- Joined
- Aug 29, 2018
Speaking of Atwood, this got posted recently on Reddit
I'll just drop the full text here in case he deletes it.
Did you know that Vespasian was Jesus and Josephus was Paul and also
Abstract
The origin of Christianity can be explained as having emerged from the Roman Imperial Cult. Although Roman Emperor Vespasian was in principle only seen by Flavius Josephus, as Paul, as the risen (historical) Jesus and apocalyptic Christ. But the religion of Flavius Josephus was sometimes later formalized (possibly after the death and apotheosis of Vespasian), partly as a legitimization of the Flavian dynasty. Then the worship also became part of the Roman Imperial Cult. The Roman Imperial Cult, present in all layers of government, may itself have published the Gospels and Acts. They are, as it were, the Ab urbe condita of Vespasian. The Symbolic Origin of Vespasian. Vespasian as son of David, as Christ. The dynasty of Vespasian is therefore the "Davidic-Flavian" dynasty as opposed to the Julian-Claudian dynasty. This dynastic "war" is clearly depicted in the book of Revelation.
Introduction
“History is a bunch of lies that everyone agrees on.” - Napoleon Bonaparte
If one were to compare the ancient Egyptian religion and Christianity globally, one would not easily come to the conclusion that there are similarities. After all, the ancient Egyptian religion has a mythological character, while Christianity is said to have historicity in it. Yet both religions have at least one important similarity, which is the deification of humans. In ancient Egypt, the pharaoh became a god after his death. Christianity has its variant of the deification of a human being, namely the emperor, depicted as Jesus.
It all started with Flavius Josephus will be argued. After which the Roman Imperial Cult, as the official state organization for the worship of the emperor, took over. Both, Flavius Josephus and the Imperial Cult played a decisive role in the dawn of Christianity. This could especially be deduced if one compares secular works with Christian works from the first to second century CE.
This book is written on the belief that Christianity is a natural phenomenon. A phenomenon that originated as a human construct and can therefore be exposed in a reductionist way. However, the book does not intend to be scientific, but rather a personally substantiated vision. A vision that stems from years of struggle to find a satisfying answer about the origins of Christianity. The struggle of I, Minerva, goddess of wisdom, against the ignorance that has governed the world since the dawn of Christianity. Incidentally, this view aims at neutrality; no value judgment is given. Besides, it's not a conspiracy theory. It will be argued that Christianity arose from superstition and ignorance, but certainly not from a secret conspiracy. And because of the said neutrality, no good or bad parties are distinguished.
Flavius Josephus as Paul
Flavius Josephus or Josephus bar Matthias, his Jewish name, was a prominent Pharisee and militant general (active in Galilee) who defected to the Roman camp. “Converted” to the Roman military commander Vespasian. Something that was unthinkable for a Jew at that time, because there was only one lord over the Jews: Yahweh. The remarkable thing is that after his conversion he was still a Jew. He even regarded Judaism as the only true religion (Jewish Wars 5 1.3, c. 75/1895; Against Apion 2 41, ?/1895). The Jewish God appears in his works primarily as the "Providence" (e.g. Jewish Wars 7 11.4, c. 75/1895; lit. “πρόνοια”), possibly because he was not allowed to pronounce the name Yahweh as a Jew (Antiquities of the Jews 2 12.4, ca. 94/1895). He believes that the Jewish God is behind the Romans and also approves of the Romans' course of action when it comes to the destruction of Jerusalem and especially the Temple. The destruction of Jerusalem is a judgment of God for sins according to him (Antiquities of the Jews 20 8.5, c. 94/1895; Jewish Wars 5 1.3, c. 75/1895; 6 4.5). He himself believes that the prophecies from the Jewish scriptures show that Vespasian would rule over the then known world: “But now what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle, that was also found in their sacred writings; how “About that time one, from their country, should become governor of the habitable earth.” The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular: and many of the wise men were thereby received in their determination. Now, this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian: who was appointed emperor in Judea.” (Jewish Wars 6 5.4, c. 75/1895). Vespasian thus fulfills a Jewish prophecy for Josephus.
The question is how he justifies his transition with regard to the destroyed temple and the ending of the temple service. The temple was of great importance to Judaism. Because of the sacrifices and because of the presence of God, the Shechina. The impossibility of sacrifice was already a problem for the Jews after the exile when the Temple was also destroyed. At that time it may have been thought that the devastated, innocent city bore the sins of the people (Isa. 53; cf. Dan. 9), after which the temple service would take over again. Besides the cessation of the sacrifices, the Shechina had left the temple. This too is problematic because the special blessings of the Jewish God were associated with the temple. Something that Flavius Josephus also recognizes (Antiquities of the Jews 8 4.3, ca. 94/1895; cf. 3 8.5).
However, all this was no problem for Flavius Josephus. He saw God as “Father and Lord of all” (Antiquities of the Jews 1 20, ca. 94/1895). A God who favors the “heathen” Romans. Since he uses the name "Father" here, he probably means the same God that the Greeks worship as Zeus and the Romans as Jupiter Optimus Maximus, variants of Deus Pater, the Heavenly Father (the Indo-European "*dyéus phater"). It should also be remembered that Judaism may have been polytheistic in origin, as the early chapters of Genesis show. The gods were later replaced only by angels. That could make the transition to polytheism (in fact henotheism) easy. It might even be possible that the Latin for Jupiter, Iove, is linguistically related to Yahweh (or YHWH).
Flavius Josephus associates a universal law with this universal God. He argues that even though the Jews have lost the institutions through which they served God, they still serve God through the universal law. This universal aspect and his belief that Judaism is the only true religion is reminiscent of Paul's activism. By universal law, Flavius Josephus understands the core idea of the laws handed down by Moses. He describes the core idea as follows: “For I suppose it will thence become evident, that the laws we have given us are disposed after the best manner for the advancement of piety, for mutual communion with one another, for a general love of mankind, as also for justice, and for sustaining labors with fortitude, and for a contempt of death.” (Against Apion 2 15, ?/1895).
Could there be a connection between what Flavius Josephus calls Jesus Christ in his works and that he simultaneously refers to Vespasian as "Christ"? He mentions the historical Jesus Christ in the well-known Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities of the Jews 18 3.3, c. 94/1895). Did he see this Jesus Christ as a sacrifice that takes away sins and appeared alive as ruler in the guise of Vespasian? Possibly. It would at least explain the similarity between Vespasian and Jesus Christ. The life of Jesus in the Gospels and the life of Vespasian have several similarities (cf. Lives of the Caesars Vespasian, 121/1914; Roman History 64-66, ?/1925), which will be discussed later. Just as the life of Flavius Josephus and that of Paul has several similarities. Perhaps "Paul" was the pseudonym for Flavius Josephus. The Jews would certainly not have believed Josephus himself, as a defecting prominent leader.
