Interview with Francesco Carotta on

8/14/2019 Interview with Francesco Carotta on http://www.metafysiko.org

1/6

1) dear mr. carotta, i start my interview with a very simple question. why youstarted to investigate the issue of jesus historical existance? what was the ventthat pushed you in that direction?The impetus for this study was an article published in 1959 by R. Herbig, entitledNeue Studien zur Ikonographie des Gaius Iulius Caesar. It was apparent from thisarticle that the preserved images of Caesar did not correspond to the mental imagewe hold of him. The triggering factor was the sight of Caesars portrait in the

Torlonia Museum and the comment of Erika Simon, a famous German Archeologist,that it might be the head of the statue that Antonius had placed on the Rostraafter the assassination of Caesar. It bore the inscription Parenti optime meritoto the most meritorious parent, in order to awaken feelings of both pity andrevenge in the observer. In function and expression the Torlonia head resemblesthe sorrowful face of Christ in the Piet and since Piet representations aretypical for Jesus Christ but not for Julius Caesar, the question arose as towhether the later Jesus borrowed other elements from the earlier Caesar. Askedabout this, theologians said it was not surprising since even emperor Vespasianuswas reported to have healed the blind and crippled, exactly as described in thestories about Jesus. Such things were simply expected from the emperors charisma.Curious because of this, an investigation was started.

2) many are these in our country that are not interested if jesus historicallyexisted. they refer to the fact that they exclusively interested about histeachings. you, that you had traveled into countries that the debate about jesushistorical existance , what do you receive from your readers and the people thatlisten to your lectures in general?There are people who think that only His teachings are important. But other peoplethink that we cannot know what were His teachings, if we do not know who He was.If there was a re-scription of the Scripture, a rewriting of the Writings, how canwe know how His teachings were, if we do not return to the sources, to the truesources? Another point is: if there was no historical Jesus, then there was nohistorical Easter, no historical Resurrection. This would reduce Christianity to areligion among others, not to The Religion, which it asserts to be.

3) there have been historians that had argued against jesus historical existanceduring the past. can you mention to us the most important? what is your opinionabout the fact that most of them appear after the middle ages?The most important names can be found in Albert Schweitzer's Book (1906/91984)Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, Tbingen.Schweitzer, A. & Bowden, J. (2000). The quest of the historical Jesus. London. Inchap. 22, (p. 451 sqq. of the German edition) he places in the category of firstdeniers of any historicity of Jesus i. a.: Charles Franois Dupuis (book printedby the Club des Cordeliers), Constantin Franois Volnay (counselor of Napoleon),Bruno Bauer (Hegelian), Albert Kalthoff, John M. Robertson, Peter Jensen, AndrzejNiemojewski, Christian Paul Fuhrmann, William Benjamin Smith, Arthur Drews, ThomasWhittaker, S. Hoekstra, Allard Pierson, Samuel Adrian Naber, G.J.P.J. Bolland,Samuel Lublinski, temporarily also Abraham Dirk Loman. It would be pointless to

name all the others who joined the ranks after 1913. As a representative of allthe others, see Paul-Louis Couchoud.Why most of them appear after the Middle Age? Because before the Gospels wereconsidered history. Later, with the coming up of Enlightenment and the historicalcritical studies, the lack of proof in the classical historiography led to theassumption that the Gospels were mere story, myth, forgery. Which in my opinion isfalse. A re-scription is not a forgery, but an actualisation, at least in theopinion of the author and re-writer, i.e. the evangelist. That's why according tothe results of our research, Christian tradition prouves to be right, which alwaysmaintained that the Gospels were historical books. Sui generis, rewritten, butthey are.


2/6

4) can you describe us in a few words the main part of your study about jesushistorical existance and his relation with julius ceasar?First of all we have macroscopical similarities: Christianity spread across thecolonies founded by Caesaror his adopted son Octavianuswithin the borders of theEmpire defined by them, and used from the very beginning the Julian calendar.Jesus was born exactly 100 years after Caesar. So we have the same geo-chronological framewith a smooth shift of one century.

