You are on page 1of 3

MARIA JANNA:

Hi Seamus,

I think that you are mistaken in the way you apply Carotta's unquestionable
findings. You occupy one of the polar positions, which have been outlined in the
Introduction to Carotta's book. It's the view of the atheist, who after reading
Carotta now feels impelled to proclaim: "Haha! See? Told you! Jesus never
existed!". But this is only applicable for the literary figure interpreted as the
Jewish itinerant preacher from Galilee, the character the world at the moment
assigns the name "Yeshua of Nazareth", the character everyone has been searching
for in vain, the character that Benedict XVI has written an insignificant book
about. Until now this character from the Gospel has not been proven to have had a
historical existence, and even without Carotta we can safely say that there's a
99% chance that "Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth" never existed.

But in the age AC ("after Carotta") everyone, including atheists, scholars,


believers etc. needs to make the paradigm shift toward Romanocentrism, away from
Palestine. And there are no buts about it: Carotta clearly shows that there *was*
a historical person behind the Gospel-character called *Jesus*, namely Julius
Caesar. Carotta clearly shows that the god we know as "Jesus Christ" is a
transformation of the Divus Iulius, similar to what happened with the Iranian
world colossus, who influenced Mithras, who in turn had an effect on Sol to evolve
into Sol Invictus. Carotta furthermore clearly shows that every single bit and
piece in the Gospel is based on historical fact, with the qualification that it
can only have happened elsewhere at a different time in history. We are dealing
with a *diegetic transposition*. Sure, Joyce's "Ulysses" is a work of fiction—like
"Jesus" his main character never existed!—, but his novel is a diegetic
transposition of an ancient source on the life of Odysseus, who was a historical
person, although his life was probably a bit different from what we read in
Homer's "Odyssee". Same here, with the difference that not thousands of years, but
only a few generations lie between the writing of the Ur-Gospel, the "Historiae"
by Asinius Pollio, ca. in 32 BC, and the formation of the first "gospely" Gospel
under Flavian rule.

So if everything in the Gospel happened as historical fact, albeit at a different


place and time, why should this harm Christianity in any way? It may change
Christianity—even fundamentally so, because after all Carotta has for the first
time revealed the historical *fundament* of this religion—, and many Christians
could be alienated, but in the long run this new-found basis can only mean a
strengthening of the religion. The house built on sand is now gone. So I do not
accept your notion that "Jesus" never existed. He did: his name was Julius Caesar.

The people baaing "Jesus said" from the pulpit are not farcical, because they are
talking about the things Caesar said. There are problems however: since the New
Testament is a diegetic transposition, some words are completely corrupted, some
words of Caesar are now spoken by others (like the blind man < CAECVS < CAESAR),
and some words uttered by Christ do not even originate with Caesar, but with other
people close to him, even his enemies like Pompeius. An example is: "who is not on
any side is on my side", which is 100% Caesar and therefore 100% Christ. A
different account in the Bible text (but not in every gospel) has Christ saying
"who is not with me, is against me [i.e. is my enemy]", which is contradictory to
the former saying, but completely explicable if traced back to Pompeius and a
transpositional error. By tracing events and sayings in the Gospel back to their
original sources, Christians can now ascertain, which is the correct "Christian"
utterance, the real-life event behind certain passages. So it's not the time to
say good-bye to Christianity, but to engage in a new, historically correct
exegesis. But you are right: we have to put truth over faith, history over belief,
reason over religion, historical sources over hagiography. But since the
hagiography of Jesus is the basis of the Christian faith, and will in all
probability remain so, it must either be rewritten and corrected, stripped down or
at least be interpreted according to the original sources on Caesar. Or the Gospel
needs a synoptical arrangement vis-a-vis of the original sources, including a
substantiated commentary. This should be the basis for those sermons from the
pulpit. It would be a wonderful thing: the Enlightenment finally entering the
churches! One has to see it as the beginning of an evolutionary process, not as an
annihilation.

