N.B. About this page.. ¹

Where did the God "Jesus Christ" come from?  Why has this mystery eluded more than two centuries of research and speculation?  And why has this particular deity been so endurable, with all attempts at eradicating his supremacy by force in the Christian world, such as during the English and French revolutions, having led to failure?  Why did the brutal policy of enforced atheism in the Soviet Union - which even shared the status of being regarded as a superpower for lengthy decades - come to nought?  Not only did it come to nought - it achieved the exact opposite of what is was designed to achieve. By forcing the ancestral religion underground, it prevented any progressive development within the Eastern Church, so that when the wall of repression collapsed we were left with an Orthodox Christianity far more conservative than its great Western counterpart.  A radical change in religion is as difficult to achieve as a radical change in the calendar. Calendars in fact are an essential part of religion, and as far as the Western calendar is concerned, it has only been altered superficially since it was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC. There have been many warps and weaves in the rich tapestry of Western history, but at the end of the day, Christianity endures. Why is this so?

The traditional view is that this religion originated in the tragic life and death of an obscure Jew who trod the dusty back-roads of Palestine more than two thousand years ago. Indeed, this Jew is so obscure that many serious thinkers doubt his existence altogether. If they were right, however, we would be left in an even worse quandary than if we only had to ponder how such a great religion could  develop from the life of an obscure nobody, we would be faced with contemplating the mystery of the existence of a great religion with no founder at all.  It is the very absurdity of the notion that Christianity could have had no founding figure which throws the weight of uninformed opinion back onto what seems to be the common sense position of loosely accepting the gospel accounts of the life of "Jesus of Nazareth" - minus the odd miracle, of course.   

This has been called the "minimalist" Jesus theory - an attempt to reconcile the apparent absurdities and the established anachronisms of our received gospels with the facts of history. This paring down of "Jesus the man" has led to comical results, and has thrown up for our perusal a veritable kaleidoscope of variations of "the historical Jesus".  In recent decades we have had Jesus the Jew, Jesus the hippie, Jesus the faith healer, Jesus the rebel, Jesus the flower child, and even Jesus the mushroom when psychedelic drugs were fashionable.  As we look back through the time-line, we see that these evanescent characterizations of Jesus come and go like the passing parade in a circus, the successive incarnations of Jesus reflect popular trends in the culture. But the religion itself survives - sturdy as Gibraltar - which should give us the clue that the very phenomenon of Christianity must have a solid historical basis.

   Now, if we take a bird's-eye-view of Western history, one fact is ineluctable.  The strongest domain of Christianity and its deity Jesus Christ  is the territory of the ancient Roman Empire, followed by the extended territories of the Roman sphere of influence and its legacy -  including the vast territories of the New World, coastal Asia (where Western influence has been strongest), and much of Africa.  Looking back over two millennia, we have the luxury of a clearer historical perspective than our ancestors had, and it is true to say that, seen in the context of this lengthy time frame, Christianity arises in tandem with the ascendancy of the Roman empire, crystallizing into view and taking form under the auspices of the pax romana, without which it would never have been possible.  Protestantism, for all its vehement opposition to the status and office of "the Pope of Rome" and the orthodoxies of the Catholic church, has really only changed the window dressing - a few different baubles and froll de dolls - leaving the essential grist of the religion intact. 

   Should we be surprised that the story of Jesus Christ might be integral to the very foundation of that great empire?  Today Rome is still the principal and most prestigious center of Christianity in the world, and of course, it is also still the domicile of the pontifex maximus - the great bridge-builder to God - chief priest, the Pope.  Many people are unaware that the Roman Empire was in fact founded by a pontifex maximus - Julius Caesar - the first Roman traceable in history to have become a God by popular will of the people, later ratified by the very Senate itself - the lost deity divus iulius, the deified Julius.  I use the term "lost" because Caesar is constantly overlooked when people discuss the gods extant in the Greco-Roman world just prior to the sudden appearance of Christianity. Attis, Hercules, Dionysius, Osiris, Tammuz, Mithra, Perseus etc - the usual suspects - are all trotted out for inspection to find precedents for the biography of the gospel Jesus - as if Julius Caesar had never existed. This in itself is quite amazing.  Almost everybody knows of Caesar as a great military commander and reformist, but how many people are aware of him as a God? Why is he never mentioned in the company of the above mentioned deities? In fact, he is not to be found in any standard listing of the so-called "Roman Gods" . 

I venture that the reason for this is that he is so tangibly historical and real that it is difficult for us to think of him as a God.  All the gods listed above, with the possible exception of Hercules, are usually only known for one or two major exploits. Is it because Julius Caesar did and achieved so much that we firstly turned him into a God, and then could no longer conceive of this God as having been a man? Fact is we are all well aware that we have a record, in several forms, of the life of Julius Caesar as a man, but where is the vita of divus iulius, the legendary life of Julius Caesar as a God?  

