I will mention that perhaps the earliest surviving apology, that of Aristides to the emperor Antoninus Pius, a short and minor work written in Syriac around 140, is clearly dependent on some Gospel account. It speaks of God born of a virgin, having twelve disciples, pierced died and buried, then rising after three days. This apology comes from a different milieu, one located in the Palestine-Syria area (where the Synoptic Gospels were written), for it has nothing to say about the Logos or Greek philosophical concepts.

If the gospels were written in the Palestinian-Syrian area, that would suggest Polycarp, again. If you take a look at the wikipedia entry on Polycarp, you can figure out what a suspicious character he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

According to Irenaeus, during the time his fellow Syrian, Anicetus, was the Bishop of Rome, in the 150s or 160, Polycarp visited Rome to discuss the differences that existed between Asia and Rome "with regard to certain things" and especially about the time of the Easter festivals. Irenaeus said that on certain things the two bishops speedily came to an understanding,

Syrians in charge of the church at Rome???? Syrians, or Jews?

Back to Doherty:

I have left until last the most fascinating of all the apologies, a document which could well be called a 'smoking gun.' The little treatise Octavius was written in Rome, or possibly North Africa, in Latin. It takes the form of a debate between Caecilius, a pagan, and Octavius, a Christian, chaired and narrated by the author, Minucius Felix, by whose name the work is now usually referred to.....

In this debate, the names of Christ and Jesus are never used, though the word "Christian" appears throughout. Nor is there any allusion to the Son or Logos. Octavius' Christianity revolves around the Unity and Providence of God and the rejection of all pagan deities, the resurrection of the body and its future reward or punishment. In regard to the latter, no appeal is made to Jesus' own resurrection as proof of God's ability and intention to resurrect the dead. Not even in answer to the challenge (11): "What single individual has returned from the dead, that we might believe it for an example?" Much of Octavius' argument is devoted to countering the calumnies against Christians which Caecilius, representing general pagan opinion, enumerates: everything from debauchery to the devouring of infants, to Christian secrecy and hopes for the world's fiery destruction.

But here is where it gets interesting. For no other apologist but Justin has voiced and dealt with one particular accusation which the writer puts into the mouth of Caecilius. The list of calumnies in chapter 9 runs like this (partly paraphrased):

"This abominable congregation should be rooted out . . . a religion of lust and fornication. They reverence the head of an ass . . . even the genitals of their priests . . . . And some say that the objects of their worship include a man who suffered death as a criminal, as well as the wretched wood of his cross; these are fitting altars for such depraved people, and they worship what they deserve . . . . Also, during initiations they slay and dismember an infant and drink its blood . . . at their ritual feasts they indulge in shameless copulation."

Remember that a Christian is composing this passage. (The sentence in italics is translated in full.) He has included the central element and figure of the Christian faith, the person and crucifixion of Jesus, within a litany of ridiculous and unspeakable calumnies leveled against his religion—with no indication, by his language or tone, that this reference to a crucified man is to be regarded as in any way different from the rest of the items: disreputable accusations which need to be refuted. Could a Christian author who believed in a crucified Jesus and his divinity really have been capable of this manner of presentation?

In Octavius' half of the debate, he proceeds eventually to the refutation of these slanders. Here are some of the other things he says along the way.

In ridiculing the Greek myths about the deaths of their gods, such as Isis lamenting over the dismembered Osiris, he says (22):

"Is it not absurd to bewail what you worship, or worship what you bewail?"

In other words, he is castigating the Greeks for lamenting and worshiping a god who is slain. Later he says (23):

"Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) . . . Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"

He then goes on to ridicule the whole idea of gods procreating themselves, which would include the idea of a god begetting a son. Elsewhere (20) he scorns those who are credulous enough to believe in miracles performed by gods. ...

And how does Minucius Felix deal with the accusation that Christians worship a crucified man and his cross? As he did in Caecilius' diatribe, the author inserts his response into the midst of his refutation of other calumnies about incestuous banquets and adoration of a priest's genitals. Here is the manner and context in which he deals with the charge of worshiping a crucified criminal (29):

"1These and similar indecencies we do not wish to hear; it is disgraceful having to defend ourselves from such charges. People who live a chaste and virtuous life are falsely charged by you with acts which we would not consider possible, except that we see you doing them yourselves. 2Moreover (nam), when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the truth in thinking that a criminal deserved, or that a mortal man could be able, to be believed in as God. 3Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on a mortal, for such hope ceases with his (the latter's) death . . . ."