For example, it would explain the origin of the letter to his "true child" Titus. Flavius Josephus had for a time the paternal care of Titus, the son of Vespasian. The original ending of the oldest gospel, Mark, then forms a transition from the historical Jesus Christ, who is resurrected and appears in Galilee in the guise of Vespasian. The Christ of the original disciples and the Christ of Flavius Josephus/Paul thus become one. As a military leader, Vespasian first came into contact with native Jews in the Galilee. The place where Jesus went after the resurrection. Also the place where Paul and Flavius Josephus converted (Jewish Wars 3 8.8, c. 75/1895).
There are more similarities to be found. However, it is important to note that Acts continues the symbolism of the Gospels and is therefore not a historical book. Moreover, it was written later than Paul's epistles. The letters are therefore more important as sources about the life of Paul. However, all of these sources will be used, as the symbolism envelops history. Albeit anachronistic. This leads to the following similarities: Both were prominent Jewish leaders. Both were Pharisees. Both also had military duties. Paul persecuted Christians and wanted to eliminate them. Flavius Josephus was a general in Galilee to fight the Romans. Paul was blind for three days before his conversion. Flavius Josephus spent three days in a deep cave without presumably seeing anything before his conversion (Jewish Wars 3 8.1, c. 75/1895). Both were sent to the emperor. Paul to an unknown emperor. Flavius Josephus to Nero (3 8.
. Both spent two years in prison in Caesarea (4 10.7; Not unimportant: Caesarea was a provincial center of the Roman imperial cult and the capital of the Roman province of Judea). Both were periods in the desert (The Life of Flavius Josephus 2, c. 94-99/1895). Both were shipwrecked near Italy (The Life of Flavius Josephus 3, c. 94-99/1895). Neither want "heathens" forced to be circumcised (The Life of Flavius Josephus 23, ca. 94-99/1895). Both sign the importance of the core idea of the "universal" law of Moses, as mentioned earlier. Both reject scrupulous religion (Antiquities of the Jews 1 14, c. 94/1895; cf. 1 20, 23, 72; 6 307; 7 93; 17 60; 19 16). Both use Aramaic constructions in their works (Thackeray, 1929).
More clues to the idea that Flavius Josephus was Paul may be found in the oldest apostolic letter, the letter to the Galatians. Especially with regard to the dating of the apostolic letters. It seems as if they were written long before the destruction of Jerusalem. Paul says in the letter to the Galatians that after a period of fourteen years he went to Jerusalem with Titus (Gal. 2.1; and Barnabas (lit. "son of the father"; Vespasian(?))). Perhaps he meant Titus as son of Vespasian if one continues the analogy. The fourteen years are then symbolic. If this is true, the first apostolic letter was written in 69 CE just before the destruction of Jerusalem or of course later. But not before. Because it is known that Flavius Josephus went to Jerusalem with Titus in 69 CE Which means that 69 CE could be the beginning of the preaching of Flavius Josephus under the pseudonym Paulus which corresponds to the life of Flavius Josephus and the oldest apostolic letter to Galatians.
However, Flavius Josephus may have believed in a different version of Jesus Christ than the later Gospels and Acts portray. He initially believed in a risen, but unascended Christ. The latter because he does not mention the ascension in most letters, implying that he thought Christ lived on earth. And Jesus did indeed live on earth, namely in the form of Vespasian. Subsequently, letters in which he mentions the ascension may have been written after the death of Vespasian (an ascension, incidentally, corresponds to the thought that the soul of the Roman emperor would ascend to heaven (Herodian of Antioch's History of the Roman Empire 4 2.11, 1961). All in all, it is possible to change religious views throughout one's life. In fact, this is highly probable, since in his works Flavius Josephus tries to understand the world as the result of Providence. his views on every notable event that occurs. Even more indications for a later dating might be that 2 Cor 8 and Rom 15:26 speak of an ingathering for Jerusalem. Apparently the Christians in Jerusalem were very poor. This corresponds exactly with the period after the destruction of Jerusalem, for Flavius Josephus describes the period before the war (63 AD) as very prosperous (“four years be fore the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity,” (Jewish Wars 6 5.3, c. 75/1895).
The differences between Flavius Josephus and Paul can be explained by the idea that the Gospels and Acts are allegories. It is the symbolic origin of Vespasian and also of Flavius Josephus. The differences between the lives of Flavius Josephus and Paul from Paul's epistles can be explained by the idea that the epistles were changed after the apotheosis, which will be discussed later, to fit the Gospel of Mark in which Jesus and Paul appear earlier to have lived than Vespasian and Flavius Josephus lived. Another explanation could be that Flavius Josephus had to go undercover because of the dangers that could have happened if the Jews knew who he really was. Certain Jews saw him as a traitor and wanted to kill him. That would explain the unusual fact that a militant Jew had the birthright of Roman citizenship. He most likely received Roman citizenship from the Roman Emperor Vespasian himself. It may also be that later on, Flavius Josephus no longer believed that Vespasian was Jesus Christ, only Christ. Especially after Vespasian's death. As suggested before. When his works were written, if dated correctly, he would no longer have called Vespasian Jesus Christ, as he did in Paul's letters. By now they had all been written. He also thought that the world would soon end (eg 1 Cor. 7.29). Probably related to Vespasian's reign as emperor. But Vespasian was not immortal either.
It is also possible that parts of the works of Flavius Josephus may have been included in the Gospels for symbolism. An example: "Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learn; on which account the High Priests, and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law." (The Life of Flavius Josephus 3, c. 94-99/1895). Jesus also taught in the temple at a similar age, as a 12-year-old. It is important to note that this story is only described in Luke. That means that the connection between Flavius Josephus and Jesus may not have been there in the earliest Gospel, Mark. This also makes sense when one considers that Acts follow Luke. This means that the Flavius Josephus motifs were later incorporated in their entirety.
Vespasian as Jesus Christ
While until now the similarities between Vespasian and Jesus Christ have been based only on the idea that Flavius Josephus was Paul, the similarities become much clearer when one reads the works of the Roman historians Cassius Dio and Suetonius. It is important to note that Flavius Josephus, as Paul, initially believed in a different Jesus Christ than the one portrayed in the Gospels. He may have known only that Jesus had been crucified by Pilate and resurrected (Paul's original letters were written before the Gospels and Acts). The similarities are therefore based on a later, more extensive, version of Jesus Christ.
First, the similarities based on Cassius Dio's Roman History: both were predicted (64 9.1 and 66 1.1, ?/1925). Both were initially poor and not of direct noble birth (66 10.3b; The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 12.1, 121/1914). Both were in Egypt for a period (64 9.2 and 66 8.2a). Both had a thing for the common people and preferred to associate with them. Both had the interest of the people in mind (66 10:3). Both were eminently good people (66 8.4). Both were mocked (66 8.2). Both performed some of the same miracles. Compare the following: "Vespasian himself healed two persons, one having a withered hand, the other being blind, who had come to him because of a vision seen in dreams; he cured the one by stepping on his hand and the other by spitting upon his eyes.” (Roman History 66 8.1, ?/1925; cf. The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 8.1, 121/1914 and The Histories 4 81, c. 100-110/1912). And: "Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.” Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. (...) They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?” He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.” Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly." (Mark 3.1-5; 8.22-24 NIV). In both, the supernatural opening of the doors of a sanctuary foreshadows the turmoil of the spirit world with regard to death (in Vespasian the mausoleum of Augustus, before death (Roman History 66 17.2, ?/1925) and in Jesus the garment of the Jewish temple, after death; cf. The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 23.4, 121/1914). As a final example with Cassius Dio, the false Christ warnings are probably about insurgents who “crowned” themselves Caesar (Roman History 66 3.1, ?/1925).