Both figures are symmetrically complementary: Julius Caesar, son of Venus andfounder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of imperial God, DivusJulius, after his violent death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved asChristianity surfaced. A cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originatorof Christianity appeared during the second century. Early historians, however,never mentioned Jesus and even now there is no actual proof of his existence. Onthe one hand, an actual historical figure missing his cult, on the other, a cultmissing its actual historical figure: intriguing mirror images.Then it is to notice that both curricula vitae, that of Caesarfrom the Rubicon tohis assassinationand that of Jesusfrom the Jordan to his crucifixionrunparallel:Both Caesar and Jesus start their rising careers in neighboring states in thenorth: Gallia and Galilee.

Both have to cross a fateful river: the Rubicon and the Jordan. Once across therivers, they both come across a patron/rival: Pompeius and John the Baptist, andtheir first followers: Antonius and Curio on the one hand and Peter and Andrew onthe other.Both are continually on the move, finally arriving at the capital, Rome andJerusalem, where they at first triumph, yet subsequently undergo their passion.Both have good relationships with women and have a special relationship with oneparticular woman, Caesar with Cleopatra and Jesus with Magdalene.Both have encounters at night, Caesar with Nicomedes, Jesus with Nicodemus.Both of them are great orators and of the highest nobility, descendant of Aeneasand son of David, yet nevertheless both are self-made men. Both struggle hard andultimately triumph, hence each has a triumphal entry: Caesar on horseback andJesus on a donkey.

Both have an affinity to ordinary peopleand both run afoul of the highestauthorities: Caesar with the Senate, Jesus with the Sanhedrin.Both are contentious characters, but show praiseworthy clemency as well: theclementia Caesaris and Jesus Love-thy-enemy.Both have a traitor: Brutus and Judas. And an assassin who at first gets away: theother Brutus and Barabbas. And one who washes his hands of it: Lepidus and Pilate.Both are accused of making themselves kings: King of the Romans and King of theJews. Both are dressed in red royal robes and wear a crown on their heads: alaurel wreath and a crown of thorns.Both get killed: Caesar is stabbed with daggers, Jesus is crucified, butwith a stab wound in his side.Both die on the same respective dates of the year: Caesar on the Ides (15th) ofMarch, Jesus on the 15th of Nisan.

Both are deified posthumously: as Divus Iulius and as Jesus Christ.Both leave behind priests: Marcus Antonius and Peter. Both have a posthumous heir:Gaius Octavianus adopted by Caesars Last Will and Testament and John the disciplewhom Jesus adopts while on the cross (Woman, behold thy son!).Now, there is one thing that stands out as being strikingly incongruous: Caesarwas a commander, while Jesus was a thaumaturge.However, in his funeral oration for Caesar, Antonius depicted all of Caesars manygreat achievements as miracles. These miracles of Caesar included the survival ofa storm at sea and even the raising of the dead: for the people took it to be amiracle that Caesar brought the honors of Marius back from Hades into the cityafter many long years of Sullas dictatorship.


3/6

In turn, some of Jesus miracles concern the banishing of demons, which indeedrepresents the absolute, theological form of warfare.The picture we usually have in mind is of Caesar waging merciless war, in starkcontrast with Jesus preaching of love and bringing the Kingdom of God, which weassume to be one of peace, love and unity. This is in spite of the well-knownpassage:Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but asword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter

against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a mansfoes shall be they of his own household.And Jesus continues by praising those who take his people in and give themvictuals. Clearly, these are civil war conditions. Thus Jesus brings about theKingdom of God explicitly through civil wareven if he did not desire to use suchmeansexactly as Caesar himself did.In turn, the clementia Caesaris is scarcely mentioned, if it is not completelyignored, even though Caesar meant it to be an important political statement:Let this be the new policy of victory that we arm ourselves with mercifulness andliberality.This political program of love-your-enemies was carried out so consistently, thathe perishedlike Jesus.Even the limitations to their clementia are the same: Caesar forgave all his

enemiesexcept the repeat offenders who mocked his clementia;52 Jesus forgave allsinnersexcept those who sinned against the Holy Spirit.Thus the main features of the picture seem to fit.