Presented here is the theory that Caesar has not been swallowed by history, that his ghost has been with us, in transmogrified form, all along, that the gospel story of Jesus Christ has developed from the lost vita of divus iulius, a vita manifested in the miraculous terms that we should expect of a divinity. The dependence of the gospel story of Christ on the life of Julius Caesar is most apparent  in the so-called "Passion" accounts - roughly from Christ's "triumphal entry" into the capitol, Jerusalem, to his betrayal, murder, and ultimate resurrection. Francesco Carotta agrees with this, so here I first want to highlight some of the parallels between the real life murder of Julius Caesar and the historically received accounts of the death of Christ in point form, and then expand on those points.  After that I provide an outline of some of the similarities in their respective careers, parallels which I believe stretch the bounds of coincidence to breaking point.  But first - the Passion:

1.  Christ is famously regarded as promoting forgiveness and love - the legendary and controversial "love thy enemy!" 

 2.  He is portrayed as being hailed as, or about to claim the title of, King of the Jews. He is then betrayed by his friend, Judas Iscariot, and abandoned by all his supporters ("..and they all forsook him, and fled." Mark 14:50).

 3.  The evening before his execution, he attends the "Last Supper", where wine is passed around and he speaks prophetically of his death.  The traitor Judas is present at the table. 

 4.  Immediately prior to his execution, he is mocked in a purple robe, and crowned with a wreath made of thorns.

 5. When his tribulations begin, his religious deputy Peter denies knowing him, although he had sworn unswerving allegiance to him.

 6.  He is led to his fate, and then to his burial, in the accompaniment of grieving women.

 7. Judas Iscariot suicides in remorse.

 8. Christ resurrects to glory.

Now consider these parallels in the Caesar tragedy:

1. Although it is not common knowledge, Caesar was renowned for his magnanimity in introducing a comprehensive policy of clementia, wherein he pardoned even his most bitter enemies.  The ancient historians comment on this policy with incredulity.

 2.  On the verge of being proclaimed King, he was betrayed and murdered by those he had saved.  His friend Marcus Brutus sanctioned this act and participated in it.  And his trusted general, Decimus Brutus, was an essential part of the conspiracy. 

 3.  The evening before his murder, he attended an intimate supper where wine was passed around and he prophetically described the nature of his death. The arch-traitor, Decimus Brutus, was present at the table. 

 4.  Immediately prior to his assassination, Caesar was mocked in his royal purple robe whilst wearing his crown of laurel.

 5.  When Caesar was attacked, his 1st lieutenant and religious deputy, Mark Antony, who feared for his own life, fled, disguised himself, and hid well into the night.  All others present who had sworn to protect Caesar fled in fear (they all forsook him, and fled?).

 6.  Caesar's body was ferried home amidst public mourning and wailing women.  

 7.  Marcus Brutus later committed suicide, when he realized that his Republican cause was lost.  Decimus Brutus was later executed.

 8.  Caesar was subsequently resurrected as a God - divus iulius.

Now, expanding on these points about Caesar:

 1.  During and after the civil war against Pompey, Caesar became famous for his policy of pardoning almost all his enemies, excepting some that he had pardoned previously. Suetonius e.g. praises Caesar's "wonderful restraint and clemency" (Life of Julius Caesar, 75); Velleius Paterculus describes his pardoning of his enemies as defying human credence (Historia Romana , II, 56), and Pliny the Elder assigns to him "the peculiar distinction of clemency in which (even to the point of subsequent regret) he surpassed all men, thereby affording an example of magnanimity that no other can parallel..." (Book VII, 93).  Contrasting his actions with the cruelty of Sulla, Dio wrote "Caesar..removed the ban from the survivors of those who had warred against him, granting them immunity on fair and uniform terms; he promoted them to office; to the wives of the slain he restored their dowries, and to their children he granted a share of the property, thus putting Sulla's cruelty mightily to shame and gaining for himself a great reputation not just for bravery but also for goodness, even though it is generally a difficult thing for the same man to excel both in war and in peace." (Dio XLIII, 50).  To honor all this, the Senate decreed the construction of a temple, to be dedicated to Caesar and the goddess Clementia - the temple would house statues of Caesar and Clementia holding hands.

This virtue of clemency was no doubt an important factor in making possible Caesar's deification, as it has obvious religious significance - especially in view of his position of pontifex maximus .  Antony used it in his demagogic speech at Caesar's funeral, and it certainly would have been used in the "trial" of Caesar conducted in the Roman Senate during the unprecedented deification procedure. Caesar's clemency stands in stark contrast to the proscriptions of his predecessor Sulla, and the later reign of terror brought about via the proscriptions issued by the Triumvirate in their war against Caesar's assassins. The Triumvirate even pointed to the failure of Caesar's clemency program as a justification for their own ruthlessness (App IV, II:8).  Caesar's ground breaking policy of Clementia was destroyed by the ingratitude and callousness of men - paving the way for the very kerygma of Christianity.