Further similarities between Jesus and Vespasian can be found in Suetonius's The Lives of the Caesars. Thus, both were born during the reign of Emperor Augustus (Vespasian 2.1, 121/1914). Both have a thing for "tax collectors". Vespasian's father was a chief tax collector (Vespasian 1.2). Both give meaning to the fate of a tree (Vespasian 5.2). Both command their subjects, whether apprentices or soldiers, to go barefoot (Vespasian 8.3). Neither of them retaliated. Both correct only with words. Both are associated with Satan (Vespasian 14.1). Both long for the rescue of their enemies (“but even wept and sighed over those who suffered merited punishment.” The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 15, 121/1914). Both are loved by women (Vespasian 22). Both involved conspiracies (Vespasian 25).
The agreements are therefore numerous and can be extended. Even with parts of the works of Flavius Josephus. For example, that both Jesus and Vespasian have a “transfiguration” on a mountain (Jewish Wars 6.5.4; cf. The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 5.6, 121/1914). The foregoing examples are sufficient to suggest that the life of Jesus Christ is similar to that of Vespasian. No conspiracy. Emperor Vespasian, for example, also firmly believed in it, given one of his last words: “I am already becoming a god.” (Roman History, 66 17.3, ?/1925; or “Woe's me. Methinks I'm turning into a god” (The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 23, 121/1914).
State and Religion in the Roman Empire
In the Roman Empire, religion was a matter for the state. The state regulated religion. The so-called religio. The professionalism of the priests working in the “religious sector” was high. It was about craftsmanship. There was therefore no room for the opinion of the ordinary Romans. Everything that went beyond religion was called superstitio. Religio was above all a sacra publica. Of course, that does not mean that there was no room for the sacra privata. Religion was also practiced within Roman gens or families. But that was religio, “accredited” by the state. It was seen of utmost importance to practice religion. Just the neglect of religion was seen as atheism. People couldn't escape it in everyday life: “When pious travelers happen to pass by a sacred grove or a cult place on their way, they are used to make a vow, or a fruit offering, or to sit down for a while. ” (Florida 1.1, ?/1909). The Roman religion was less phenomenological than the Greek one. It was mainly a worship of ancestors. It was also assumed that the gods had a human origin. So the gods were in fact part of ancestor worship.
During the Principate, the Roman Emperor was the one who coordinated the religion as High Priest, or Pontifex Maximus (a current title of the Pope). Though centered in one person, the state religious landscape was fragmented. For example, the religious structure was strongly tied to cities. It was the duty of the magistrates (officials) and priests to have a good relationship with the gods. For the good of the population. In addition, the emperors portrayed as “good” respected priestly colleges. Although the emperor's opinion was ultimately binding. As it was before anything public decision-making (Van Haeperen 2003). The four main priestly colleges were Pontifices, Augures, Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, and Septemviri epulonum.
The Roman Imperial Cult
Logically, the worship of humans as divine was out of the question at the time of the Republic. That's not what ancestor worship is supposed to be. Although people did worship the gods during the Republic, despite the fact that they were in fact about people. This changed during the Principate. This was partly due to the legitimization of the power of an autocrat.
The Principate started with the reign of Emperor Octavian/Augustus in 27 BC. During the reign of Augustus, the imperial cult took shape. The background to this development was that Julius Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate in 42 BC. and Augustus called himself as the adoptive son of Julius Caesar the divi filius, the son of god. The deification of Julius Caesar was, in fact, a final convulsion of the power of the senate. Although the senate continued de jure on the deification of emperors afterwards, this was not the case in fact. It mainly depended mainly on the successor whether an emperor was elevated to divine status. As in fact the emperor had the last word on all matters.
Emperor Augustus was not only a son of a god, he was indirectly linked to a great glorious past because of Julius Caesar. A past in which several gods and heroes play a role and which is connected to the foundation of the city of Rome. This past is illustrated in Ab urbe condita by the Roman historian Titus Livius and the Aeneid by the Roman poet Virgil. These works were written after the deification of Julius Caesar and in fact also legitimize the emperor's authority. Although Virgil was actually a Republican. The works lay the symbolic foundation for a successive line of emperors: a dynasty. The Julio-Claudian dynasty. Moreover, a divine emperor has a divine, or at least noble, lineage. That's where Christianity comes in, it will soon become clear.
Emperor Augustus was also deified by apotheosis. In order to shape the worship of Augustus, the next emperor, Tiberius, in 14 CE a special college of priests, namely the Sodales Augustales. This college consisted of 21 members and the members were from prominent families of Rome. However, the imperial cult was not limited to Rome. Imperial cults were present at all levels of government. Not only members of prominent families served in the cult, but also freed slaves, the so-called Seviri Augustales.
Not all emperors were deified, however. An example is Emperor Nero. He just received a so-called damnatio memoriae. His memory was swept away from the collective memory. A practice that was also known in ancient Egypt.
Vespasian was also deified by the Senate. This led to the creation of the Sodales Flavianes. After the death of his son, Emperor Titus, this college of priests was probably renamed the Flaviales Titiales. Another son of Vespasian, Emperor Domitian, had a temple (Templum divi Vespasiani) built to further shape the deification of his father and brother. Domitian himself was not deified.
Finally, from the foregoing one can conclude three things about the deification of emperors. Firstly, that origin matters. Secondly, that the emperorship is morally justified in terms of content. Thirdly, that the succession of the emperors is important. Thus, for an emperor to receive divine honors, he must be of divine or noble descent, be a "good" emperor, and have a successor who is well disposed to him.
The Roman Imperial Cult and Christianity
Of the criteria for deification advanced in the previous chapter, only Vespasian and Titus lack a divine or noble lineage. That is why the Gospels and Acts could be the documents that could fill in this missing criteria. For Jesus Christ was of divine descent, through the Holy Spirit, and of noble descent, namely, as the propagated son of David. And if Jesus Christ corresponds to Vespasian and Paul to Flavius Josephus then this would be a good possibility. Moreover, Vespasian and later his sons Titus and Domitian were for some time the most powerful men of the Roman Empire. And Flavius Josephus was included in the Imperial dynasty, given the name Flavius. He was "adopted" as a freed slave. All this points to one direction as the place where Christianity originated, namely the Roman state.
