Babak Fakhamzadeh
- Ed Young
- Francesco Carotta
- Joseph Horvath
- Tommie Hendricks
- Manfred Junghardt
- Erika Simon
- Fotis Kavoukopoulos
I read the Dutch version of this book a few years ago and accepted the likelihood of the central tenet of Carotta's thesis: the story of the life of Jesus was derived from the life of Julius Caesar. Carotta first published his theory in the book War Jesus Caesar?2000 Jahre Anbetung Einer Kopie in 1999, which was followed by Was Jezus Caesar ?, the Dutch translation, with updated texts a few years later, which I read. This English translation from 2005, which I've had in my possession for a few years now and hadn't gotten round to reading, includes a significant amount of re-evaluated research with a lot of updated details.
Outlandish as the claim may sound at first, Carotta has a very strong case, showing that the parallels between Jesus' and Caesar's lives are so strong and showing so many straightforward derivations of names and places from the life of Caesar showing up in the story of the life of Jesus, that his claim almost becomes a no-brainer.
It's no secret that no (contemporary) historical evidence exists for the existence of Jesus and scholars agree that a lot of the Jesus cult, if you will, was derived from earlier pagan religions. However, Carotta goes much further and postulates that the sudden introduction of the Jesus myth was actually triggered by actual events, distorted as they ended up being. Besides the trivial parallels, such as initials (JC), date of death (the Ides, the 15th, of March) and year of birth (100 years apart), the oddity that the highest seat of Christianity is in Rome, Caesar becoming Pontifex Maximus in 63BC, a title which was passed on, through the Roman emperors, to the popes, the first churches being erected at Caesar (proclaimed God by his peers) and Augustus (by extension the son of God) temples (with the most prominent one, of course, in Rome), the parallels are in fact much stronger and deeper. Carotta shows that the parallels are so overwhelming, they can not simply be coincidental.
Perhaps not surprisingly, with three or four major world religions at stake, all of them accepting the historical truth of Jesus' existence, though valuing him differently, Carotta's theory has had a hard time to reach the public. Surprisingly, however, Carotta is neither the first nor the only one who claims the existence of strong connections between the story of the life of Jesus and the life of Caesar. Also, because of the forced disinterest of both the media and the public at large, Carotta has had a hard time funding his research, resulting in a diverse group of semi-pro translators working on this English release, resulting in the occasional style changes and editorial glitches. However, the quality and depth of this version of Carotta's book is excellent.
It won't be my task to convince you of the likelihood of Carotta's theory, but here are few interesting tidbits.
+ After his capture, Jesus practically refrains from speaking (and the gospels can't agree on his last words). Was he killed at his capture? + Early depictions of Jesus show him as being beardless and, on the cross, in a stretched out position, not hanging (though imagery of individuals hanging on a cross existed). Does it, then, depict an actual crucifixion? + The only verifiable historical characters from the gospels are Pilate and Herod. + "God the father", in Latin, being derived from the word "Jupiter" (via "Deo Pater"). Gotta love stuff like that. + Caesar crossed the Rubicon on January 6. The day the coming of the Messiah was celebrated by the arrival of the three kings (who, incidentally, can easily be explained as representing parts of Octavianus', that is Augustus', past). + The Arab name for 'god' obviously being close to Caesar's first name, Carotta suggests that the birth of Islam might just be the result of former Roman colonies initiated by Antonius and/or Cleopatra working with different versions of books on the life of Caesar than the rest of the former Roman empire. For example, they would not recognize the baby Jesus, that is Octavianus, as the son of God. This, of course, because Antonius and Cleopatra fought and, eventually died, fighting the adopted son of Caesar, that is, son of God. + Carotta points out some parallels between Buddhism and the Augustus cult. Perhaps far fetched at first, proof of Buddha's historical existence is almost as shaky as Jesus', and not unlikely, because Octavianus' early years were modeled in part on Alexander the Great's early years, Alexander had such a large geographical reach and was more of a contemporary with the Buddha, these parallels might indeed be more than trivial, though perhaps not direct. + The imagery used around the nativity scene can easily be traced back to imagery related to the early years of Octavianus. + The Latin for the Ides of March is "eid(ibus) mar(tiis)". The Arab word for feast is "eid". Related?
My major gripe with Carotta's book is that he presents the research in such a way that it seems the conclusion of whether the life of Jesus was modeled on that of Caesar's could go either way for a long time. However, it's obvious from the start that the only conclusion will be that Jesus was Caesar, which gives off the feeling of the result being premeditated, making it less authentic, giving the book an air of trickery. Additionally, after going through half the book or so, you get the picture, Carotta tries to trace every story in Mark back to an event in Caesar's life, and succeeds reasonably well, but at some point, as the method, which is explaining the mistranslations involved, stays the same, it ends up being like redoing the same trick over and over again.
That's not to say that I find Carotta's presentation of how the original texts on the life of Caesar were so heavily bastardized over time very credible. When I studied, well attempted to study, Latin in school and had to do exams, I would understand enough of texts which needed to be translated to get bits right, but by far not enough to come even close to the original meanings of the texts, basically inventing interpolations just to make sense of the bits I did understand. I had perfectly legible Latin texts to work with. The first evangelists had badly hand copied texts, some of whom probably didn't understand Latin better than I did at school.