 2.  One of the lures that Decimus Brutus used to bring Caesar to the Senate on the Ides of March was the promise that the Senate would proclaim Caesar King of the Roman provinces.  The word "King" symbolized everything that the Roman Republicans hated, and they had an ancient tradition that regicide, the killing of Kings, was justified and even honorable.  Marcus Brutus represented this Republican tradition, as he was held to be descended from the earlier Lucius Junius Brutus who had driven the great tyrant, King Tarquin, from Rome in days of yore.  Although Caesar had pardoned Marcus Brutus twice, even sending personal orders to the battle front to ensure his survival, he threw in his lot with the conspirators. Brutus was the lynch pin in their hope of claiming legitimacy for their regicide.  He is reported to have agonized over his decision to take part in the murder as Caesar had granted him many favours in promoting him to prestigious office, and is widely reported to have been fond of him.  Because of the roles played by these two Brutuses, the name Brutus became a by-word for treachery.  I maintain that Brutus sicarius - Brutus the assassin - is the historical root of the name Judas Iscariot.

  3.  It is widely reported that Caesar attended a supper with friends on the eve of his murder, at which the wine beaker was passed around and the subject of conversation turned to death (see e.g. App II:115). Caesar precipitately proffered the opinion that a sudden and unexpected death was the most desirable.  Some reports have him exclaiming "Let it come swiftly!".  Now, Marcus Brutus' distant relative and fellow conspirator - Decimus Brutus - whom many historians regard as a more perfidious traitor than Marcus Brutus, having been one of Caesar's most trusted generals - was present at the dinner conversation, and of course this Brutus also was fully aware that Caesar would be murdered on the morrow.  In fact, Decimus Brutus came to fetch the tardy Caesar that fateful day, taking him by the hand and leading him to the Theatre like a lamb to the slaughter.  This must be what inspired the Midrash used in the gospels where Christ refers to Judas - "He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (Jn 13:18) - which is modified from Psalm 41:9: "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."  (Notice that the midrash changes the tense from past to present).  This is paralleled in John's version of Christ's "Last Supper", wherein Christ foretells his imminent death whilst the traitor Judas Iscariot is present at the table - eating bread no less!  Christ then turns to Judas and says "What you have to do, do quickly" (Jn 13:27) - which connects with Caesar's prophecy of his own death "Let it come swiftly!" whilst Decimus Brutus was present at the table. Judas then leads the arresting posse to Christ. In respect of the role of the two Brutuses in Caesar's betrayal, it is worthwhile noting that John's Passion account has two "Judases" partaking of the supper-  see Jn 14:22. 

 4.  The supplications that the conspirators made to Caesar - bedecked in purple robe and crown of laurel - in the Theatre of Pompey were a mockery, as their intention was to murder him. The conspirator Metellus Cimber reportedly had pulled Caesar's regal purple robe down from his shoulder as the signal for the others to attack him. To Caesar's supporters, this would have appeared as a great indignity.  In other words, the conspirators were paying mock homage to Caesar, just as the soldiers do with Jesus (e.g. Mark 15:17-18). 

 5.  Shortly prior to his murder, Caesar had dismissed his Spanish bodyguard.  Mark Antony was Caesar's military lieutenant and held the position of consul.  But much more importantly, Antony was Caesar's religious deputy, as the Senate had only recently appointed him as personal priest to Caesar and therefore head of the embryonic Caesar cult "like some flamen dialis " (Dio, XLIV, 6, 4). This is pithily confirmed by Cicero - "As Jupiter, As Mars, as Quirinus have their priests, so is Mark Antony priest of the god Julius." (II Phil.,110). It was unprecedented for any living Roman to have a personal priest.  But, rightly or wrongly, Antony deserted Caesar in his moment of need. He had been detained outside Pompey's theatre by the conspirator Trebonius, and Plutarch reports that he fled immediately upon hearing the uproar in the Theatre when the attack on Caesar began.  He disguised himself as a slave, and hid well into the night, making contact with the assassins early in the morning before dawn (Life of Antony , Plut 14; Dio XLIV, 22; App II, 126).

6.  We hardly need a more elegant description of the mourning which accompanied the bringing of Caesar's body back home to his residence of chief priest (pontifex maximus) on the Via Sacra than that by Nicolas of Damascus.  It evokes the imagery of the Via Dolorosa and even the pieta - "A little later, three servants, who were nearby, placed the body on a litter and carried it home through the Forum.  The wounds on the face and the arms hanging down were visible on both sides, as the curtain had been drawn back.  There was no one who refrained from tears at the sight of him who had just lately been honored as a god.  Much weeping and lamentation accompanied them from either side, from mourners on the roofs, in the streets, and in the vestibules.  When they approached his house, a far greater wailing met their ears, for his wife rushed out with a number of women and servants, calling on her husband and bewailing her lot in that she had in vain counseled him not to go out on that day.  But he had suffered a fate far worse than she had feared." (v 26).  Consider that those who were on the roofs looking down on the narrow lanes leading to the Via Sacra would have seen him in a cruciform position - with arms spread outwards.  