....

Minucius goes on in this passage to cite the folly of heathen peoples who do "choose a man for their worship," but he makes no such admissions for Christians. As to the accusation of worshiping crosses, he says dismissively: "We do not adore them, nor do we wish for them." And he goes on to admonish the pagan for being guilty of using signs of crosses in their own worship and everyday life. There is not a hint that for Minucius the cross bears any sacred significance or requires defending in a Christian context. ....

These remarks about crosses and crucifixion are really interesting. We have two possibilities (maybe others, but two main ones): 1) that Paul wasn't talking about a cross in the sense of the instrument of execution, but rather the image of the Trophaeum and Caesar's body displayed as a figure of tragedy turned to triumph (because of his apotheosis star/comet); 2) Paul was talking about a crucified Jewish godlike individual, i.e. the shame of the Roman punishment inflicted on many Jews was turned around as a positive thing because martyrs were being made and the people needed to feel positive about this situation.

That is, I keep coming back to the puzzle of this bizarre cross image of Paul's and it really doesn't make sense with everything else he said and did UNLESS he was really talking about Caesar. OR combining the Caesar imagery with Jewish martyrs and a cosmic son of god. But the whole "son of god" thing was mainly Greco-Roman ... so you see, there IS a knot here.

As a side note:

Feeling it much safer to be far away from Sulla should the Dictator change his mind, Caesar quit Rome and joined the army, serving under Marcus Minucius Thermus in Asia and Servilius Isauricus in Cilicia. He served with distinction, winning the Civic Crown for his part in the Siege of Mytilene. ... Marcus Minucius Thermus was a praetor in 81 BC and propraetor of the Roman province of Asia the following year.

And the author presently under consideration as an apologist was Marcus Minucius Felix.

Of his personal history nothing is known, and even the date at which he wrote can be only approximately ascertained as between AD 150 and 270. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus #58 speaks of him as "Romae insignis causidicus" [one of Rome's notable solicitors], but in that he is probably only improving on the expression of Lactantius[1] who speaks of him as "non ignobilis inter causidicos loci" [not unknown among solicitors].

Prolly a descendant of the same family, and Romans were pretty big on passing down family history, though a major civil war and occurred between the first Marcus Minucius and the Christian one not to mention over 200 years.

Back to Doherty:

To the dispassionate eye, Minucius Felix is one Christian who will have no truck with those, in other circles of his religion, who profess the worship of a Jesus who was crucified in Judea under the governorship of Pontius Pilate, rumors of which have reached pagan ears and elicited much scorn and condemnation. To claim that a whole generation of apologists would falsely convey such an exterior to those they are seeking to win over, that they would deliberately indulge in this kind of Machiavellian deception, is but one of the desperate measures which modern Christian scholars have been forced to adopt in their efforts to deal with a Christian record that stubbornly refuses to paint the picture they all want to see. ....

It must be stressed that nowhere in the literature of the time is there support for the standard scholarly rationalization about the apologists' silence on the figure of Jesus. Nowhere is it discussed or even intimated that these writers have in fact deliberately left out the essential elements of Christian faith in their defences of it, for reasons of political correctness or anything else. ....

Tertullian, writing his apology around the year 200 and borrowing, or at least using as inspiration, parts of the work of Minucius Felix. Tertullian indulges in no such cryptic concealment. In his own day, the hostility to Christianity was no easier than it had been a generation earlier when Felix wrote, or a mere two decades since Athenagoras and Theophilus had penned their defences. Tertullian's work is full of vivid references to Christ's incarnation, to his death and resurrection. Near the end of his account of "that Christ, the Son of God who appeared among us," he declares: "let no one think it is otherwise than we have represented, for none may give a false account of his religion . . . . We say, and before all men we say, and torn and bleeding under your tortures we cry out, 'We worhip God through Christ!' " Apparently, if we believe the commentators, the bulk of the second century apologists possessed no such conviction, no such courage. Certainly, Tertullian would have had no sympathy with their policy of concealment. The above quote may even be a veiled condemnation of them, if he were familiar with the likes of Athenagoras or Tatian or Theophilus. Or it may have been directed at Minucius Felix himself, whose work he would have felt constrained to expand on and fill in the painfully missing blanks.

