1) dear mr. carotta, i start my interview with a very simple question.

why you
started to investigate the issue of jesus historical existance? what was the vent
that pushed you in that direction?
The impetus for this study was an article published in 1959 by R. Herbig, entitled
‘Neue Studien zur Ikonographie des Gaius Iulius Caesar.’ It was apparent from this
article that the preserved images of Caesar did not correspond to the mental image
we hold of him. The triggering factor was the sight of Caesar’s portrait in the
Torlonia Museum– and the comment of Erika Simon, a famous German Archeologist,
that it might be the head of the statue that Antonius had placed on the Rostra
after the assassination of Caesar. It bore the inscription ‘Parenti optime merito—
to the most meritorious parent’, in order to awaken feelings of both pity and
revenge in the observer. In function and expression the Torlonia head resembles
the sorrowful face of Christ in the Pietà and since Pietà representations are
typical for Jesus Christ but not for Julius Caesar, the question arose as to
whether the later Jesus borrowed other elements from the earlier Caesar. Asked
about this, theologians said it was not surprising since even emperor Vespasianus
was reported to have healed the blind and crippled, exactly as described in the
stories about Jesus. Such things were simply expected from the emperor’s charisma.
Curious because of this, an investigation was started.

2) many are these in our country that are not interested if jesus historically
existed. they refer to the fact that they exclusively interested about his
teachings. you, that you had traveled into countries that the debate about jesus
historical existance , what do you receive from your readers and the people that
listen to your lectures in general?
There are people who think that only His teachings are important. But other people
think that we cannot know what were His teachings, if we do not know who He was.
If there was a re-scription of the Scripture, a rewriting of the Writings, how can
we know how His teachings were, if we do not return to the sources, to the true
sources? Another point is: if there was no historical Jesus, then there was no
historical Easter, no historical Resurrection. This would reduce Christianity to a
religion among others, not to The Religion, which it asserts to be.