7.  After the battle of Philippi, Marcus Brutus regarded the Republican cause as lost.  He killed himself by climbing up on a rock and throwing himself down on his sword. Another version has him throwing himself forward onto a sword held by his friend Strato.  The purpose of this was death by disembowellment. Compare the similarity of this description to that of the death of Judas from Acts: "this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" (Acts1:18). Rather than being hailed as the man who saved the Republic, Brutus now received the reputation of a parricide.  His doppelganger in treachery, Decimus Brutus, was ignominiously executed.

8.  The deification of Caesar was a watershed event, and in itself signalled that the Republicans had completely failed. They had murdered Caesar because they thought he was setting himself up to be a King, now he became the first man in Rome to become a God (Romulus is either too ancient to accurately identify or mythological - his deification was rather an evolutionary process by which his name became identified with the existing deity Quirinus).  As the legal heir and son of Caesar, Augustus later assumed the title divi filius - son of a God.

I regard the above parallels between the deicides of Caesar and Christ as the most essential, but before proceeding there are some secondary ones I would also point to:

1.  Not long before his murder, and in accordance with what Dio describes as a "remarkable" privilege recently granted him (Dio XLIV, 4,3-4; 10,1), Caesar rode into Rome on horseback when returning from the Latin Festival which was held at the Alban Mount.  As he entered the Capitol, some members of the crowd hailed him as King.  He ambiguously rejected the title, and his enemies were offended by the event. Similarly Christ being hailed as a King when riding into the capitol Jerusalem on an ass (the ass fulfills prophecy) is portrayed in the gospels as signifying his claim to Kingship, and similarly Christ's enemies (here the Pharisees) protest the event (Lk 19:39).

 2.  Because of his Plebian affiliations and royal pretensions, the Roman nobility conspired to murder Caesar.  Likewise the gospels portray the Jewish authorities (collectively referred to as the "scribes and pharisees" or the Sanhedrin - [Senate?]) as conspiring to execute the man of the people and pretender Christ - out of envy.

 3.  Many etymologists think that Iscariot may be a corruption of the Latin sicarius, meaning "assassin". This is interesting, as Judas does not directly play the role of assassin in our received Passion accounts as Brutus does in the real-life drama of Caesar's assassination .  This might indicate that the betrayal scene in our gospels, which is depicted as taking place in front of an assembly of men representing the authorities, may have originally been the scene of the murder i.e. the senatorial assembly in the theatre of Pompey.

 4.  The senatorial conspirators thought they could claim legitimacy for an act of regicide in killing Caesar, in like fashion the Sanhedrin trial of Christ has specious legitimacy but smacks of conspiracy - being hurriedly convened at night with the calling of "false" witnesses.  All of Caesar's assassins perished by various and mostly ghastly means in the civil war which followed his murder.  In like manner Christian apocryphal traditions ascribe all manner of horrible fates to the authorities who presided or were allegedly involved in the death of Christ - Caiaphas, Pilate, the various Herods, etc.

  5.  The deaths of both Caesar and Christ disturb the natural order, dimming the sun. The gospels have the sun being darkened for three hours (e.g. Mk 15:33).  No commentator outside of the gospels noticed this particular blackout.  On the other hand, the supernatural dimness of the sun after Caesar's murder is one of the most widely attested phenomena of that period of antiquity. Josephus records Mark Antony saying of the murder –

“…for the sake of which we suppose that it was that the sun turned away his light from us, as unwilling to view the horrid crime they (the assassins) were guilty of in the case of Caesar” (AJ, XIV, 309)

Pliny the Elder – “ Portentous and protracted eclipses of the sun occur, such as the one after the murder of Caesar the dictator and during the Antonine war which caused almost a whole years continuous gloom” (Bk II, 30)

Plutarch – “The brightness of the Sun was darkened, which all through the year rose very pale and shined not out, whereby it gave but little heat. Wherefore the air was rather cloudy and dark by reason of the heat that could not come forth, causing the earth to bring forth but raw and unripe fruit, which rotted before it could ripen.” (Life of JC, 69)

Manilius – “Even the god Caesar fell victim to deceit unspeakable, whereat in horror of the world Phoebus brought darkness and forsook the earth.” (Bk II, 595)

Virgil – “The sun, too, pitied Rome when Caesar died, and hid its shining face in dim dusty red, and that impious generation feared eternal night." (Georgic 1, v 466)

 6.  Most importantly, the modern "Good Friday" Mass carries the same theme as that which Appian records of Caesar's funeral. Caesar's "voice" (an actor behind a mask) called out the names of all his assassins and recited all the benefits that he conferred on them, then exclaimed  "Did I save these men for them to murder me?" (App II, 146).  In the Catholic Mass, Christ is identified with the Father-God Yahweh, and his "voice" (the priest acting as intermediary) describes what he did for his people in terms of Hebrew mytho/history - planting them as his "fairest vine", sending them manna from heaven, shepherding them through the Red Sea etc etc. - only to be ignominiously executed by that very people.  He then exclaims (as if in amazement?) "O my people, what have I done to you?  How have I offended you?  Answer me!"  Now, according to Christian soteriology - its salvation theology - God's sacrificing of his son Jesus is a marvellous gift - the famous "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life"  - an integral and pre-ordained part of God's plan for the salvation of mankind.  But the Good Friday liturgy does not express Christ's death as a wonderful blessing, it expresses it rather in terms of treachery, as a travesty against a great and merciful benefactor - and thereby retains the original and historically intelligible theme of Caesar's funeral.  The notion of the event as a soteriological blessing must be post hoc - a later religious accoutrement.