Regarding crucifixion, wikipedia says:

Ancient Greek has two verbs for crucify: ana-stauro (ἀνασταυρόω), from stauros, "stake", and apo-tumpanizo (ἀποτυμπανίζω) "crucify on a plank," [1] together with anaskolopizo (ἀνασκολοπίζω "impale"). In earlier pre-Roman Greek texts anastauro usually means "impale."

New Testament Greek uses four verbs, three of them based upon stauros (σταυρός), usually translated "cross". The commonest term is stauroo (σταυρόω), "to crucify", occurring 43 times; sustauroo (συσταυρόω), "to crucify with" or "alongside" occurs five times, while anastauroo (ἀνασταυρόω), "to crucify again" occurs only once at the Epistle to the Hebrews 6:6. prospegnumi (προσπήγνυμι), "to fix or fasten to, impale, crucify" occurs only once at the Acts of the Apostles 2:23.

The English term cross derives from the Latin word crux.[5] The Latin term crux literally means "in general, a tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged" and "in particular, a cross".[6]

The English term crucifix derives from the Latin crucifixus or cruci fixus, past participle passive of crucifigere or cruci figere, meaning "to crucify" or "to fasten to a cross".[7][8][9][10]

Crucifixion was often performed to terrorize and dissuade its witnesses from perpetrating particularly heinous crimes. Victims were left on display after death as warnings to others who might attempt dissent. Crucifixion was usually intended to provide a death that was particularly slow, painful (hence the term excruciating, literally "out of crucifying"), gruesome, humiliating, and public, using whatever means were most expedient for that goal. Crucifixion methods varied considerably with location and time period. ...

The Roman historian Tacitus records that the city of Rome had a specific place for carrying out executions, situated outside the Esquiline Gate,[13] and had a specific area reserved for the execution of slaves by crucifixion.[14] Upright posts would presumably be fixed permanently in that place, and the crossbeam, with the condemned person perhaps already nailed to it, would then be attached to the post.

The person executed may have been attached to the cross by rope, though nails are mentioned in a passage by the Judean historian Josephus, where he states that at the Siege of Jerusalem (70), "the soldiers out of rage and hatred, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest."[15] Objects used in the crucifixion of criminals, such as nails, were sought as amulets with perceived medicinal qualities.[16]

Despite its frequent use by the Romans, the horrors of crucifixion did not escape mention by some of their eminent orators. Cicero for example, described crucifixion as "a most cruel and disgusting punishment",[19] and suggested that "the very mention of the cross should be far removed not only from a Roman citizen's body, but from his mind, his eyes, his ears."[20] ...

Crucifixion was used for slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state. It was considered a most shameful and disgraceful way to die. Condemned Roman citizens were usually exempt from crucifixion except for major crimes against the state, such as high treason. ...

Between 73 BC and 71 BC a band of slaves, eventually numbering about 120,000, under the (at least partial) leadership of Spartacus were in open revolt against the Roman republic. The rebellion was eventually crushed and, while Spartacus himself most likely died in the final battle of the revolt, approximately 6,000 of his followers were crucified along the 200 km Appian Way between Capua and Rome as a warning to any other would-be rebels.

The Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus, king of Judea from 103 BC to 76 BC, crucified 800 rebels, said to be Pharisees, in the middle of Jerusalem. ...

Under ancient Roman penal practice, crucifixion was also a means of exhibiting the criminal's low social status. It was the most dishonourable death imaginable, originally reserved for slaves, hence still called "supplicium servile" by Seneca, later extended to citizens of the lower classes...

That doesn't improve the problem.

 

[Kisito]

There are additional problems with reading these texts that I should mention, and which should always be kept in mind. Doherty doesn't talk about it too much, but it is ever-present in my mind: THE EDITOR.

Richard Pervo sent me some notes from a lecture he gave about the Integrity of I Corinthians, exhibiting what he thinks are interpolations. Here are a few of Pervo's examples with the interpolated text in italics.

1CO 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

1CO 4:17 Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.

