I get the strangest feeling reading the fathers of Christian church talk about the first century of the Roman empire without ever mentioning Julius Caesar.
I hold no position in opposition to your thesis. Antiquity is fragmented. Pre-Constantine I believe there is no monumental architecture for Jesus. No cult. Thus the existence pre-Constantine is quite likely a "just so" story. Julius on the other hand requires some discussion of fraud. Why the need wholesale to invent not only his life, but his books and mint coins and have statues? How does this story benefit the man who became Augustus? https://www.romanemperors.com/blog/unearthing-history-julius-caesars-artifacts-and-their-significance
Since the Christians leave Julius Caesar out, I would have to say that either the Christians tried to erase Caesar and replace him with Christ, OR, Julius Caesar was invented even later than the church fathers. This would indeed be a monumental fraud. The story of Julius Caesar doesn't benefit Augustus, it steals his thunder. The coins are sure ugly and primitive and the statues few and in dispute. None of which can be carbon dated. What if no one heard of Julius Caesar before Constantine either? The imperial cult did not use Caesar's likeness so who's to say it was not originally based on Caligula? Then Christianity took over the religious and even state infrastructure of Rome. Perhaps Julius Caesar was a way for Rome to take priority back from Jesus Christ and Byzantium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tusculum_portrait#Description. the only extant portrait of which may have been made during his lifetime It is also one of the two accepted portraits of Caesar (alongside the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaramonti_Caesar) which were made before the beginning of the Being one of the copies of the bronze original,the bust has been dated to 50–40 BC and is housed in the permanent collection of the Museum of Antiquities in Turin Italy. Made of fine-grained Marble the bust measures 32 cm (1 ft 1 in) in height.
The curious aspect of Antiquity is that it is a fiction posing as truth. But new research conducted by Cornell University could be about to throw the field of archaeology on its head with the claim that there could be a number of inaccuracies in commonly accepted carbon dating standards.
If this is true, then many of our established historical timelines are thrown into question, potentially needing a re-write of the history books.
In a paper published to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team led by archaeologist Stuart Manning identified variations in the carbon 14 cycle at certain periods of time throwing off timelines by as much as 20 years.
The possible reason for this, the team believes, could be due to climatic conditions in our distant past.
Standards too simplified
This is because pre-modern carbon 14 chronologies rely on standardised northern and southern hemisphere calibration curves to determine specific dates and are based on the assumption that carbon 14 levels are similar and stable across both hemispheres.
However, atmospheric measurements from the last 50 years show varying carbon 14 levels throughout. Additionally, we know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the northern hemisphere.
To test this oversight, the researchers measured a series of carbon 14 ages in southern Jordan tree rings calculated as being from between 1610 and 1940.
Sure enough, it showed that plant material in the southern Levant showed an average carbon offset of about 19 years compared with the current northern hemisphere standard calibration curve.
“There has been much debate for several decades among scholars arguing for different chronologies sometimes only decades to a century apart, each with major historical implications. And yet these studies […] may all be inaccurate since they are using the wrong radiocarbon information,” Manning said. https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/carbon-dating-accuracy-major-flaw
I hold no position in opposition to your thesis. Antiquity is fragmented. Pre-Constantine I believe there is no monumental architecture for Jesus. No cult. Thus the existence pre-Constantine is quite likely a "just so" story. Julius on the other hand requires some discussion of fraud. Why the need wholesale to invent not only his life, but his books and mint coins and have statues? How does this story benefit the man who became Augustus? https://www.romanemperors.com/blog/unearthing-history-julius-caesars-artifacts-and-their-significance
Since the Christians leave Julius Caesar out, I would have to say that either the Christians tried to erase Caesar and replace him with Christ, OR, Julius Caesar was invented even later than the church fathers. This would indeed be a monumental fraud. The story of Julius Caesar doesn't benefit Augustus, it steals his thunder. The coins are sure ugly and primitive and the statues few and in dispute. None of which can be carbon dated. What if no one heard of Julius Caesar before Constantine either? The imperial cult did not use Caesar's likeness so who's to say it was not originally based on Caligula? Then Christianity took over the religious and even state infrastructure of Rome. Perhaps Julius Caesar was a way for Rome to take priority back from Jesus Christ and Byzantium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tusculum_portrait#Description. the only extant portrait of which may have been made during his lifetime It is also one of the two accepted portraits of Caesar (alongside the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaramonti_Caesar) which were made before the beginning of the Being one of the copies of the bronze original,the bust has been dated to 50–40 BC and is housed in the permanent collection of the Museum of Antiquities in Turin Italy. Made of fine-grained Marble the bust measures 32 cm (1 ft 1 in) in height.
The curious aspect of Antiquity is that it is a fiction posing as truth. But new research conducted by Cornell University could be about to throw the field of archaeology on its head with the claim that there could be a number of inaccuracies in commonly accepted carbon dating standards.
If this is true, then many of our established historical timelines are thrown into question, potentially needing a re-write of the history books.
In a paper published to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team led by archaeologist Stuart Manning identified variations in the carbon 14 cycle at certain periods of time throwing off timelines by as much as 20 years.
The possible reason for this, the team believes, could be due to climatic conditions in our distant past.
Standards too simplified
This is because pre-modern carbon 14 chronologies rely on standardised northern and southern hemisphere calibration curves to determine specific dates and are based on the assumption that carbon 14 levels are similar and stable across both hemispheres.
However, atmospheric measurements from the last 50 years show varying carbon 14 levels throughout. Additionally, we know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the northern hemisphere.
To test this oversight, the researchers measured a series of carbon 14 ages in southern Jordan tree rings calculated as being from between 1610 and 1940.
Sure enough, it showed that plant material in the southern Levant showed an average carbon offset of about 19 years compared with the current northern hemisphere standard calibration curve.
“There has been much debate for several decades among scholars arguing for different chronologies sometimes only decades to a century apart, each with major historical implications. And yet these studies […] may all be inaccurate since they are using the wrong radiocarbon information,” Manning said. https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/carbon-dating-accuracy-major-flaw