 7. In the authentic pre-gospel Christian writings, from Paul through to Clement, Christ is never referred to as a King, or the King of the Jews (1 Tim. is pseudo-Pauline).  For sixty years the Christian writers never mention it.  Nor is there ever any suggestion in their writings that Jesus either thought he was the King of the Jews, or claimed to be such, or was falsely accused of trying to usurp the position of King.  Yet this very theme is central to the gospels' Passion drama, where Jesus' royal pretensions are the basis for Pilate ordering his execution - and Mark's earliest gospel has this very "accusation" clearly displayed on Christ's cross, "THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Mk 15:26 - the other 3 gospels give variants, but all retain this title).  Such an accusation is an absurdity in ancient Judaism, for, although the Jews may have constantly bickered and fought about who should be their King, they had no qualms about actually having one.  The hatred of Kings was a particularly Roman obsession.

   Even if there had been a skeletal Jesus figure, there is no way that the development of a tradition of the "death of Christ" could not have been influenced by the cult of Julius Caesar.  The truly momentous drama at the beginning of our era was the agonized transition from the old Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, and most historians seem to agree that the murder of Caesar and its aftermath was the great turning-point in the process.  Some indication of the psychological impact of Caesar's murder is expressed in religious language in the poetry of Ovid's Metamorphoses 1, where he compares the assassination of Caesar to "evil" Lycaon's attempt on the life of Jupiter himself, and writes of "the shedding of our Caesar's blood" piercing the hearts of all mankind.  Also, the "Daphnis" in the religious poetry of Virgil's 5th eclogue seems to be a fairly clear allegory of Julius Caesar.  The "cruel death" of Daphnis occasions all of nature and the wild beasts to weep - "even the lions of Carthage roared their grief at your extinction"; the whole land mourns until Daphnis arrives at the threshold of Olympus, causing the hills and forests to sing with delight.  This identification of Caesar's fate with the sad tale of Daphnis suggests that it is possible that echoes of Caesar's death may have found their way into other forms religious expression.  Is not the greatest of such expression staring us in the face in the form of the legendary Passion of Christ?

One way that the drama of the death of Christ could have come to reflect the fate of Caesar would be if it were modeled on a religious play commemorating Caesar's death.  There is no clear record of such a play, but Stefan Weinstock suggested such a play as a possible explanation for contradictions in the received records of Caesar's funeral (Divus Julius. Oxford Press, London, 1971; p354).  It is interesting that the line reportedly spoken by Caesar's "voice" at his own funeral - the rhetorical "Did I save these men for them to murder me" - recorded by Appian and Suetonius, was itself from a play by Pacuvius (which only survives in fragments).

There are a number of factors which would have led to the creation of a religious play about, or religious re-enactment of, Caesar's fate:

1.  Caesar died in the religious role of Pontifex Maximus and even a god - Jupiter Julius, in a "sacred place" (App II, 118), in a ritual-like killing.

 2.  He was murdered in a theatre (the annex of Pompey's Theatre) in front of an audience (the Senate) - factors which would easily lend themselves to a theatrical reproduction.

 3.  The Ides of March was hallowed as the "Day of Parricide", a day on which the Senate was forbidden to meet, and it would seem likely that some kind of memorial would take place in the Caesarean temples which had been constructed in various parts of the Roman sphere of influence, including Antioch and Alexandria (which were also, importantly, early centers of Christianity), for the promulgation of the Caesar cult.

4.  The historical accounts of Caesar's funeral read like Passion narratives, being presided over by Caesar's appointed personal priest, Mark Antony.

5.  Dramatic representation of mysteries - especially relating to the death of a god - are well known in antiquity (e.g. the mysteries of Attis, Osiris, Dionysius, etc.) But the festival of Attis and Cybele, because of its timing, is particularly relevant to this case.  The calendar was thus -

   March 15 -   Canna Intrat -  procession of the reed-blowers.

   March 22 -   Arbor Intrat (equinox) -  burial of Attis in effigy strapped to a stake.

   March 24 -   Sanguis -  day of mourning, sacrifice, and bloodletting.

   March 25 -   Hilaria -  day of Attis' resurrection.

   March 27-   Lavatio -  day of ablution.