1CO 7:17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

So, you see from this how just a few words can be added consistently through a text. So, perhaps a particular sort of editing was used on Paul's letters overall, and on various terms. One example might be insertions of the name "Jesus" in numerous places where Paul wrote "Christ" only. We don't know that every, single appearance of the name "Jesus" has not been edited in there. And the same might be true for the term "crucified." Maybe he did use that term, but again, he might not have but rather used some term that actually meant "on a trophaeum. Or possibly the term "Christ on a Cross" could have an alternative meaning as "The Wisdom Aspect of God Displayed Triumphant"?

What is the translation of the name "Thymotée/Thymoty" in the notes to Richard Pervo ? Is this the disciple of Paul or translation in Ancient Greek, "Timao" "Honor" and theos, "God" means : He honors God ? Because if it is possible that two or three character (person) in one !

 

[MusicMan]

Just out of interest, about 30 years ago when I was attempting to teach myself Hebrew and Ancient Greek, an old friend of mine fished out a manuscript and said to me: "I got this manuscript when I was visiting a monastery near Mount Sinai, it's in Hebrew, maybe you would like a copy?"
She wouldn't allow me to keep the original, but I photocopied it.
When I was studying the script I determined that it was not Hebrew, but Ancient Greek! The sort of Greek you see that has no spaces between the words, and no vowels. Hard going.
Anyhow, I identified the text as being from the end of the book of John, and the beginning of the book of Acts.

The piece you may find of interest was not the actual text of the books, but the signature which lay between the two books.

It was signed: PAVLVS

It's currently not in my possession, but if I can get my daughter to find it, perhaps she could photograph the signature and we'll post it here.

OK I got a pic of it, attached below:

Interesting.

Since the books of John and Acts were written probably 50 or more years after the death of Paul, it would have to be someone else with that name.

Laura, I owe you an apology because I screwed up: relying on memory again.
When I wrote the above, the correction should be that the text of the document is that from LUKE 24:23b through to JOHN 1:38a, and that signature you saw (Paulos) in the photograph is between those two passages.

I'm guessing that this will not change your opinion of it.
My daughter huffed and said: "It's not ANCIENT Greek, it's CLASSICAL Greek, and that puts it somewhere between the reigns of Tiberius and Constantine".

Regardless, I am sorry - I must check my facts before I start typing again.

 

[MusicMan]

Through a quick search, I got the following clues: "Royal Scyths" (Scōloti, Sacae, Skuda, Sai), Old Persian culture, "Scytho-Siberian"culture, "Timber Grave"(or Srubna) culture, Cimmerians, Yamnaya culture into the Andronovo culture, Ruthenians (Ruthene or Rusyn), rutilated glass or quartz... And all of it points out to Ukraine and the region sometimes known in English as Galicia (Ukrainian: Галичина, Halychyna; Polish: Galicja and; Slovak: Halič) _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians

While reading Laura's post, I suddenly remembered a great Love story that left great impression on me when I read it as a child. It's the Story of the Turkish Sultan and his beloved wife Roxelana. From Wiki here _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxelana:

Don't see that either of these things have anything to do with Julius Caesar as the prototype for the myth of Jesus.

I got this out of it:
"all of it points out to Ukraine and the region sometimes known in English as Galicia (Ukrainian: Галичина, Halychyna; Polish: Galicja and; Slovak: Halič) "

The slovak term brings to mind the chalice.
The Chalice is the Holy Grail.
The Holy Grail is the Sangreal. (san greal)
The Sangreal is the Royal Blood. (sang real)
Ave!

also the Ruthenians may well have been the source of the redheaded tribes/Scythians.
FWIW

 

[Rennie564]

Last night I was exploring the topic of the death of Julius Caesar, in the light that he could be the source of the Jesus myth. So I posed the question, who would have a vested interest in the creation of Christianity AND his death? And 2,000 years of suppression with this particular myth?

Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger seemed a good place to start. As a child, I often times spent a weekend with my grandfather researching our genealogy. So I decided to follow "blood", I found a geneology website where historians have been busy busy busy. I have traced all maternal and paternal lines up to the year 700 so far.

It is interesting to note that the main conspirator in Caesar's assassination is a direct ancestor of many Roman emporers and Byzantine emporers and a dozen Khans/Kings of Bulgaria. The last entry I saw before bed was one for an Anastacia that appears to be an ancestor of Vladimir the First. i plan to keep going to modern day. I believe if I trace as many of the conspirators against Caesar, I will find that the bloodlines of these familes are still very active in powerful positions today.

