"Jesus was Caesar" by Francesco Carotta

Hi,
I'd like to discuss this book, recently published in English.
You can find it on amazon.com.
Also, the author's website is here: Jesus was Caesar - Contents
and a review can be found here:
http://smallkidtime.com/was_jesus_caesar.htmI'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

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;[56] 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."from here: Jesus was Caesar - Vitae Parallelae

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.

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.

Hi PaulK,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 PMThis message has been edited by Aquitaine, 05-04-2005 10:47 PMThis message has been edited by Aquitaine, 05-04-2005 10:50 PM

"At present I see no reason to beleive that Carotta has anything more than a few minor coincidences."Well, have you looked at what is on his website? There is a lot mentioned there. Still more points of coincidence are of course described in the book.
Just a couple of the coincidences that I was struck by:1) One of the great issues in the lead-up to the civil war between Caesar and Pompey was the moblization of troops by Pompey which was seen as a preparation for war by Caesar. According to Carotta, Pompey corresponds to John the Baptist. (John the Baptist is reproached for baptizing 'And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ')From the point of view of the Roman soldiers, their experience of such arming of troops and mobilization was dominated by inspection which included ritual cleansings and sacrifices. A cleansing of the soldiers themselves and also of their weapons, as a religious ceremony.The Latin description of this, lustratio, was understood by the translators as washing and cleansing, So the whole concept was reinterpreted as a concept more familiar to a story set in Judaea: the ritual cleansing of baptism...2) Jesus is known for his healing of the lame and the blind. Carotta feels that these have their source in a consistent misunderstanding of Roman names by their literal translations: Caecilii (blind) Claudii (lame) Metellus (mutilus, mutilated).This message has been edited by Aquitaine, May-05-2005 03:50 AM

PaulK, I do respect your objections, but consistently, there are answers to them, I just don't have a lot of time to research and explain.contracycle, thanks!
You are exactly right: we cannot look at this from the perspective and understanding of our time, but from the perspective of the original worshipers of Divus Iulius, and ALSO from the warped perspective of those who had later (mis)translated from the Latin texts into Greek.Your mention too, of propaganda is very appropriate. During the time period after 44BC, a merging of religion with political propaganda was nearly 100%. For the Romans, finding the solution to the problem of governing a continually growing empire using a city-state political infrastructure and mentality was number-one priority. Certain details of Caesar last years indicates that he was turning to god-rulership as the chosen solution, and to slowly replace the city-state structures..Octavian/Augustus would have to fight his way to absolute control of the empire, but he succeeds only after many difficult years. Cassius and Brutus needed to be defeated. And Sextus Pompey. Finally Mark Antony and Cleopatra.
Octavian was heir by adoption, remember. In that way he claimed to be the Son of God (Divus Iulius). But there was Cleopatra and Julius Caesar's true son (by birth) Caesarion, and in him, Antony had an ace up his sleeve. These two opposing claims to inheritance of the god Divus Iulius would result in a long theological war of words, all of them with political intentions and meanings. (What is the greater: Son of God by adoption, or Son of God by birth? etc.)When Octavian defeated Antony and Cleopatra, another just as urgent religious propaganda campaign begins: Octavian has to erase and nullify the religious messages of Antony and Cleopatra (who was probably a master at religious propaganda, having inherited vast propagandistic knowledge accumulated over many generations of Ptolemies ruling over Egypt, the most religiously based governmental system in the world...!) ; these messages and propaganda had set-down roots over MANY years.From Octavian's intolerance for the relics of Antonian/Cleopatrian propaganda (all in religious terms), comes the beginnings of "Christian" hunts for heretics and "Christian" intolerance for differing interpretations of doctrine! Of course, now we see and understand all of this from a "Christian" interpretation and perspective. We only receive knowledge of all this through the curtain of centuries of medieval ignorance and also the censoring hand of Octavian/Augustus durig the decades that he had compete, absolute control. He had ample time to wipe-out all traces of opposing views, and even to rewrite history in order to consolidate his political/religious claims to absolute power...This idea that the gospels might source originally from Latin histories of Julius Caesar sounds absolutely nutty-crazy at first.
At first.There is a lot of learning and unlearning to do before one can begin to see how plausible it is.This message has been edited by Aquitaine, May-05-2005 05:49 PMThis message has been edited by Aquitaine, May-05-2005 05:50 PMThis message has been edited by Aquitaine, May-05-2005 06:05 PM

Hi PaulK,I am not sure you are really pointing out anything important.Carotta quotes John 1:5, as you say.It is not a stretch to connect the meaning of this sentence with the immediately following sentences. It is setting the stage so to speak, for the next sentences.According to the Carotta theory, we must keep in mind that we are reading a mistranslation. The translators did not completely understand the subject matter, and what little understanding they did have was based upon a completely different persective from that of the original source material.

