I've read this book several times and even corresponded with the author. It spurred me to do a lot of research of my own regarding Julius Caesar, and what I discovered amazed me.
There is a curiously large number of coincidences in the life of Julius Caesar, and "Jesus Christ". Yes: I know it must seem as if I know nothing of either person for me to even start thinking this... But THERE IS SOMETHING TO THIS IDEA.
Myself, and a few others have tried to talk to other people about this online, but really, to no avail. Staunch Christians of course do not like the idea at all. And neither do non-Christians, especially those scholars who have spent a lifetime researching the uncomfortable facts about Christianity: they also will attack this idea with all their might. It is quite strange.
Anyway, I have found the book and its ideas to be suprisingly and disturbingly plausible. Hopefully a few other people might also want to talk about this book if they visit the above websites, or even buy the book and read it. :) Thanks!
This message has been edited by Aquitaine, May-05-2005 10:43 PM
Except for the fact that Gaius Julius Caesar was born about 100 years before Jesus and died about 40 years before Jesus was born, you might have something. But as is, it's a pretty silly idea.Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Julius Caesar died from the stab wounds. Three days after his death, three Roman Buddhist Monks set out in search of the reincarnated Caesar.
Four 40 years they wandered checking each infant, presenting objects that had been owned by Caesar, but nowhere did they find the child. Then, while visiting one of the minor provences of the Roman Empire, a minor local politico told them of an amazing child.
They jumped on their their camel named Clyde and Ride Camel Ride.
Soon they arrived at the child's house and as they entered, the child jumped up and said "I bet I can guess what you've got in your pocketesse". So he guessed "Myrrh and gold, and Frank's good sense."
So the Roman Buddhist Monks knew that here was the Caesar reborn as a child and they all rubbed his belly.
This message has been edited by jar, 05-02-2005 10:25 PM
Hahaha... Yes, it sounds ridiculous, I know. It was my first reaction too.
Here's a quote from the book, that lists just some of the stuff I find interesting. There are many parallels and strange similarities like this to be found in the life of Julius Caesar and the stories of Jesus Christ... Too many.
"The rise of Caesar begins in Gaul, that of Jesus in Galilee. Caesar, coming from Gallia (Gaul), crosses the Rubicon and arrives in Corfinium; Jesus, coming from Galilaea (Galilee), crosses the Jordan and arrives in Capernaum (also Caphernaum). Gallia and Galilee are the respective neighboring countries in the north. Both have to cross boundary rivers: the Rubicon separated Gallia from Italia, whereas the Jordan actually separated Galilee from the Decapolis and the Gaulanitis, but the Evangelists write as if Judaea were located immediately on the other side of the river. Corfinium and Capernaum respectively are the first cities in which they arrive. The stormy seas that are crossed by Caesar and Jesus also act as borders: across the Ionian Sea lies Ionia, as Greece was and is called in the Orient; across the Sea of Galilee again lie Decapolis and the Gaulanitis, but for the Evangelist it is again Judaea.
The same attributes and properties (from now on all called ‘requisites’, for short) appear within the same structures. The resemblance of the names is astonishing too: Gallia and Galilaea, Corfinium and Caphernaum, Italia or Ionia on the one hand and Judaea on the other.
Considering the resemblance of the names and the similarity of the requisites, a sequence emerges: Gallia + boundary river + Corfinium = Galilaea + boundary river + Caphernaum. Now, if we try to extend this sequence, we find that Caesar expels the commander of the enemy occupying the town of Corfinium; Jesus expels the unclean spirit of a possessed man. The English words occupied and possessed both have the same Latin equivalent: obsessus."
The general thrust appears to be not a claim that they were the same person, but rather that the cult of christianity is the cult of Divus Iulius in disguise. Thus the suggestion is:
quote: Then in that case, the Revelation would tell the story of the Egyptian campaign of Octavianus in mystical form. The woman and the dragon would be Cleopatra and her crocodile (representing Egypt), the Antichrist and his prophet would be the flamen Divi Iulii Antonius, the decline of Babylon that of Alexandria, the lamb would represent the Capricorn Octavianus who finally becomes the Christ after the victory (absolute heir and—after Lepidus’ death—pontifex maximus as well), and the millennium is the Imperium Romanum with the new Jerusalem, of course, being Rome.
Thanks contracycle, its refreshing to encounter someone who actually reads and has the ability to comprehend. :)
Basically, the mistranslation of Latin history (used in the worship of Julius Caesar or: Divus Iulius) into Greek, resulting in the early gospel, is more understandable when you realize that whoever did these original translations were not very familiar with Latin, and were very unschooled in Greek. An addition, another source of confusion was the fact that ancient manuscripts had no spaces between the words (the letters all ran together) and there was no punctuation either... Also, the original Greek translation was done on the backsides of papyrus (ont he front the Latin was already written) and the rough texture of the backside of papyrus would make the Greek harder to read, thus further mistakes in the copying would have occurred...
It is all a recipe for disaster. These were uneducated people attempting to translate documents when they had only a very poor knowledge of not only the languages used, but also of the subject matter itself. They were very uneducated about the history of Julius Caesar and the political intricacies of the Roman civil war, etc... So it appears they often ended-up making guesses.
Just looking at the materail in this post I can see two obviosu problems.
1) Caesar was already a very powerful man - one of the three most powerful men in Rome (The First Triumvirate) - before even going to Gaul. To describe crossing the Rubicon as the beginning of his "rise" leaves out an awful lot.