 

[Laura]

Well, that's an interesting approach/find. My concern had been the offspring of Caesar. Seems that the line died out and any possibles that were known about were killed. There was one guy in Gaul who claimed that his grandmother had been Caesar's mistress and that he was a descendant. Don't recall which emperor did it, but he was killed along with his wife and children I believe. I'll have to look it up again.

Considering the fact that Caesar "got around", a LOT of children born into noble Roman families might be his - just not Brutus (Caesar was too young and had not yet begun his affair with B's mother).

 

[Rennie564]

The Brutus descendants are heading in the direction of Byzantine/Russia. I have always taken note that the double headed eagle is associated as the standard of Caesar and old Rome and also of the Byzantines and Russians. While a single eagle is found in other cultures. I wonder.......? I am not very good with the Christian stories or scriptures, but does not Judas realize the extent of his betrayal and that he was tricked into it? I will dive deeper into family lines and see if any patterns emerge. Learning new things is always fun.

 

[Oxajil]

Re: Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

Hi all,

I've attached a translation of parts from the book "La Scala di Giacobbe" (1932) by Giovanni Papini. The book is not available in English, but it has been translated to Dutch. Laura asked me if I could get ahold of it and translate the parts that are about Caesar. I must say, it makes for a very interesting read! It made me value Caesar even more, and makes me very thankful for the research Laura is doing.

The first part in the attached document is called ''Rome, the holy city", and the second part is called "Christ Roman", in this second part Giovanni describes Caesar's personality and being and draws a parallel between him and Jesus. Here's one excerpt (please note that there may be mistakes in the translation, any corrections are welcome):

And just as [Caesar] was generous in forgiving, he was generous in giving, even to the humble ones.

“Whenever grain was plentiful – Suetonius says – he distributed it to them without stint or measure…… he lavished gifts on men of all other classes, both those whom he invited to accept his bounty and those who applied to him unasked…… he was the sole and ever ready help of all who were in legal difficulties or in debt and of young spendthrifts,”

Consequently, another historian calls him as being spaciously and lavishly generous.

One time he invited at his own expense all the Roman people for a meal; twenty-two thousand tables with three beds each, more than two hundred thousand people. For deeming that the former of these had not been served with a liberality creditable to his generosity, he gave another meal five days later on a most lavish scale.

He had no contempt for the lowly nor for sinners. And even when he was ruler of the state, he advanced people of the humblest origin to the highest positions, and when taken to task for it, flatly declared that if he had been helped in defending his honour by brigands and cut-throats, he would have requited even such men in the same way.” [...]

How huge the distance may be, between man Caesar and God Christ, between him, who wore the laurel wreath and Him who wore the crown of thorns on his Head, between him who conquered land and Him who conquered souls, we must admit to having a Caesar before us, far different from the conventional school books, one who is worthy, by an inexplicable similarity of attributes and facts, to be elevated to the dignity of an unconscious guide to Christ.

We have discovered a Caesar who had inclinations and virtues, entirely different from that of other Romans – a Caesar, who forgives his enemies, who gives generously to all, who was the legitimate head of the Roman religion and who imagined himself to be of divine origin and was honored as a God – a Caesar, who loved and protected the people, from which the true God would be born – a Caesar, who was betrayed by one of his closest friends and who was killed, because he, like Jesus, was accused of wanting to elevate himself to king.

Perhaps, interesting to note is that after the part about Caesar, Giovianni starts to write about the Roman poet Virgil. He writes: "As man could find the Incarnation of the coming Christ, in my opinion, in the greatest Roman hero [Caesar]; so was the greatest Roman poet Virgil, according to many Christians, the Prophet." Giovanni writes that Virgil could've been the Prophet who had the calling to announce the Roman Christ. I haven't translated this part, but if there's interest, I'd be happy to do so!

I also included a paper 'An Unnoticed Trait in the Character of Julius Caesar' which is one of the references used. Hope this helps!

 

[whitecoast]

Thank you for this translation Oxajil! It certainly is a picture of Caesar distinct from the common depictions of him by Cicero and the like. The more I read about him the more I can't help admire him.