When Vespasian was deified, the Roman Imperial Cult, namely the Sodales Flaviales, had the task of venerating Vespasian. For this, a temple was even built for both Vespasian and his deified son Titus. This all started formally with Vespasian's apotheosis. Although Flavius Josephus, as Paul, already revered Vespasian as Jesus Christ beforehand. At this apotheosis, the Gospel of Mark may have been published as the symbolic origin of Vespasian. To legitimize the authority of the Flavian dynasty. Just as Augustus regarded himself as the son of god, of Julius Caesar, so Titus and Domitian also regarded themselves as the son of god, of Vespasian. Moreover, without this document, the worship of Vespasian would not have a divine character. Only if one thinks of Vespasian's background would he be ridiculous as a god. Now he became the symbolic son of David.
The capstone Revelation
Revelation is the culmination. It is the definitive test for the theory. Does it fit within the history that is enveloped by the symbolism? What seems? Without Revelation, the theory would still be implausible. On the basis of chapters 12, 13 and 17 of Revelation it will become apparent that it cannot be otherwise than that by Jesus Vespasian is meant.
Chapter 12 deals with the nation of Israel, depicted as a woman, and the ruler that came out of it, David, depicted as a son. David would rise again in the Messiah (cf. Ezek. 34).
Chapter 13 is about Emperor Caligula and Emperor Nero. Caligula, the beast from the sea, because there is talk of a reign of three and a half years, which corresponds to the reign of Caligula. Caligula is elected by the senate, depicted by the ten horns, the ten senatorial provinces. The seven heads represent the emperors of the "cult" of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (not just biological origin). Caligula for the first time did not shy away from being worshiped as a god during life (as "Neos Helios"). Nero is the beast from the earth. 666 clearly stands for his name ("Nero Caesar"). Chapter 13, incidentally, is typically a Jewish prophecy, as it is known in the older Jewish writings. After something important had happened, a prophecy was written about it afterwards, but with a spiritual interpretation. As if the prophecy had already foretold this.
Chapter 17 covers the period from Julius Caesar to Vitellius, eight kings. So eight emperors. Initially, the eight emperors were supported by the senate. Unlike Vespasian as (symbolically) resurrected David (and Jesus Christ), the eighth king, Emperor Vitellius, was a symbolic resurrection of Emperor Nero (he sprang from the seven heads; seven for the sake of "divine" symbolism). He is known to revere and imitate Nero. The whore represents Rome. The lamb that will come to conquer apocalypticly represents the reign of Vespasian or the Flavian dynasty. He would be proclaimed emperor without the senate, but by his armies, putting a definitive end to senatorial power. Revelation is probably around the year 70 CE. ch. written, because of this short-term perspective.
Revelation thus presents the struggle between two imperial dynasties, between the Julio-Claudian dynasty, initially supported by the senate, and the "David-Flavian" dynasty. The latter would be victorious forever. At least that was the thought.
Construction of possible history
After the theory is made clear, one can construct a possible history:
c. 1-60 CE A historical Jesus is alive and crucified by Pontius Pilate.
67 CE As a prominent Jewish leader, Flavius Josephus converts to Vespasian.
69-79 (?) CE Flavius Josephus preaches the "euangelion" (normally related to the birth of an emperor or a victory in battle in the Hellenistic world) under the pseudonym Paul, disguising his famous background. He tries to convince everyone to believe in Vespasian as the risen (but not ascended) Christ. Christian communities meanwhile spread throughout the Roman Empire. Perhaps especially in cities that were already related to the imperial cult. For example, all seven cities mentioned in John's Revelation were related to the imperial cult (Price 1986).
69 (?) CE The Revelation of John was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 11.1-2) by an unknown author. It is an apocalypse in which Vespasian, as Jesus Christ, is depicted as a universal ruler who would establish a heavenly kingdom. In addition, it is a critique of "evil" emperors such as Nero. The book was written with the expectation that the world would soon end.
79 CE Vespasian dies and is deified after a senatus consultum (but in fact because of Titus). The Gospel of Mark is published as a symbolic patronage.
79-(?) CE The Roman imperial cult partially transitions into Christianity and forms the heart from which Christianity originated, while initially distinguishing itself from the other Christian communities. Jupiter Optimus Maximus (IOM; akin to DOM) may have become somewhat the equivalent of Yahweh. Other gods may be rejected or related to angels.
323 CE A Flavian emperor, Constantine the Great, makes Christianity the main religion in the Roman Empire.
380 CE Another Flavian emperor, Theodosius I, makes Christianity the state religion in the Roman Empire.
Scientific framework
The foregoing theory is almost entirely in line with the general consensus among scholars on the important capstones. This concerns, for example, the historicity of Jesus and the Jewish origin of the Gospels. It promotes that Jesus really lived and also recognizes the decisive role of Flavius Josephus, a Jew. The only thing where a different path is taken from that of science is the dating of the apostolic letters. But there's a good reason for that. The dating is only based on Acts. But how can one ever accept a religious scripture like Acts for history? It is true that the myth shrouds history as stated earlier. Because there is no denying that mythology has been incorporated into the Gospels and Acts. Thus Luke speaks, which is presumably written by the same writer as Acts, they connect seamlessly with each other, about the virgin conception of Mary by the Holy Spirit. Such a motif is often seen in antiquity when a son of the gods is born. For example, consider Perseus from Greek mythology who was born from a virgin impregnated by Zeus. An example of a mythological reading of Acts is the similarities with the Bakchai, such as the release of Paul and Silas from prison and the conversion of the jailer with Bakchai 576-641 (407 BC/1913). In short, with such a mythological background of the Gospels and Acts, it is justified not to base the dating on these works.
Conclusion
The origin of Christianity can therefore be explained as having emerged from the Roman Imperial Cult. Although Vespasian was in principle only seen by Flavius Josephus, as Paul, as the risen (historical) Jesus Christ. But the religion of Flavius Josephus was formalized after the apotheosis, partly as a legitimization of the Flavian dynasty. Then the worship also became part of the Roman Imperial Cult with its own college, the Sodales Flaviales. The Roman Imperial Cult, present in all layers of government, may itself have published the Gospels and Acts. They are, as it were, the Ab urbe condita of Vespasian. The Symbolic Origin of Vespasian. Vespasian as son of David, as Christ. The bizarre conclusion is that an awful lot of people in the world now worship the Roman emperor, while ancient Egyptian religion, for example, is dismissed as mythology. Besides, why does no one believe Ab urbe condita, which is the Gospel of Mark?
Bibliography
Butler, H.E. (1909). Apuleius: Florida. Oxford.
Cassius, D. (1925). Roman History. Harvard University Press.
Echols, E.C. (1961). Herodian of Antioch’s History of the
Roman Empire from the Death of Marcus Aurelius to the Accession of Gordian III. University of California Press.
Buckley, T. A. (1850). The Tragedies of Euripides. Bacchae. London.
Hamilton Fyfe, W. (1912). Tacitus. The Histories. Oxford.
Price, S. R. (1986). Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge University Press.
Rolfe, J. C. (1914). Suetonius: Lives of the Caesars. Revised edition. Loeb Classical.
St. J. Thackeray, H. (1929). An unrecorded'Aramaism in Josephus ('He began to say unto them'). The Journal of Theological Studies, 30(120), 361-370.
Whiston, W. (1895). Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Auburn & Buffalo: John E. Beardsley.