2) The argument on place names is also weak since the place names are all genuine. There is no way that the early Christian writers could reasonably arrange for convenient place names, so much of the similarity must be accepted as simple chance or casued by other factors.
While I am open to the idea that the story of Julius Caesar might have influenced the Gospel writers I would need to see something far strogner than this.
Hi, DP, yes, it's wise to have a "Fruitcake-O-Matic" warning device handy these days. :)
I like to think that I have a roughly equivelant device which I call my "BS Detector", and it is usually set on "High Sensitivity". Of course, it went completely bonkers when I first found Carotta's website and read about his idea! But it was so intrigueing that I started to do my own research into Roman history and on Julius Caesar in particular. There are a lot of ways in which this new "paradigm" if you will, can explain things better than the current "paradigm"...
Anyway, I hope you give the book a chance. There are a lot of interesting new ideas in it to mull over.
Yes, they do seem obvious. But Carotta accounts for them. (in a way, you are getting deeper into the concept, but not deep enough... ;) )
1) According to Carotta (in my understanding) The basis of the book of Mark is based on a Latin historical account that began with the crossing of the Rubicon. In the eyes of his cult worshipers, the real religious power of Divus Iulius was the fact that he was murdered by the very same men whom he had saved. There's some important things to realize: When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, it touched-off a civil war between himself (along with his followers, political allies, and his own legionaires) and the optimates, the senatorial party, who had by that time placed Pompey as their "leader". Pompey was thus the military head of a group of conservative, traditionalist 'aristocrats', of sorts. Btw, these men were the inheritors of the same power-bloc/political-party which had murdered the Gracchi in order to prevent any reform of the Roman system that might have alleviated some of the gross inequality and the growing financial and political corruption that favored the already rich and powerful.
So in the eyes of the poor, the masses of Rome, Julius Caesar represented THEIR interests. He was a man of the people. The Optimates, while Caesar was in Gaul, had been jerry-rigging legal matters in order to outflank Ceaser politically. One must be aware: If things went the way they had with the Gracchi brothers, Julius Caesar's days were numbered, as well as all his followers. (recall the great bloodbaths of the Marius and Sulla days, which must have been on everyone's minds at this time...)
Caesar crosses the Rubicon and sets-off a civil war and (long-story-short), defeats the forces of Pompey and the optimates. The masses of people in Rome are wildly enthusiastic because finally, Rome is theirs and they now have a chance to participate in the way things are run. At this point, as well as all during the civil war, Caesar astonishes everyone by doing the opposite of what Sulla did: Caesar FORGIVES his enemies, (the clementia Caesaris) and even reinstates these 'formerly' corrupt men to positions of power. (Sulla had massacred all opposing politicians when he had gained power and piled their heads in the forum.) The Senate, with many of Caesar's supporters, but also, with many of his former enemies, respond to public demands and proclaim, among other things, that Julius Caesar IS A GOD. He is showered with all sorts of unbelievable honors and priviledges.
...Of course, just think how his former enemies would be STEAMING-MAD! They no longer hold the reigns of power in Rome; they no longer can make things go in whatever direction their whims might choose. Most likely they have lost their honorable positions in the eyes of the people, because they now live at the mercy of the People's Savior, the man who has now become a god! The humiliation must have been 100% intolerable for men who had great pride in their illustrious family backgrounds, etc etc...
So they plot against him, and succeed.
Think of it: In the perception and understanding of the people of Rome, and even of much of the empire: They killed the man the same who had defeated them repeatedly in battle but who, when he had direct power of life and death over them, had forgiven them! They had killed the man who had reinstated them into positions of great political power, even after they had fought against him, trying to kill him. They had killed the man the people of Rome proclaimed a god. Julius Caesar was THEIR PERSONAL GOD, the very one who had saved them from the avarice and abuses of these same men: his murderers!
His funeral aroused great emotion, and caused the murderers to flee. Far from being applauded for their deed, they barely escaped sure destruction the night of Caesar's funeral... And were all eventually hunted down.
Anyway... :) If this great angst of the people was the founding emotion and if from it came the perspective of the worship of the deified Julius Caesar (Divus Iulius), then the most important portrayal of this god would have concentrated on the Caesar-Pompey civil war and then Caesar's murder... His Passion play. So, it would need only begin with the crossing of the Rubicon...
2) "The argument on place names is also weak since the place names are all genuine. There is no way that the early Christian writers could reasonably arrange for convenient place names, so much of the similarity must be accepted as simple chance or casued by other factors."
Well, that is a good point too, but again you are not going-in deep enough...
Carotta seems to think that the mistranslations were done by those who confused Gaul and Galilee. IIRC, feels pretty sure that it took place during the time of Vespasian. By that time, some of Caesar's important legions still existed. They were based for a long time in the general area of Judaea(!) because they were placed there for the use of Herod, in fact, in Galilee. Many of these men were ... GAULS! For Caesar conscripted many Gauls into his army during his time in Gaul... Vespasian sent them back west, when he was vying for the throne. But these were the descendents of the original legionaires of Caesar. They had already begun to misunderstand and transpose certain place names in the Latin and identify what little they understood in terms of Galilee, Judaea, Jordon, etc. I am not quoting Carotta here, so the book probably describes it a lot differently, I am sure. It's best to read the book and come to your own understanding.
My strongest feeling is: One needn't agree with Carotta 100% on the details to know that he has found something VERY significant and important.
This message has been edited by Aquitaine, 05-04-2005 10:44 PM
This message has been edited by Aquitaine, 05-04-2005 10:47 PM
This message has been edited by Aquitaine, 05-04-2005 10:50 PM