In terms of your examples that I've answered (Resurrection, Last Supper, Walking
on water etc.) I stand with what I wrote: they are all anchored in history, the
history of *Caesar* that is. The only thing necessary is to make the connection.
If Christians don't do that, they are lost and remain without fundament, left in
their slim existence with faith alone. So naturally I stand with what I wrote,
because it's a logical consequence of realizing that the historical Jesus was
Caesar. There is one little exception however, and that's the immaculate
conception. You seem to be an intelligent person, and I noticed right away that
you noticed that the argument there was (to say the least) a bit messy. (^_^) And
I can tell you why: the immaculate conception is (a) originally a maculate
conception which was only reinterpreted as immaculate, and (b) although there was
a historical incident where it was all said to have happened, the concept of
"immaculate conception" and virgin birth from divine conception was from the very
beginning a concept of faith and belief, the ancient Roman faith, a legend told
about the supernatural birth of the Son of God and God from God Augustus. If
anyone in the age AC will still care about Christ, one would then maybe need to
separate the wheat from the chaff. It would mean that the virgin birth has got to
go, the immaculate conception has got to go, the Trinity with father & son has got
to go in favor of the currently inofficial mother/son/spirit-trinity, the Nativity
has got to go (but not necessarily Christmas) etc. pp.. That would be the most
radical approach, and since I'm not a huge fan of Augustus, I would not oppose
such actions, if they're done wisely. But the problem is that Christianity only
exists, because the cult of Divus Iulius didn't perish in the new conflicts after
Caesar's death. And it's Augustus victory that anchored the cult as the blueprint
for the imperial cult. It's Augustus who has to given the credit, even if it meant
changing the Caesarian guise of the new religion to correspond with his new vision
of Roma resurgens and Augustan empire and principate. And although I hate his
guts, Christians have got to bite the bullet that there's a brutal and ruthless
tyrant and murderer called Augustus at the heart of Christianity's origin.

So discarding everything, even the Augustan parts, might not be the best thing.
But in any case I'm with you on the quest for historical truth and propagation of
an "open liberal and informed mentality". This is the most important thing of all,
but you have to realize that religious belief and faith alone usually clouds every
spark of scientific pursuits. But since you're an atheist I guess this is no news
for you. But when people only make these pursuits in order to destroy the
religions and send the gods into oblivion, they have to expect all the wrath I can
possibly muster, because science and knowledge must result in changing and
modernizing religions, not their destruction. We have to realize who the gods are,
who they were as humans, as political rulers, ancient heroes, gods in the flesh,
and what religions actually mean. If religions will actually vanish one day, they
must do so on their own. First priority should be to try to save and improve them,
because they are part of everyone's heritage, even if one's an atheist.

In closing I can only say that as a Catholic Carotta's book has not hurt me at
all. On the contrary: it has had a profound healing effect. But it's not because
of new faith—I've never been much of a "faith-person": I'm strictly against any
metaphysical conjectures, and I see my religion only as a form of social
obligation, of loyalty by oath and of ritual and traditions. So it's not about
faith, but about *fides* and deeper knowledge, including knowledge *about* the
faith and its origins, including an acquisition of a much deeper respect for
religion, because after all, none of them are based on lies but on historical
truth, even if it means that Jesus is actually Divus Iulius, even if it means that
all religions originate from and also define themselves through conflict, war and
violence. Saying it's all only a lie, is wrong, because religions always evolve
over time. Even the gods evolve and have a half-life. Divus Iulius "decayed"
shortly after Constantine, i.e. he transformed into Christus, who is kinda like
his "religious daugther nuclide". The "religious radiation" emitted in this long
process at certain times triggered new decay- and transformation-processes: the
imperial cult, Marcion, heretic Christians, Gnostic churches, Islam, later the
Reformation etc.. But that doesn't mean that Christianity or any of these
religions is a lie. It's the nature of things.

With greetings,
MJ