Further it is striking that the names of people and places hardly differentiate ineither report: Gallia and Galilaea, Corfinium and Cafarnaum, Bithynia andBethania, Junius and Judas, Mria and Mara, Nicomedes and Nicodemus, PontifexLepidus and Pontius Pilatus, etc. In addition, other names, dissimilar to eachother, seems to be translations: the Caecilii as the blind, the Claudii as thelame, Metellus as mutilated, the man with a withered hand. And those conquered byCaesar are found again, as those healed by Jesus. And those besieged by Caesar arepossessed in the Jesus storywhereby it is to notice that besieged andpossessed are both obsessus in Latin. Even the respective figures close to

them correspond with each other. For example, Caesars precursor and opponent, thegreat Pompeius, was beheaded and his head presented in a dish, and the very samething happens to John the Baptist.There are differences to be ascertained. Both were murdered; Caesar, however, wasstabbed while Jesus was crucifiedbut with a stab wound in his side. A CassiusLonginus gave Caesar the deadly stab with a dagger, while Jesus was stabbed with alance on the crossbut also by a Longinus! (This Longinus became a saint, and hisfeast day is on March 15the same date as the ides of March, on which Caesar wasmurdered by the homonymous Longinus). Caesars corpse was burned unlike Jesus,but it was shown to the people as a wax figure hanging on a cross-shaped tropaeum.And cremo in Latin means to cremate, but the similar sounding Greek word kremmeans to hang, to crucify.So, in the history of Caesar and Jesus, people and places have the same names. But

even more important is the fact that these names appear in the same order. Andthis also applies to famous citations. Often verbatim:Caesar: Who is not on any side, is on my side. Jesus: Who is not against us, heis for us.Caesar: I am not King, I am Caesar. About Jesus: We have no king but Caesar.Caesar: The best death is a sudden death. Jesus: What you will do (i. e. leadme to death) do quickly.Caesar: Oh, have I saved them, that they may destroy me? About Jesus: He savedothers, himself he cannot save.Sometimes with a small, discreet shift of meaning:Caesar: Alea iacta estoCast the die. Jesus: Cast out, fisher whereby the


4/6

Greek word (h)aleeis, fisher, instead of the Latin word alea, die, is used.Caesar: Veni vidi viciI came, I saw, I conquered. And in the Jesus story theblind man, who has been healed, says: I came, washed and saw, whereby enipsa,I washed, replaces enikisa, I conquered.In addition it turns out that contradictions in the Gospels become understandableif they are traced back to the Caesar sources. The Galilean Sea for example,which is made up of fresh water and is thus not a sea, is named correctlyhowever, because it is originally the Gallic Sea, a part of the Adriatic.

Finally, all the symbols of Christianity are anticipated in the cult of DivusIulius, the posthumously deified Caesar: the titles (God, Son of God, theAlmighty, the Merciful, the Savior or Redeemer, etc.); the Mother of God; thecross in all its variations; the crucified one; the face on the Piet; the crownof thorns; the long hair; the beard, the loincloth; the rod; the halo; the star ofBethlehem; the resurrection; the ascension, etc.Thus, recognizing they were actually one and the same story became unavoidable. inother words: Jesus proves to be Divus Iulius, the deified Caesar, passed down intradition.This discovery is not completely new. In the 50s the German theologian EthelbertStauffer noted that the Easter liturgy did not follow the Gospel narrative, butthe funeral ritual of Caesar. Unfortunately, only his early work Christ and theCaesars was translated into English, not his later Jerusalem and Rome which

stated things more clearly. What is new is the proof presented in our study thatthe entire Gospel is a mutated history of the Roman Civil War, from the Rubicon tothe assassination and burial of Caesar, i. e. from the Jordan to the capture andthe crucifixion of Jesus. The basis of the Marcan Gospel is to be looked for inthe Historiae of Asinius Pollio. His Historiae are lost to us, but were used byAppianus and Plutarchus, sometimes copied word for word, allowing for a comparisonwith the Gospel of Mark.5) what was the romans reasoning for creating christianity ? in what purpose didsuit them? why christianity was hunted by the jews?Christianity was not created by the "Romans", but by the people, who wanted themurdered Caesar deified, who were persuaded that he was risen to the Gods. Theconsecration of Divus Julius, ( ), the founding act of what had to