The origin of Christianity can be explained as having emerged from the Roman Imperial Cult. Although Roman Emperor Vespasian was in principle only seen by Flavius Josephus, as Paul, as the risen (historical) Jesus and apocalyptic Christ. But the religion of Flavius Josephus was sometimes later formalized (possibly after the death and apotheosis of Vespasian), partly as a legitimization of the Flavian dynasty. Then the worship also became part of the Roman Imperial Cult. The Roman Imperial Cult, present in all layers of government, may itself have published the Gospels and Acts. They are, as it were, the Ab urbe condita of Vespasian. The Symbolic Origin of Vespasian. Vespasian as son of David, as Christ. The dynasty of Vespasian is therefore the "Davidic-Flavian" dynasty as opposed to the Julian-Claudian dynasty. This dynastic "war" is clearly depicted in the book of Revelation.
Introduction
“History is a bunch of lies that everyone agrees on.” - Napoleon Bonaparte
If one were to compare the ancient Egyptian religion and Christianity globally, one would not easily come to the conclusion that there are similarities. After all, the ancient Egyptian religion has a mythological character, while Christianity is said to have historicity in it. Yet both religions have at least one important similarity, which is the deification of humans. In ancient Egypt, the pharaoh became a god after his death. Christianity has its variant of the deification of a human being, namely the emperor, depicted as Jesus.
It all started with Flavius Josephus will be argued. After which the Roman Imperial Cult, as the official state organization for the worship of the emperor, took over. Both, Flavius Josephus and the Imperial Cult played a decisive role in the dawn of Christianity. This could especially be deduced if one compares secular works with Christian works from the first to second century CE.
This book is written on the belief that Christianity is a natural phenomenon. A phenomenon that originated as a human construct and can therefore be exposed in a reductionist way. However, the book does not intend to be scientific, but rather a personally substantiated vision. A vision that stems from years of struggle to find a satisfying answer about the origins of Christianity. The struggle of I, Minerva, goddess of wisdom, against the ignorance that has governed the world since the dawn of Christianity. Incidentally, this view aims at neutrality; no value judgment is given. Besides, it's not a conspiracy theory. It will be argued that Christianity arose from superstition and ignorance, but certainly not from a secret conspiracy. And because of the said neutrality, no good or bad parties are distinguished.
Flavius Josephus as Paul
Flavius Josephus or Josephus bar Matthias, his Jewish name, was a prominent Pharisee and militant general (active in Galilee) who defected to the Roman camp. “Converted” to the Roman military commander Vespasian. Something that was unthinkable for a Jew at that time, because there was only one lord over the Jews: Yahweh. The remarkable thing is that after his conversion he was still a Jew. He even regarded Judaism as the only true religion (Jewish Wars 5 1.3, c. 75/1895; Against Apion 2 41, ?/1895). The Jewish God appears in his works primarily as the "Providence" (e.g. Jewish Wars 7 11.4, c. 75/1895; lit. “πρόνοια”), possibly because he was not allowed to pronounce the name Yahweh as a Jew (Antiquities of the Jews 2 12.4, ca. 94/1895). He believes that the Jewish God is behind the Romans and also approves of the Romans' course of action when it comes to the destruction of Jerusalem and especially the Temple. The destruction of Jerusalem is a judgment of God for sins according to him (Antiquities of the Jews 20 8.5, c. 94/1895; Jewish Wars 5 1.3, c. 75/1895; 6 4.5). He himself believes that the prophecies from the Jewish scriptures show that Vespasian would rule over the then known world: “But now what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle, that was also found in their sacred writings; how “About that time one, from their country, should become governor of the habitable earth.” The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular: and many of the wise men were thereby received in their determination. Now, this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian: who was appointed emperor in Judea.” (Jewish Wars 6 5.4, c. 75/1895). Vespasian thus fulfills a Jewish prophecy for Josephus.
The question is how he justifies his transition with regard to the destroyed temple and the ending of the temple service. The temple was of great importance to Judaism. Because of the sacrifices and because of the presence of God, the Shechina. The impossibility of sacrifice was already a problem for the Jews after the exile when the Temple was also destroyed. At that time it may have been thought that the devastated, innocent city bore the sins of the people (Isa. 53; cf. Dan. 9), after which the temple service would take over again. Besides the cessation of the sacrifices, the Shechina had left the temple. This too is problematic because the special blessings of the Jewish God were associated with the temple. Something that Flavius Josephus also recognizes (Antiquities of the Jews 8 4.3, ca. 94/1895; cf. 3 8.5).
However, all this was no problem for Flavius Josephus. He saw God as “Father and Lord of all” (Antiquities of the Jews 1 20, ca. 94/1895). A God who favors the “heathen” Romans. Since he uses the name "Father" here, he probably means the same God that the Greeks worship as Zeus and the Romans as Jupiter Optimus Maximus, variants of Deus Pater, the Heavenly Father (the Indo-European "*dyéus phater"). It should also be remembered that Judaism may have been polytheistic in origin, as the early chapters of Genesis show. The gods were later replaced only by angels. That could make the transition to polytheism (in fact henotheism) easy. It might even be possible that the Latin for Jupiter, Iove, is linguistically related to Yahweh (or YHWH).
Flavius Josephus associates a universal law with this universal God. He argues that even though the Jews have lost the institutions through which they served God, they still serve God through the universal law. This universal aspect and his belief that Judaism is the only true religion is reminiscent of Paul's activism. By universal law, Flavius Josephus understands the core idea of the laws handed down by Moses. He describes the core idea as follows: “For I suppose it will thence become evident, that the laws we have given us are disposed after the best manner for the advancement of piety, for mutual communion with one another, for a general love of mankind, as also for justice, and for sustaining labors with fortitude, and for a contempt of death.” (Against Apion 2 15, ?/1895).
Could there be a connection between what Flavius Josephus calls Jesus Christ in his works and that he simultaneously refers to Vespasian as "Christ"? He mentions the historical Jesus Christ in the well-known Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities of the Jews 18 3.3, c. 94/1895). Did he see this Jesus Christ as a sacrifice that takes away sins and appeared alive as ruler in the guise of Vespasian? Possibly. It would at least explain the similarity between Vespasian and Jesus Christ. The life of Jesus in the Gospels and the life of Vespasian have several similarities (cf. Lives of the Caesars Vespasian, 121/1914; Roman History 64-66, ?/1925), which will be discussed later. Just as the life of Flavius Josephus and that of Paul has several similarities. Perhaps "Paul" was the pseudonym for Flavius Josephus. The Jews would certainly not have believed Josephus himself, as a defecting prominent leader.
For example, it would explain the origin of the letter to his "true child" Titus. Flavius Josephus had for a time the paternal care of Titus, the son of Vespasian. The original ending of the oldest gospel, Mark, then forms a transition from the historical Jesus Christ, who is resurrected and appears in Galilee in the guise of Vespasian. The Christ of the original disciples and the Christ of Flavius Josephus/Paul thus become one. As a military leader, Vespasian first came into contact with native Jews in the Galilee. The place where Jesus went after the resurrection. Also the place where Paul and Flavius Josephus converted (Jewish Wars 3 8.8, c. 75/1895).