Your points, (and PaulK, I am very happy that you are at least reading the website and that you show some honest interest in trying to understand it, so I do appreciate the time you are spending... ), remind me of something that Carotta mentions:The gospels seem to be translations of a Passion Play. What we might have here in the gospels is an interpretation in Greek with commentaries of something that was supposed to be performed by actors on a stage, in Latin.
So it might be that the first 4 verses of John were spoken by a voice offstage;
Then a second off-stage voice speaks verse 5;
The first voice then recites 6 through 8....If so, then there isn't going to be a continuity of flow from one sentence to another, in the way we would expect it.This whole concept of it being a (mis)translation of a Passion play brings up some thoughts for me.
...If there is some truth to this, then imagine the experience of the audience in the days, decades after the Latin-speaking generation has passed-away but before the Greek (mis)translations were made: they don't understand the Latin words being spoken, or only in a very broken-Latin sort of way... What kind of meaning do they come away with from the performance? Probably not a very accurate picture of the Roman civil war, that's for certain.Probably there was such a play, and it was something very important to the worship of the cult and it was enacted every year, year after year, like the Easter Passion play is now. Probably it was performed at each and every temple.
The people would probably grow to know the words by heart, like in Oberammergau (sic?) where everyone in the town has participated in the play at some point in their livesperhaps many times over. Time goes on, with no one understanding the words, including the actors themselves. Perhaps the actors might begin to translate on-the-fly, ad-libbing, using puns, etc., just from sheer boredom or in order to give the whole ceremony/celebration some sort of meaning, if only for themselves! Without a doubt, the audience would find this infinitely more interesting, entertaining and meaningful than a stiff repetition of Latin words that nobody understands any longer...Perhaps the gospels are actually derived from the more favorite variations loved by the people, variations bordering on being inadvertant parodies of the original Passion play of Julius Caesar/(Divus Iulius)!(okay, maybe a lot of this is just me and my imagination, but who knows, it could be possible!)
Back to Carotta: he lists and speculates on many different levels and offers perhaps too many possibilities. So it's probably rather easy to nitpick at particular details. But he is not trying to analyze this as a scholar, but as a very interested person who feels very strongly that he has discovered something. (That's the way I read things, anyway.)IMHO, he really has discovered something. The 'big picture' here really seems to fit. The more you start to study and understand the details of Roman history/politics/religion of that time, the more you see how interestingly Carotta's theory fits.This message has been edited by Aquitaine, May-05-2005 11:03 PM

Egads.I'm not really sure about note 277, PaulK!

I'll have to ask the author about it. I think Jacobus is some German equivalent to James(?)
It's almost as if this note doesn't fit at all, like there has been a mistake, like it is a remnant of something in the text that was later edited out, but the note was not adjusted...?
Anyway, it isn't clear to me, so let me see if Carotta can provide me with an answer...---

quote:

---

Is there any evidence for this reading of the first few verses of John or has it been concocted just to keep Carotta's ideas from being falsified ? If there were evidence I could beleive it but I cannot think it likely without support.

---

I'm not sure if this possibility (that the gospels might be sourced from staged plays) has been examined in a serious way.
I wonder how one would go about finding 'evidence' to prove such a process really took place? My guess is such a process would result in an almost indefinable 'quirkiness' to the text, for one thing.About your idea that Crassus is a better fit to correspond with John the Baptist than Pompey, that is really amazing! Perhaps the character of John the Baptist is a melding of not only Pompeian snippets, but also some of Crassus, too.
I think one of this theory's big stumbling blocks is that it lacks a strict 'method'; as in a set of 'rules' like a set-in-stone mathematical formula: "John the baptist is ALWAYS mirroring Pompey, and Pompey only", or "Jesus Christ is a mirror of Julius Caesar, and of him only"...
It might not be possible for the theory as it is to provide that, because it is based upon the idea that something in the process which (mis)translated the text was too chaotic. (keep in mind, I am NOT an expert on the book. I did read it more than once, but I have since been reading and researching other things so I have forgotten a lot of the details in Carotta's book.)But anyway, Carotta has always, in my understanding, realized that he has not come close to explaining all the details; his primary feeling is rather that he has begun the discovery of something.So perhaps there can be a more formal way of defining the different factors in the process, but it will take a lot more research and thought (and arguing!) by a lot of people in order to discover it...?This message has been edited by Aquitaine, May-06-2005 10:43 AM