Note carefully the three day schedule between the burial of the God and his resurrection - right at Easter time! This calendar was incorporated into the state religion of Rome in the time of Claudius in the fifth decade of our era.  Claudius would presumably have given the festival the state imprimatur in order to take control of what must have been a growing religious practice.  Previously the priests of the cult, the Galli, had all been Phrygian eunuchs.  Claudius made a number of reforms to the festival, decreeing, for example, that the priests of the cult would in the future have to be Roman non-eunuchs.  Claudius' intention was to restrict the more extreme practices of the cult, and there can be little doubt that the blood letting would have been severely discouraged. 

The festival began on the 15th of March with performances by a special class of reed-blowers to lament the hapless Attis.  This was already the hallowed Day of Parricide commemorating the deicide of Julius Caesar.  The common people would fairly easily interpret the mourning reed-blowers as lamenting the loss of Caesar.  This would seem to be of particular importance to the Jews, as they would identify the Ides of March with their own solemn festival of Passover, which falls on the 15th of their corresponding month of Nisan (and which could very possibly have fallen on the Ides of March in the year of Caesar's murder because of the inaccuracies and variations in the then current Hebrew calendars).

Here we can see precisely how Julius Caesar's death could be religiously enmeshed with a ritualistic burial of the deity followed three days later by the celebration of his resurrection.  The timing of Caesar's murder could not have been deliberately planned more perfectly to allow for such a syncretism.  The creation of a mystery play incorporating these elements may have been developed so that the religious festival could be observed within the confines of the walls of the Temples to Caesar within the Caesarea which were built throughout the Roman Empire.  The plan of the priests of the Caesar cult, in the terms of this case, would therefore have been to syncretize the popular religious practices by Romanizing the Phrygian Attis cult and utilizing the three day formula between burial and resurrection (as opposed to cremation and ascension) to further institutionalize the deification of Caesar.

In its earliest form, this mystery play would not have included such later historical persons as Pilate, Annas and Caiaphas etc., but would rather have been a dramatization of the death of the deity - the centerpiece of the sect's developing soteriology.  These names belong to a later layer of tradition in the Judaizing process, after the venue had been relocated in Jerusalem. With the passing of time more details would be added to the play, it would take on narrative form (perhaps for the purpose of reading to congregations) and later be taken to be a record of real events (worth noting, for example, is that the primitive gospel of Mark does not provide the names of the high priests in the Sanhedrin trial of Christ, whereas the later accounts furnish just such details. Luke extends the locating process the furthest of all the gospels, as his intention was to link the church of his time directly to "Jesus of Nazareth").  All along the way the story would be corrupted and modified, and tailored to the specific social and spiritual needs of the various parishes.  My view is that the Passion accounts still bear the signs that they were developed from a play.  But it should not be understood that I am saying that the play came into being ex nihilo , rather that as it developed it slowly disguised the tragedy of Caesar.

Here I must draw attention to the relationship between Julius Caesar and the Jews.  If a Jewish mystery play of the death of the Christ was modeled on the death of Caesar, it would necessitate the ancient Jews (or a sect of ancient Jews) having held Caesar in high esteem.  Contrary to popular modern perception, this was precisely the case, and there were solid reasons for it:

1. Caesar had messianic credentials from the Jewish point of view. His opponent Pompey the Great had defiled the temple in Jerusalem by entering the Holy of Holies, and consequently his demise was called for, and then described, in psalm 2 of the Psalms of Solomon – (aka the Psalms of the Pharisees). The psalm calls for a “son of David” to arise and defeat him, which is just what Caesar did.This is from an old commentary on the psalm by Herbert Ryle and Montague James –

“The ‘sinful man’ (ver.1) ‘the dragon’ (ver 29) whose purpose had been to rule the world, who had set his ‘greatness’ against that of God (33), is pierced and slain in Egypt (30), his body lies neglected, unburied, on the waves (30,31). This description agrees closely with the fate of Pompey. He made a bid for supreme power against Caesar; he was surnamed ‘the Great’. He was treacherously assassinated on the shores of Egypt (Sept. 28, 48 BC). The overthrow of the oppressor heralds the triumph of the lowly (v 35). It is worth noting that while, as appears from this Psalm, the Jews regarded Pompey as a tyrant, they glorified Caesar on account of his clemency and consideration toward their own race. The concluding burst of triumph in our Psalm probably indicates the satisfaction of the patriot Jews at the complete success of Caesar’s arms. After arranging matters in Egypt, and overthrowing Pharnaces, king of Pontus, with extraordinary suddenness, he returned to Syria, and in July of 47 was in Antioch, making provision for the good government of the province of Syria and dispensing favours to the states who had supported him during his recent campaign. The special privileges that he awarded to the Jews are recorded in Jos. Ant. XIV. x, 1-10.” (Cambridge Uni Press, 1891).

So Pompey, setting his "greatness" against God, was thoroughly vanquished by Caesar. It is not impossible that Caesar was regarded as an honorary "son of David". A certain level of culture will always interpret a heroic or fabulous figure as being one of their own.  Even today the British Israelites, for example, still believe the Queen of England to be a descendant of King David - Jesus is a pom, and their genealogies manage to link Jesus to such august figures as Zeus and Prometheus.