There are more similarities to be found. However, it is important to note that Acts continues the symbolism of the Gospels and is therefore not a historical book. Moreover, it was written later than Paul's epistles. The letters are therefore more important as sources about the life of Paul. However, all of these sources will be used, as the symbolism envelops history. Albeit anachronistic. This leads to the following similarities: Both were prominent Jewish leaders. Both were Pharisees. Both also had military duties. Paul persecuted Christians and wanted to eliminate them. Flavius Josephus was a general in Galilee to fight the Romans. Paul was blind for three days before his conversion. Flavius Josephus spent three days in a deep cave without presumably seeing anything before his conversion (Jewish Wars 3 8.1, c. 75/1895). Both were sent to the emperor. Paul to an unknown emperor. Flavius Josephus to Nero (3 8.
. Both spent two years in prison in Caesarea (4 10.7; Not unimportant: Caesarea was a provincial center of the Roman imperial cult and the capital of the Roman province of Judea). Both were periods in the desert (The Life of Flavius Josephus 2, c. 94-99/1895). Both were shipwrecked near Italy (The Life of Flavius Josephus 3, c. 94-99/1895). Neither want "heathens" forced to be circumcised (The Life of Flavius Josephus 23, ca. 94-99/1895). Both sign the importance of the core idea of the "universal" law of Moses, as mentioned earlier. Both reject scrupulous religion (Antiquities of the Jews 1 14, c. 94/1895; cf. 1 20, 23, 72; 6 307; 7 93; 17 60; 19 16). Both use Aramaic constructions in their works (Thackeray, 1929).More clues to the idea that Flavius Josephus was Paul may be found in the oldest apostolic letter, the letter to the Galatians. Especially with regard to the dating of the apostolic letters. It seems as if they were written long before the destruction of Jerusalem. Paul says in the letter to the Galatians that after a period of fourteen years he went to Jerusalem with Titus (Gal. 2.1; and Barnabas (lit. "son of the father"; Vespasian(?))). Perhaps he meant Titus as son of Vespasian if one continues the analogy. The fourteen years are then symbolic. If this is true, the first apostolic letter was written in 69 CE just before the destruction of Jerusalem or of course later. But not before. Because it is known that Flavius Josephus went to Jerusalem with Titus in 69 CE Which means that 69 CE could be the beginning of the preaching of Flavius Josephus under the pseudonym Paulus which corresponds to the life of Flavius Josephus and the oldest apostolic letter to Galatians.
However, Flavius Josephus may have believed in a different version of Jesus Christ than the later Gospels and Acts portray. He initially believed in a risen, but unascended Christ. The latter because he does not mention the ascension in most letters, implying that he thought Christ lived on earth. And Jesus did indeed live on earth, namely in the form of Vespasian. Subsequently, letters in which he mentions the ascension may have been written after the death of Vespasian (an ascension, incidentally, corresponds to the thought that the soul of the Roman emperor would ascend to heaven (Herodian of Antioch's History of the Roman Empire 4 2.11, 1961). All in all, it is possible to change religious views throughout one's life. In fact, this is highly probable, since in his works Flavius Josephus tries to understand the world as the result of Providence. his views on every notable event that occurs. Even more indications for a later dating might be that 2 Cor 8 and Rom 15:26 speak of an ingathering for Jerusalem. Apparently the Christians in Jerusalem were very poor. This corresponds exactly with the period after the destruction of Jerusalem, for Flavius Josephus describes the period before the war (63 AD) as very prosperous (“four years be fore the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity,” (Jewish Wars 6 5.3, c. 75/1895).
The differences between Flavius Josephus and Paul can be explained by the idea that the Gospels and Acts are allegories. It is the symbolic origin of Vespasian and also of Flavius Josephus. The differences between the lives of Flavius Josephus and Paul from Paul's epistles can be explained by the idea that the epistles were changed after the apotheosis, which will be discussed later, to fit the Gospel of Mark in which Jesus and Paul appear earlier to have lived than Vespasian and Flavius Josephus lived. Another explanation could be that Flavius Josephus had to go undercover because of the dangers that could have happened if the Jews knew who he really was. Certain Jews saw him as a traitor and wanted to kill him. That would explain the unusual fact that a militant Jew had the birthright of Roman citizenship. He most likely received Roman citizenship from the Roman Emperor Vespasian himself. It may also be that later on, Flavius Josephus no longer believed that Vespasian was Jesus Christ, only Christ. Especially after Vespasian's death. As suggested before. When his works were written, if dated correctly, he would no longer have called Vespasian Jesus Christ, as he did in Paul's letters. By now they had all been written. He also thought that the world would soon end (eg 1 Cor. 7.29). Probably related to Vespasian's reign as emperor. But Vespasian was not immortal either.
It is also possible that parts of the works of Flavius Josephus may have been included in the Gospels for symbolism. An example: "Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learn; on which account the High Priests, and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law." (The Life of Flavius Josephus 3, c. 94-99/1895). Jesus also taught in the temple at a similar age, as a 12-year-old. It is important to note that this story is only described in Luke. That means that the connection between Flavius Josephus and Jesus may not have been there in the earliest Gospel, Mark. This also makes sense when one considers that Acts follow Luke. This means that the Flavius Josephus motifs were later incorporated in their entirety.
Vespasian as Jesus Christ
While until now the similarities between Vespasian and Jesus Christ have been based only on the idea that Flavius Josephus was Paul, the similarities become much clearer when one reads the works of the Roman historians Cassius Dio and Suetonius. It is important to note that Flavius Josephus, as Paul, initially believed in a different Jesus Christ than the one portrayed in the Gospels. He may have known only that Jesus had been crucified by Pilate and resurrected (Paul's original letters were written before the Gospels and Acts). The similarities are therefore based on a later, more extensive, version of Jesus Christ.
First, the similarities based on Cassius Dio's Roman History: both were predicted (64 9.1 and 66 1.1, ?/1925). Both were initially poor and not of direct noble birth (66 10.3b; The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 12.1, 121/1914). Both were in Egypt for a period (64 9.2 and 66 8.2a). Both had a thing for the common people and preferred to associate with them. Both had the interest of the people in mind (66 10:3). Both were eminently good people (66 8.4). Both were mocked (66 8.2). Both performed some of the same miracles. Compare the following: "Vespasian himself healed two persons, one having a withered hand, the other being blind, who had come to him because of a vision seen in dreams; he cured the one by stepping on his hand and the other by spitting upon his eyes.” (Roman History 66 8.1, ?/1925; cf. The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 8.1, 121/1914 and The Histories 4 81, c. 100-110/1912). And: "Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.” Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. (...) They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?” He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.” Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly." (Mark 3.1-5; 8.22-24 NIV). In both, the supernatural opening of the doors of a sanctuary foreshadows the turmoil of the spirit world with regard to death (in Vespasian the mausoleum of Augustus, before death (Roman History 66 17.2, ?/1925) and in Jesus the garment of the Jewish temple, after death; cf. The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 23.4, 121/1914). As a final example with Cassius Dio, the false Christ warnings are probably about insurgents who “crowned” themselves Caesar (Roman History 66 3.1, ?/1925).