become Christianity, was the posthumous victory of Julius Caesar, together withhis successors: the people, especially the women, the veterans and thetriumvirs. They were populares, democrats, and had to fight a war against theoptimates, the aristocrats, in order to obtain a more righteous order, to give theland to the veterans, the poor, and not let it in the hands of the latifundium-owners, the rich. It was also a fight for giving the Roman citizenship to Non-Roman populations, which begun in Numantia, continued with the social war, andconducted to victory with the civil wars. An old, grimly fight, with a long chainof martyrs: the Gracchi, Drusus, Saturninus, Marius, Gratidianus, Publius Clodius,Caesar ...Like the populares, Christianity was always opposed from two sides: by the Romanaristocracy, who wanted to preserve their privileges against the poor, theveterans and the new Romans, and by the nationalists of different populations, who

wanted to preserve their independence (i.e. to oppress other nations, who thenregularly called on Rome for help). Both, the Roman aristocracy and the differentnationalists called that their liberty which has a very beautiful name, butoften results in oppression of the weak. Caesar was the savior and the redeemer ofall the oppressed, the Romans and the would-be Romans. That's why he had to fightthe Gallic War against the gallic nationalists, and the Civil War against Romanaristocracy. The Jews acted the same way as the Gauls and almost all otherpopulations, partly wanting to become Roman, partly rebelling; but this was laterunder the Flavii. At the time of Pompeius the Jews were divided in a successionwar between two brothers and pretendents; in the civil war, most of the Jews wereon the side of Pompeius, but some also on that of Caesar. Later Caesar gave the


5/6

command over Palestina to an Idumean, who had been more loyal during theAlexandrian war, to Antipatros, the father of Herodes. This did not compromise hisrelation to the Jews, who, as Caesar was killed, came flocking to the Forum andlamented for several nights in succession. During the first Jewish war, the Jewswere partly rebelling, but partly on the side of the Romans, following KingAgrippa, a descendent of Herodes, allied to Vespasianus. Josephus, who was firston the side of the rebels, changed parts, went over to Vespasianus and becameFlavius Josephus, the famous Jewish-Roman historian who wrote Greek: We suppose

that he was the historical Apostle Paul, who also first persecuted the Christiansand then converted from Saul to Paul. Under Hadrian, Bar Kochba seems to havepersecuted the Christians because they were on the side of the Romans, whosupported the oppressed gentile part of the population of Palestina.6) in his development christianity had changed a lot , mainly by the additions inits holly texts. had these changes done from the same centres that inspiredchristianity? and what happened with the heretics? how and why the first of themwere created?The changes were mostly a result of the adaptation to a new situation, and to newdynasties. The decisive factor were always the reasons of State. Our Gospels werewritten, i.e. re-written, between 70 and 100, under the Flavii, as this new Romandynasty, risen in Galilee, needed a Galilean Jesus, and no longer a Gallian one,

like the Iulii, who had risen in Gaul.7) the gospels -hidden or not- are the only sources that exist about the life ofjesus. when these had been written by the historians? does the scientificcommunity rates them a reliable historical sourse?Yes, they are mutatis mutandis a reliable historical source. But we have to takein account that they were rewritten, i.e. transposed, delocalized and adapted.8) what is the role of hellas in the expansion of christianity? do you keep intouch with authors from our country? in recent years in hellas we havedevelopments around this issue that we are discussing right now since there is agrowing dispute that creates a lot of debates. it is the glorious ancient pastthat comes into the picture again too.

Hellas played a very important role. Rome in general and Caesar in particular canbe considered late hellenistic. Caesar studied in Rhodos, spoke Greek with hisofficers and surely with Cleopatra, with whom he had a son, with the doubleprogrammatic name Ptolemaios Kaisarion. He protected the Artemis of Ephesus, re-founded Corinth, and his last words to Brutus were spoken in Greek: Kai su,teknon? He wept before the statue of Alexander, who had conquered the world at anage where he had performed nothing yet, and, like Alexander was elevated to thegods as Amon-Zeus, he became also a God: Divus Iulius.The Roman empire was always bilingual. The first Roman historians, e.g. FabiusPictor, wrote in Greek, Polybios and Plutarch were Greeks, but Romans as well.Rome is not to be understood as opposed to Hellas, like Latium or Italy are. Romewas in Latium, in Italy, but Rome was a multinational construction from the verybeginning, with Etruscan, Latin, Sabine, Greek (first from south Italy = Magna