2.  Caesar's special legislation in favour of the Jews (as in above quote, listed in Josephus' Antiquities Bk 14, ch 10):  Michael Grant e.g. agrees with the description of the decrees as a "veritable Magna Carta "guaranteeing Jewish rights and privileges (The Jews in the Roman World. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 1973, p 59).  Many of these Jewish rights were of a religious nature, such as protection of Jewish Sabbath customs.  Very importantly, Caesar had exempted synagogues from a general ban on workers' associations in Rome.  So it is correct to say that Caesar's decrees not only advantaged Jewish people in Rome and abroad, but would have helped to promote the very status and appeal of Judaism itself.  Caesar's favor of the Jews is particularly notable, as all surviving references to the Jews I can find by Caesar's Roman contemporaries tend to be at least negative or even derogatory.

  3.  That it is possible for the ancient Jews to have regarded a "gentile" like Caesar as a Messiah (christos) is confirmed by the precedent of Cyrus the Great, who is portrayed as a servant of God in Ezra 1; and as the "anointed" (meaning Messiah - christos ) of the Lord in Isaiah 45:1.

  4. Caesar's assassin Cassius later aroused the hatred of many Jews by exacting heavy taxes in Palestine, particularly Judea, and selling the inhabitants of the Jewish towns Gophna, Emmaus, Lydia and Thamna into slavery (Josephus Antiquities Book 14 vs 271-6).  The notoriety of Cassius, Gaius Cassius Longinus , in the murder of Caesar has survived in the Christian tradition, wherein the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus (formerly known as the Acts of Pontius Pilate) refers to the Roman soldier who stabs Christ in the side as "Longinus" [ch 7: v 8 "..then Longinus, a certain soldier, taking a spear, pierced his side.."].  Cassius Longinus, the Roman soldier, is regarded by many as the ringleader in the plot against Caesar, and he took part in the attack.  Although we don't know whether it was he himself who stabbed Caesar in the chest, the autopsy concluded that it was  the chest wound, and the chest wound alone of the full twenty-three, which actually caused Caesar's death (Suetonius JC 82).

  5.  Caesar's death on the 15th of March is around the time of Passover - itself a commemoration. It would be only natural for Jews in reverence of Caesar to search their scriptures for some kind of description of him.  I see a commemorative reading of Isaiah 53 on Passover as an initial possibility, especially as the Passover takes place on the 15th of the Hebrew month of Nisan - the month which most closely approximates the Roman month of March - both months were centered around the (northern) Spring equinox. The coincidence of dates could hardly have been missed.

  6.  Suetonius describes the Jews in Rome as the most assiduous mourners at Caesar's funeral.  He singles them out as returning to the funeral site for several nights in succession, lamenting "..after the fashion of (their) country" (The Deifiej Julius, 84).

It can hardly be coincidence that the cities in the eastern empire for which we have documentary and monumental proof of the cult of divus iulius are also early centers of Christianity as we know from the epistles of Paul and Ignatius and the book of Acts: Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica Smyrna etc. The desire of Jews of the Roman Empire to partake of the burgeoning new state religion may have inspired a Jewish-oriented wing of the cult to create their own version of a ritual commemorating the death of the deity.  Such a ritual, translating the god into a Hellenic/Hebrew "Christ", would make it more possible for those Jews to retain aspects of their Judaism and yet have recourse to a religious ritual and belief with the appeal of the Caesar cult.  This would mean that the story of Caesar would have to be "Judaized".  The minders of the sect would naturally seek a literary model for their liturgy in their own scriptures, and the messianic text of Isaiah 53 would be an obvious choice.  Our historically received "Passion of Christ" fuses the Caesar drama to the text of Isaiah.  The Isaiahan text is paraphrased by the author of the first epistle of "Peter", and Clement of Rome quotes it in full in reference to the life of Christ. In line with this idea, let's look at two particular aspects of the death of Christ which are quite demonstrably unhistorical in the setting in which they are described:

 1.  The betrayal by Judas. - the gospels fail to provide a credible motive for Judas to betray Jesus, and there is no reference to this betrayal, or even to Judas, in any of the Christian documents written before the appearance of the gospels.  More importantly, Judas plays no role in any of the gospels except to betray Jesus.  He is merely retrospectively listed as one of the disciples. The story is severely truncated.  By contrast, the reasons behind Brutus' participation in the assassination of Caesar are broad and complex, and firmly rooted in Roman tradition and history.  If the origin of the Judas betrayal story is to be found in the Caesar drama, it would explain Judas' lack of tangible motive in the gospel stories, and also how he came to be designated as "Iscariot" (as explained above).