Further similarities between Jesus and Vespasian can be found in Suetonius's The Lives of the Caesars. Thus, both were born during the reign of Emperor Augustus (Vespasian 2.1, 121/1914). Both have a thing for "tax collectors". Vespasian's father was a chief tax collector (Vespasian 1.2). Both give meaning to the fate of a tree (Vespasian 5.2). Both command their subjects, whether apprentices or soldiers, to go barefoot (Vespasian 8.3). Neither of them retaliated. Both correct only with words. Both are associated with Satan (Vespasian 14.1). Both long for the rescue of their enemies (“but even wept and sighed over those who suffered merited punishment.” The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 15, 121/1914). Both are loved by women (Vespasian 22). Both involved conspiracies (Vespasian 25).
The agreements are therefore numerous and can be extended. Even with parts of the works of Flavius Josephus. For example, that both Jesus and Vespasian have a “transfiguration” on a mountain (Jewish Wars 6.5.4; cf. The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 5.6, 121/1914). The foregoing examples are sufficient to suggest that the life of Jesus Christ is similar to that of Vespasian. No conspiracy. Emperor Vespasian, for example, also firmly believed in it, given one of his last words: “I am already becoming a god.” (Roman History, 66 17.3, ?/1925; or “Woe's me. Methinks I'm turning into a god” (The Lives of the Caesars Vespasian 23, 121/1914).
State and Religion in the Roman Empire
In the Roman Empire, religion was a matter for the state. The state regulated religion. The so-called religio. The professionalism of the priests working in the “religious sector” was high. It was about craftsmanship. There was therefore no room for the opinion of the ordinary Romans. Everything that went beyond religion was called superstitio. Religio was above all a sacra publica. Of course, that does not mean that there was no room for the sacra privata. Religion was also practiced within Roman gens or families. But that was religio, “accredited” by the state. It was seen of utmost importance to practice religion. Just the neglect of religion was seen as atheism. People couldn't escape it in everyday life: “When pious travelers happen to pass by a sacred grove or a cult place on their way, they are used to make a vow, or a fruit offering, or to sit down for a while. ” (Florida 1.1, ?/1909). The Roman religion was less phenomenological than the Greek one. It was mainly a worship of ancestors. It was also assumed that the gods had a human origin. So the gods were in fact part of ancestor worship.
During the Principate, the Roman Emperor was the one who coordinated the religion as High Priest, or Pontifex Maximus (a current title of the Pope). Though centered in one person, the state religious landscape was fragmented. For example, the religious structure was strongly tied to cities. It was the duty of the magistrates (officials) and priests to have a good relationship with the gods. For the good of the population. In addition, the emperors portrayed as “good” respected priestly colleges. Although the emperor's opinion was ultimately binding. As it was before anything public decision-making (Van Haeperen 2003). The four main priestly colleges were Pontifices, Augures, Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, and Septemviri epulonum.
The Roman Imperial Cult
Logically, the worship of humans as divine was out of the question at the time of the Republic. That's not what ancestor worship is supposed to be. Although people did worship the gods during the Republic, despite the fact that they were in fact about people. This changed during the Principate. This was partly due to the legitimization of the power of an autocrat.
The Principate started with the reign of Emperor Octavian/Augustus in 27 BC. During the reign of Augustus, the imperial cult took shape. The background to this development was that Julius Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate in 42 BC. and Augustus called himself as the adoptive son of Julius Caesar the divi filius, the son of god. The deification of Julius Caesar was, in fact, a final convulsion of the power of the senate. Although the senate continued de jure on the deification of emperors afterwards, this was not the case in fact. It mainly depended mainly on the successor whether an emperor was elevated to divine status. As in fact the emperor had the last word on all matters.
Emperor Augustus was not only a son of a god, he was indirectly linked to a great glorious past because of Julius Caesar. A past in which several gods and heroes play a role and which is connected to the foundation of the city of Rome. This past is illustrated in Ab urbe condita by the Roman historian Titus Livius and the Aeneid by the Roman poet Virgil. These works were written after the deification of Julius Caesar and in fact also legitimize the emperor's authority. Although Virgil was actually a Republican. The works lay the symbolic foundation for a successive line of emperors: a dynasty. The Julio-Claudian dynasty. Moreover, a divine emperor has a divine, or at least noble, lineage. That's where Christianity comes in, it will soon become clear.
Emperor Augustus was also deified by apotheosis. In order to shape the worship of Augustus, the next emperor, Tiberius, in 14 CE a special college of priests, namely the Sodales Augustales. This college consisted of 21 members and the members were from prominent families of Rome. However, the imperial cult was not limited to Rome. Imperial cults were present at all levels of government. Not only members of prominent families served in the cult, but also freed slaves, the so-called Seviri Augustales.
Not all emperors were deified, however. An example is Emperor Nero. He just received a so-called damnatio memoriae. His memory was swept away from the collective memory. A practice that was also known in ancient Egypt.
Vespasian was also deified by the Senate. This led to the creation of the Sodales Flavianes. After the death of his son, Emperor Titus, this college of priests was probably renamed the Flaviales Titiales. Another son of Vespasian, Emperor Domitian, had a temple (Templum divi Vespasiani) built to further shape the deification of his father and brother. Domitian himself was not deified.
Finally, from the foregoing one can conclude three things about the deification of emperors. Firstly, that origin matters. Secondly, that the emperorship is morally justified in terms of content. Thirdly, that the succession of the emperors is important. Thus, for an emperor to receive divine honors, he must be of divine or noble descent, be a "good" emperor, and have a successor who is well disposed to him.
The Roman Imperial Cult and Christianity
Of the criteria for deification advanced in the previous chapter, only Vespasian and Titus lack a divine or noble lineage. That is why the Gospels and Acts could be the documents that could fill in this missing criteria. For Jesus Christ was of divine descent, through the Holy Spirit, and of noble descent, namely, as the propagated son of David. And if Jesus Christ corresponds to Vespasian and Paul to Flavius Josephus then this would be a good possibility. Moreover, Vespasian and later his sons Titus and Domitian were for some time the most powerful men of the Roman Empire. And Flavius Josephus was included in the Imperial dynasty, given the name Flavius. He was "adopted" as a freed slave. All this points to one direction as the place where Christianity originated, namely the Roman state.
When Vespasian was deified, the Roman Imperial Cult, namely the Sodales Flaviales, had the task of venerating Vespasian. For this, a temple was even built for both Vespasian and his deified son Titus. This all started formally with Vespasian's apotheosis. Although Flavius Josephus, as Paul, already revered Vespasian as Jesus Christ beforehand. At this apotheosis, the Gospel of Mark may have been published as the symbolic origin of Vespasian. To legitimize the authority of the Flavian dynasty. Just as Augustus regarded himself as the son of god, of Julius Caesar, so Titus and Domitian also regarded themselves as the son of god, of Vespasian. Moreover, without this document, the worship of Vespasian would not have a divine character. Only if one thinks of Vespasian's background would he be ridiculous as a god. Now he became the symbolic son of David.