I read the Dutch version of this book a few years ago and accepted the likelihood of the central tenet of Carotta's thesis: the story of the life of Jesus was derived from the life of Julius Caesar. Carotta first published his theory in the book War Jesus Caesar?2000 Jahre Anbetung Einer Kopie in 1999, which was followed by Was Jezus Caesar ?, the Dutch translation, with updated texts a few years later, which I read. This English translation from 2005, which I've had in my possession for a few years now and hadn't gotten round to reading, includes a significant amount of re-evaluated research with a lot of updated details.
Outlandish as the claim may sound at first, Carotta has a very strong case, showing that the parallels between Jesus' and Caesar's lives are so strong and showing so many straightforward derivations of names and places from the life of Caesar showing up in the story of the life of Jesus, that his claim almost becomes a no-brainer.
It's no secret that no (contemporary) historical evidence exists for the existence of Jesus and scholars agree that a lot of the Jesus cult, if you will, was derived from earlier pagan religions. However, Carotta goes much further and postulates that the sudden introduction of the Jesus myth was actually triggered by actual events, distorted as they ended up being. Besides the trivial parallels, such as initials (JC), date of death (the Ides, the 15th, of March) and year of birth (100 years apart), the oddity that the highest seat of Christianity is in Rome, Caesar becoming Pontifex Maximus in 63BC, a title which was passed on, through the Roman emperors, to the popes, the first churches being erected at Caesar (proclaimed God by his peers) and Augustus (by extension the son of God) temples (with the most prominent one, of course, in Rome), the parallels are in fact much stronger and deeper. Carotta shows that the parallels are so overwhelming, they can not simply be coincidental.
Perhaps not surprisingly, with three or four major world religions at stake, all of them accepting the historical truth of Jesus' existence, though valuing him differently, Carotta's theory has had a hard time to reach the public. Surprisingly, however, Carotta is neither the first nor the only one who claims the existence of strong connections between the story of the life of Jesus and the life of Caesar. Also, because of the forced disinterest of both the media and the public at large, Carotta has had a hard time funding his research, resulting in a diverse group of semi-pro translators working on this English release, resulting in the occasional style changes and editorial glitches. However, the quality and depth of this version of Carotta's book is excellent.
It won't be my task to convince you of the likelihood of Carotta's theory, but here are few interesting tidbits.
+ After his capture, Jesus practically refrains from speaking (and the gospels can't agree on his last words). Was he killed at his capture? + Early depictions of Jesus show him as being beardless and, on the cross, in a stretched out position, not hanging (though imagery of individuals hanging on a cross existed). Does it, then, depict an actual crucifixion? + The only verifiable historical characters from the gospels are Pilate and Herod. + "God the father", in Latin, being derived from the word "Jupiter" (via "Deo Pater"). Gotta love stuff like that. + Caesar crossed the Rubicon on January 6. The day the coming of the Messiah was celebrated by the arrival of the three kings (who, incidentally, can easily be explained as representing parts of Octavianus', that is Augustus', past). + The Arab name for 'god' obviously being close to Caesar's first name, Carotta suggests that the birth of Islam might just be the result of former Roman colonies initiated by Antonius and/or Cleopatra working with different versions of books on the life of Caesar than the rest of the former Roman empire. For example, they would not recognize the baby Jesus, that is Octavianus, as the son of God. This, of course, because Antonius and Cleopatra fought and, eventually died, fighting the adopted son of Caesar, that is, son of God. + Carotta points out some parallels between Buddhism and the Augustus cult. Perhaps far fetched at first, proof of Buddha's historical existence is almost as shaky as Jesus', and not unlikely, because Octavianus' early years were modeled in part on Alexander the Great's early years, Alexander had such a large geographical reach and was more of a contemporary with the Buddha, these parallels might indeed be more than trivial, though perhaps not direct. + The imagery used around the nativity scene can easily be traced back to imagery related to the early years of Octavianus. + The Latin for the Ides of March is "eid(ibus) mar(tiis)". The Arab word for feast is "eid". Related?
My major gripe with Carotta's book is that he presents the research in such a way that it seems the conclusion of whether the life of Jesus was modeled on that of Caesar's could go either way for a long time. However, it's obvious from the start that the only conclusion will be that Jesus was Caesar, which gives off the feeling of the result being premeditated, making it less authentic, giving the book an air of trickery. Additionally, after going through half the book or so, you get the picture, Carotta tries to trace every story in Mark back to an event in Caesar's life, and succeeds reasonably well, but at some point, as the method, which is explaining the mistranslations involved, stays the same, it ends up being like redoing the same trick over and over again.
That's not to say that I find Carotta's presentation of how the original texts on the life of Caesar were so heavily bastardized over time very credible. When I studied, well attempted to study, Latin in school and had to do exams, I would understand enough of texts which needed to be translated to get bits right, but by far not enough to come even close to the original meanings of the texts, basically inventing interpolations just to make sense of the bits I did understand. I had perfectly legible Latin texts to work with. The first evangelists had badly hand copied texts, some of whom probably didn't understand Latin better than I did at school.