Was Julius Caesar a Latin Ripoff of Jesus Christ?
Was Julius Caesar a Latin Ripoff of Jesus Christ?
One of the strangest alternative history theories I encountered on Unz dot com was the theory that hundreds of years of false history were created by the medieval scribes of the Catholic church. Although I am not well versed enough to tackle all the calendrical issues, it is nevertheless obvious that Latin aspects of Roman culture postdate the Grecian aspects that they were based upon. Latin gods are carbon copies of Greek gods. The Latin pseudohistorical epic, Aeneid, is based on Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Like the first Jews, the Roman empire spoke Greek; it was the direct successor of Alexander’s graecophone empire. And Rome’s first capital could not have been in Italy. The most damning evidence of the lateness of Latin history is the evidence that Julius Caesar is ripped off of Jesus Christ.
We do get our references to Caesar in the Gospels: to Augustus Caesar, which is a double title, as in “highest (or divine) king”. In Greek, the word Caesar is Kaisar and this is what first appears in the Christian gospels. The primacy of Greek language over Latin (and Hebrew) when it comes to both new and old testaments strongly suggests that the high Latin language was projected into the past.
The most basic evidence that Caesar was copied from Christ is in their names. Their names in fact are identical! Christ, like Caesar, means King. Christ is king of the Jews and Caesar is king of the Romans. Je-sus and Ju-lius also run in parallel. The first letters of Jesus’s name in Greek and Latin are IE, which is the divine syllable. In Hebrew, Jesus is Yah-shua. Likewise, the first letters of Julius’s name in Latin are IU, the nickname of the highest Latin god, Iupiter. Both are named after the highest god, and given the title of his king.
I have this fascinating book by Francesco Carotta called Jesus was Caesar. Carotta argues that Jesus was based on Caesar. But I think it was the other way around. All of Latin mythology was based on Hellenic mythology. Therefore it should come as no surprise that Jesus came before Julius (note: the evidence shows that Jesus Christ was also a purely literary figure, and not a historical dude). Carotta writes:
Both Caesar and Jesus start their careers in neighboring states in the north: Gallia and Galilee.
Both have to cross a fateful river: the Rubicon and the Jordan. Once across the rivers, they both come across a patron/rival: Pompeius and John the Baptist, and their first followers: Antonius and Curio on the one hand and Peter [Simon] and Andrew on the other.
Both are continually on the move, finally arriving at the capital, Rome and Jerusalem, where they at first triumph, yet subsequently undergo their passion. […]
Both have encounters at night, Caesar with Nicomedes, Jesus with Nicodemus.
Both of them are great orators and of the highest nobility, descendant of Aeneas and son of David, yet nevertheless both are self-made men. Both struggle hard and ultimately triumph, hence each has a ‘triumphal entry’: Caesar on horseback and Jesus on a Donkey.
Both have an affinity to ordinary people—and both run afoul of the highest authorities: Caesar with the Senate, Jesus with the Sanhedrin.
Both are contentious characters, but show praiseworthy clemency as well: the clementia Caesaris and Jesus’ Love-thy-enemy.
Both have a traitor: Brutus and Judas. And an assassin who at first gets away: the other Brutus and Barabbas. And one who washed his hands of it: Lepidus and Pilate.
Both are accused of making themselves kings: King of the Romans and King of the Jews. Both are dressed in red royal robes and wear a crown on their heads: a laurel wreath and a crown of thorns.
Both get killed: Caesar is stabbed with daggers, Jesus is crucified, but with a stab wound in his side.
Both die on the same respective dates of the year: Caesar on the Ides (15th) of March, Jesus on the 15th of Nisan.-Francesco Carotta, Jesus was Caesar
There are other interesting parallels as well. One, the birth date of Caesar is 100 years before the birth of Christ. Furthermore, sources once claimed that Caesar was born from the side of his mother - this is why Caesarian sections are named after him. Today academics say the Caesarian birth of Caesar is a myth. And of course they say the same thing about the miraculous conception and birth of Christ. Remember - the birth year of Christ was not determined by Rome until about 525 AD by Dionysius Exiguus, a guy with a Greek name. Rome did not have a number “0” so the birth year of Christ was called year 1. The Gregorian calendar rolls directly from 1 BC to 1 AD. Caesar was supposedly born in 100 BC.
Furthermore our oldest known Latin manuscripts of the bible did not begin to appear in the Roman Empire until about 350 AD. Meanwhile, the Great Schism between Catholics and the Orthodox church is dated about 1050 AD. Is this because we need to subtract 700 years from Western history, and so explain why entire “ages” were “dark” in western Europe and repetitive in eastern Europe - because they never really happened at all? Did they at first intend to replace Christ with Caesar as the incarnation of God on Earth? Or was it always going to be double godman?
One of the vital clues here is the alignment of their initials in Latin - IC. Their names in Latin are written as Iesus Christus and Iulius Caesar. In the Greek language, the native tongue of Christianity, Jesus’s initials are IX - Iesous Xristos, and Caesar’s initials would be IK - [Iulius] Kaisar. In other words, Caesar and Christ start with different letters in Greek, but the same letter in Latin languages. It seems that some writer or translator wanted to align these two characters, perhaps even to replace one with the other. Latin possesses both letters K and X, but in their transliteration from Greek, both Kaisar and Xristos were written with a C.
The basic fact is that Paul was the first person to describe Jesus Christ, and he never mentions Caesar at all. If Carotta is correct, we are supposed to believe that the Jew Paul who wrote in Greek was plagiarizing Latin history? No, Paul makes it clear that his only literary resource is his Septuagint. He doesn’t give Christ a biography. Carotta’s thesis is based on the Gospels aligning with Latin history. But we know that Paul was the pioneer of Christ. Occam’s razor never dulls because it takes the path of least resistance. The simplest explanation, and the one that concords with everything else we know about Latin mythology, is that the legend of Julius Caesar was created in the Christian era and based on the Christian bible. The Latin is a copy of the Greek.