The capstone Revelation
Revelation is the culmination. It is the definitive test for the theory. Does it fit within the history that is enveloped by the symbolism? What seems? Without Revelation, the theory would still be implausible. On the basis of chapters 12, 13 and 17 of Revelation it will become apparent that it cannot be otherwise than that by Jesus Vespasian is meant.
Chapter 12 deals with the nation of Israel, depicted as a woman, and the ruler that came out of it, David, depicted as a son. David would rise again in the Messiah (cf. Ezek. 34).
Chapter 13 is about Emperor Caligula and Emperor Nero. Caligula, the beast from the sea, because there is talk of a reign of three and a half years, which corresponds to the reign of Caligula. Caligula is elected by the senate, depicted by the ten horns, the ten senatorial provinces. The seven heads represent the emperors of the "cult" of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (not just biological origin). Caligula for the first time did not shy away from being worshiped as a god during life (as "Neos Helios"). Nero is the beast from the earth. 666 clearly stands for his name ("Nero Caesar"). Chapter 13, incidentally, is typically a Jewish prophecy, as it is known in the older Jewish writings. After something important had happened, a prophecy was written about it afterwards, but with a spiritual interpretation. As if the prophecy had already foretold this.
Chapter 17 covers the period from Julius Caesar to Vitellius, eight kings. So eight emperors. Initially, the eight emperors were supported by the senate. Unlike Vespasian as (symbolically) resurrected David (and Jesus Christ), the eighth king, Emperor Vitellius, was a symbolic resurrection of Emperor Nero (he sprang from the seven heads; seven for the sake of "divine" symbolism). He is known to revere and imitate Nero. The whore represents Rome. The lamb that will come to conquer apocalypticly represents the reign of Vespasian or the Flavian dynasty. He would be proclaimed emperor without the senate, but by his armies, putting a definitive end to senatorial power. Revelation is probably around the year 70 CE. ch. written, because of this short-term perspective.
Revelation thus presents the struggle between two imperial dynasties, between the Julio-Claudian dynasty, initially supported by the senate, and the "David-Flavian" dynasty. The latter would be victorious forever. At least that was the thought.
Construction of possible history
After the theory is made clear, one can construct a possible history:
c. 1-60 CE A historical Jesus is alive and crucified by Pontius Pilate.
67 CE As a prominent Jewish leader, Flavius Josephus converts to Vespasian.
69-79 (?) CE Flavius Josephus preaches the "euangelion" (normally related to the birth of an emperor or a victory in battle in the Hellenistic world) under the pseudonym Paul, disguising his famous background. He tries to convince everyone to believe in Vespasian as the risen (but not ascended) Christ. Christian communities meanwhile spread throughout the Roman Empire. Perhaps especially in cities that were already related to the imperial cult. For example, all seven cities mentioned in John's Revelation were related to the imperial cult (Price 1986).
69 (?) CE The Revelation of John was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 11.1-2) by an unknown author. It is an apocalypse in which Vespasian, as Jesus Christ, is depicted as a universal ruler who would establish a heavenly kingdom. In addition, it is a critique of "evil" emperors such as Nero. The book was written with the expectation that the world would soon end.
79 CE Vespasian dies and is deified after a senatus consultum (but in fact because of Titus). The Gospel of Mark is published as a symbolic patronage.
79-(?) CE The Roman imperial cult partially transitions into Christianity and forms the heart from which Christianity originated, while initially distinguishing itself from the other Christian communities. Jupiter Optimus Maximus (IOM; akin to DOM) may have become somewhat the equivalent of Yahweh. Other gods may be rejected or related to angels.
323 CE A Flavian emperor, Constantine the Great, makes Christianity the main religion in the Roman Empire.
380 CE Another Flavian emperor, Theodosius I, makes Christianity the state religion in the Roman Empire.
Scientific framework
The foregoing theory is almost entirely in line with the general consensus among scholars on the important capstones. This concerns, for example, the historicity of Jesus and the Jewish origin of the Gospels. It promotes that Jesus really lived and also recognizes the decisive role of Flavius Josephus, a Jew. The only thing where a different path is taken from that of science is the dating of the apostolic letters. But there's a good reason for that. The dating is only based on Acts. But how can one ever accept a religious scripture like Acts for history? It is true that the myth shrouds history as stated earlier. Because there is no denying that mythology has been incorporated into the Gospels and Acts. Thus Luke speaks, which is presumably written by the same writer as Acts, they connect seamlessly with each other, about the virgin conception of Mary by the Holy Spirit. Such a motif is often seen in antiquity when a son of the gods is born. For example, consider Perseus from Greek mythology who was born from a virgin impregnated by Zeus. An example of a mythological reading of Acts is the similarities with the Bakchai, such as the release of Paul and Silas from prison and the conversion of the jailer with Bakchai 576-641 (407 BC/1913). In short, with such a mythological background of the Gospels and Acts, it is justified not to base the dating on these works.
Conclusion
The origin of Christianity can therefore be explained as having emerged from the Roman Imperial Cult. Although Vespasian was in principle only seen by Flavius Josephus, as Paul, as the risen (historical) Jesus Christ. But the religion of Flavius Josephus was formalized after the apotheosis, partly as a legitimization of the Flavian dynasty. Then the worship also became part of the Roman Imperial Cult with its own college, the Sodales Flaviales. The Roman Imperial Cult, present in all layers of government, may itself have published the Gospels and Acts. They are, as it were, the Ab urbe condita of Vespasian. The Symbolic Origin of Vespasian. Vespasian as son of David, as Christ. The bizarre conclusion is that an awful lot of people in the world now worship the Roman emperor, while ancient Egyptian religion, for example, is dismissed as mythology. Besides, why does no one believe Ab urbe condita, which is the Gospel of Mark?
Bibliography
Butler, H.E. (1909). Apuleius: Florida. Oxford.
Cassius, D. (1925). Roman History. Harvard University Press.
Echols, E.C. (1961). Herodian of Antioch’s History of the
Roman Empire from the Death of Marcus Aurelius to the Accession of Gordian III. University of California Press.
Buckley, T. A. (1850). The Tragedies of Euripides. Bacchae. London.
Hamilton Fyfe, W. (1912). Tacitus. The Histories. Oxford.
Price, S. R. (1986). Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge University Press.
Rolfe, J. C. (1914). Suetonius: Lives of the Caesars. Revised edition. Loeb Classical.
St. J. Thackeray, H. (1929). An unrecorded'Aramaism in Josephus ('He began to say unto them'). The Journal of Theological Studies, 30(120), 361-370.
Whiston, W. (1895). Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Auburn & Buffalo: John E. Beardsley.
I'll just drop the full text here in case he deletes it.
Did you know that Vespasian was Jesus and Josephus was Paul and also