Graecia), Pelasgian components, and the Roman empire incorporated later more andmore people, Hispanians, Lusitanians, Gauls, Germans, Britannians, etc. in thewest, and the heritage of Alexander's empire in the east. In order to understandit, we have to figure that the Roman Empire was like the European Union today.Europe is not in opposition to the nations which are part of it: one is Greek andEuropean, another Belgian and European, etc. The same was Rome. Everybody belongedto his nation and was Roman too: Greek and Roman, Gaul and Roman, Hispanian andRoman, Italian and Roman, Egyptian and Roman, Syrian and Roman, etc. Nationality:Greek; citizenship: Roman.(As for the other question: I keep in touch with several authors, also from yourcountry, but I do not use to make public the names of my academic contact persons,


6/6

for discretion. The sole exceptions are those who have expressed their opinionpublicly see the blurbs: http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html )9) under the arguments that i explained to you before, there is a great disputeabout the relation of east roman empire with hellenism, and if exists any. whatbelieves a historian that has studied profoundly the origins of what can bedescribed as the founding core of this empire, that is christianity?Four centuries after Caesar, Constantine moved the capital from Rome to

Constantinople, the Second Rome, and the Byzantines called themselves 'Rhmaioi',i.e. Romans. The Orthodox Church is the Greek part of the Roman Church, like theCatholic Church is the Latin part of the same Roman Church. Their separation, theschism, was the consequence of the division of the Roman empire. Those Churchesare the form in which both parts of the Roman empire have survived its fall. Thereis of course a relation between the east Roman empire with Hellenism, mediatedthrough Rome, which can be considered a late hellenistic empire, particularly inits oriental part (v.s.).10) Please tell us your predictions about the future of christianity in the worldscene having in mind the globalization process and the action of fundamentalistchristian denominations in the other antlantic.Without a historical Jesus, Christianity will become a religion among others,menaced by secession, atheism and sects. Possibly we will have to fear a

resurgence of Christian fundamentalism as a counter-altar to the Islamic one, aclash of religions accompanying the clash of civilisations. Knowing the historicalJesus, i.e. Caesar, by recognizing Him, the cult of Divus Julius could become thecommon denominator of all world religions which it was in fact from the verybeginning , help to surmount the divisions and liberate the oppressed. Could.11) at the end we would like to send a message in the audience of metafysiko.grNo message, please. Our motive was and is only the curiosity of a researcher.If you want at all costs a message, then only this one:We should cultivate our little garden, i.e. the desire to know everything and tobelieve nothing.Nevertheless, if we know the true history under the historically grown palimpsest,then we may learn from history, and not be damned to repeat the errors of the

past. Three exemples: Knowing that the Holy Land was invented by Constantine and not by Caesar, i.e.Jesus what sense do Crusades make, undertaken to liberate a Holy Grave that wasnever in Jerusalem? At the beginning of his crusade against the terrorism of the Islamicfundamentalists, US President Bush issued the slogan: Youre either with us orwith the terrorists. He did it as a good Christian, believing they were the wordsof the Lord. After all, they were written in Mt 12:30 and Lk 11:23: He that is notwith me is against me. By tracing them back to the Caesar sources, we were able toprove that those words were spoken by Pompeius, alias John the Baptist, and thatin contrast, Jesusthat is to say Caesarhad actually said the exact opposite,namely: For he that is not against us is on our part (Mk 9:40; Lk 9:50). Had thePresident known this, he might have thought twice about adopting the slogan of a

loser, one that makes those who are neutral your enemies and thus leads toisolation. He himself, his country, his allies, and not least the world, couldhave been spared a painful experience. Today, as was once, there is talk of religious wars in which we are entangled,and of religious liberty which should be granted to everyone as his private,inalienable right. With Caesar, however, religio hardly means religion in oursense, but either superstition or elseand more frequentlyoath of allegiance.Are we sure that we should open the floodgates to superstition? And are we surethat an oath of allegiance is a private matter that is none of our business?

Documents

Interview with Francesco Carotta on