 2.  The denial by Peter.  - like the Judas betrayal, this event is never referred to in the pre-gospel documents.  Paul missed an excellent opportunity to refer to it when accusing Peter (i.e. - the man then living in Jerusalem called Peter) of weakness in his aggressive Galatians letter (Gal 2:11-21).  In all the gospel accounts, the denial by Peter appears to be thematic, as none of his interrogators takes any action against him after he breaks down and cries.  If Peter were not in fear, his denial would have no significance.  But after Peter weeps, all the Passion accounts abruptly direct our attention to what is happening to Jesus .  Christ predicts that Peter will deny him, twice or thrice depending on manuscript, before the cock crows.  Historicists argue that the denial of Christ by Peter must be authentic, as the Christian scribes would not want to record such ignominious behavior on the part of Peter - the first priest of Christ.  It has weakly been pointed out that the account of Peter's timidity may have been invented to highlight Christ's stoic bravery, but there is a far better explanation which is relevant to the immediate aftermath of Caesar's assassination.

Before the battle of Actium, Octavian's propagandists had to build a picture of Antony's perfidy to justify their war against him.  After the battle of Actium and the suicide of Antony, it would have been perfectly in Augustus' interest (he took the office of Pontifex Maximus after Lepidus died circa 13/12 BC) to allow the perceived cowardice of Antony in abandoning Caesar to be incorporated into the cult story of divus iulius.  Antony fled when he realized that the attack was taking place, and disguised himself as a slave and hid well into the night, arranging by proxies an extraordinary pre-dawn session of the Senate - which involved a guarantee of safety for Caesar's murderers to attend. Here a deal was hammered out which meant inter alia retention of office for Antony, and an amnesty for the murderers. This amnesty absolved the conspirators from any culpability for their actions in killing Caesar, so it was effectively a judgement against Caesar himself. All this took place before daylight, before morning.  In the gospels, Peter is depicted as being in close proximity to the Sanhedrin "trial" of Christ. If Peter had no intention of intervening to protect Jesus, why would he want to hang around the scene of the trial and put himself in danger? His presence there is only to illustrate his "denial" of his master, where he  (e.g. John 18:15-27) denies knowing Jesus three times, fulfilling Jesus' prediction that "the cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice" (John 13:38). After Octavian's' accession to total power as Augustus, the Senate declared Antony's birthday  dies vitiosus - a sinister day. So the original special priest ("appointed like some  flamen dialis ") of Caesar who had done so much to spread the Caesar cult had fallen from grace in the eyes of the Roman church.  If Peter's denial of Christ has derived from a theatrical or liturgical commemoration of Antony's abandonment of Caesar in his moment of peril, and implicit denial of him by doing deals with his murderers that very night, it is intelligible that no explanation is required as to why Peter was not arrested in the gospel story.  Peter can't be arrested because Antony was not arrested. The theme remains but the historical context has been lost in translation. Antony had finalized the amnesty for the conspirators before the dawn - before the crowing of the cock. 

This identification of Mark Antony with the role of Peter as alleged deputy of Christ might help explain why Catholic tradition has it that the Peter who is referred to by St. Paul and others dictated the first gospel in Rome to a scribe who simply went by the name of "Mark".  [This was not only the name of Antony, but it was also shared by the successor to Caesar's office of High Priest - Marcus Lepidus - whose home was the venue for Caesar's "Last Supper".  So there were two "Marks" in the highest Roman religious positions commissioned with the task of promoting the cult of Caesar.]

A mystery play about the assassination of Julius Caesar would have been the most likely vehicle to transport biographical data from that murder to the portrayal of the death of Christ in the arcane process of syncretism of Judaism and the Roman Imperial cult - later biographical material would follow suit.  The fact that the Passion of Christ is re-enacted around the world at Easter might have given us a clue that it was originally a play, or at least a religious ritual in the style of a play. 

If something like the scenario I have attempted to describe has taken place, then Jupiter may have had more prescience than he is normally given credit for. In Ovid's Murder of Julius Caesar , Venus is aware of the conspirators' intention to kill her son Julius.  She causes an uproar in heaven in her attempts to get the gods to prevent the murder.  When she is on the point of personally intervening Jupiter stops her hand by telling her that the Fates have decreed the travesty about to happen but assures her that her son Caesar will become an immortal God !  She turns her face from the brutal act, but immediately after slips unseen into the Senate chamber and snatches Caesar's soul from his pierced body, translates it to star and sets it in the firmament.

The significance of the deification of Julius Caesar has been overlooked. sometimes the most obvious things are the very things we can't see.This "greatest amongst mortals", who bestrode our narrow world "like a Colossus" was deified by popular perception and then by official decree of the Roman Senate. The Roman Republic was for centuries polytheistic, and no single man was supposed to wield absolute power.  With Caesar, then his successors who drew their authority from his god-head, came absolutism - the earthly parallel of monotheism. The dread of Kings was a Roman obsession, not a Jewish one. The story of Christ is the story of a man executed on the verge of becoming a king who then became a god. What better explanation can there be for why the fate of the "Christ" who evolved to become the official God of Caesar's empire should so precisely reflect the fate of Caesar himself.