3) there have been historians that had argued against jesus historical existance
during the past. can you mention to us the most important? what is your opinion
about the fact that most of them appear after the middle ages?
The most important names can be found in Albert Schweitzer's Book (1906/91984)
Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, Tübingen.
Schweitzer, A. & Bowden, J. (2000). The quest of the historical Jesus. London. In
chap. 22, (p. 451 sqq. of the German edition) he places in the category of first
deniers of any historicity of Jesus i. a.: Charles François Dupuis (book printed
by the Club des Cordeliers), Constantin François Volnay (counselor of Napoleon),
Bruno Bauer (Hegelian), Albert Kalthoff, John M. Robertson, Peter Jensen, Andrzej
Niemojewski, Christian Paul Fuhrmann, William Benjamin Smith, Arthur Drews, Thomas
Whittaker, S. Hoekstra, Allard Pierson, Samuel Adrian Naber, G.J.P.J. Bolland,
Samuel Lublinski, temporarily also Abraham Dirk Loman. It would be pointless to
name all the others who joined the ranks after 1913. As a representative of all
the others, see Paul-Louis Couchoud.
Why most of them appear after the Middle Age? Because before the Gospels were
considered history. Later, with the coming up of Enlightenment and the historical
critical studies, the lack of proof in the classical historiography led to the
assumption that the Gospels were mere story, myth, forgery. Which in my opinion is
false. A re-scription is not a forgery, but an actualisation, at least in the
opinion of the author and re-writer, i.e. the evangelist. That's why according to
the results of our research, Christian tradition prouves to be right, which always
maintained that the Gospels were historical books. Sui generis, rewritten, but
they are.
4) can you describe us in a few words the main part of your study about jesus
historical existance and his relation with julius ceasar?
First of all we have macroscopical similarities: Christianity spread across the
colonies founded by Caesar—or his adopted son Octavianus—within the borders of the
Empire defined by them, and used from the very beginning the Julian calendar.
Jesus was born exactly 100 years after Caesar. So we have the same geo-
chronological frame—with a smooth shift of one century.
Both figures are symmetrically complementary: Julius Caesar, son of Venus and
founder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of imperial God, Divus
Julius, after his violent death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as
Christianity surfaced. A cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator
of Christianity appeared during the second century. Early historians, however,
never mentioned Jesus and even now there is no actual proof of his existence. On
the one hand, an actual historical figure missing his cult, on the other, a cult
missing its actual historical figure: intriguing mirror images.
Then it is to notice that both curricula vitae, that of Caesar—from the Rubicon to
his assassination—and that of Jesus—from the Jordan to his crucifixion—run
parallel:
Both Caesar and Jesus start their rising careers in neighboring states in the
north: Gallia and Galilee.
Both have to cross a fateful river: the Rubicon and the Jordan. Once across the
rivers, they both come across a patron/rival: Pompeius and John the Baptist, and
their first followers: Antonius and Curio on the one hand and Peter and Andrew on
the other.
Both are continually on the move, finally arriving at the capital, Rome and
Jerusalem, where they at first triumph, yet subsequently undergo their passion.
Both have good relationships with women and have a special relationship with one
particular woman, Caesar with Cleopatra and Jesus with Magdalene.
Both have encounters at night, Caesar with Nicomedes, Jesus with Nicodemus.
Both of them are great orators and of the highest nobility, descendant of Aeneas
and son of David, yet nevertheless both are self-made men. Both struggle hard and
ultimately triumph, hence each has a ‘triumphal entry’: Caesar on horseback and
Jesus on a donkey.
Both have an affinity to ordinary people—and both run afoul of the highest
authorities: Caesar with the Senate, Jesus with the Sanhedrin.
Both are contentious characters, but show praiseworthy clemency as well: the
clementia Caesaris and Jesus’ Love-thy-enemy.
Both have a traitor: Brutus and Judas. And an assassin who at first gets away: the
other Brutus and Barabbas. And one who washes his hands of it: Lepidus and Pilate.
Both are accused of making themselves kings: King of the Romans and King of the
Jews. Both are dressed in red royal robes and wear a crown on their heads: a
laurel wreath and a crown of thorns.
Both get killed: Caesar is stabbed with daggers, Jesus is crucified, but
with a stab wound in his side.
Both die on the same respective dates of the year: Caesar on the Ides (15th) of
March, Jesus on the 15th of Nisan.
Both are deified posthumously: as Divus Iulius and as Jesus Christ.
Both leave behind priests: Marcus Antonius and Peter. Both have a posthumous heir:
Gaius Octavianus adopted by Caesar’s Last Will and Testament and John the disciple
whom Jesus adopts while on the cross (‘Woman, behold thy son!’).
Now, there is one thing that stands out as being strikingly incongruous: Caesar
was a commander, while Jesus was a thaumaturge.
However, in his funeral oration for Caesar, Antonius depicted all of Caesar’s many
great achievements as miracles. These miracles of Caesar included the survival of
a storm at sea and even the raising of the dead: for the people took it to be a
miracle that Caesar brought the honors of Marius ‘back from Hades into the city’
after many long years of Sulla’s dictatorship.
In turn, some of Jesus’ miracles concern the banishing of demons, which indeed
represents the absolute, theological form of warfare.
The picture we usually have in mind is of Caesar waging merciless war, in stark
contrast with Jesus preaching of love and bringing the Kingdom of God, which we
assume to be one of peace, love and unity. This is in spite of the well-known
passage:
‘Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a
sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter
against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s
foes shall be they of his own household’.
And Jesus continues by praising those who take his people in and give them
victuals. Clearly, these are civil war conditions. Thus Jesus brings about the
Kingdom of God explicitly through civil war—even if he did not desire to use such
means—exactly as Caesar himself did.
In turn, the clementia Caesaris is scarcely mentioned, if it is not completely
ignored, even though Caesar meant it to be an important political statement:
‘Let this be the new policy of victory that we arm ourselves with mercifulness and
liberality.’
This political program of love-your-enemies was carried out so consistently, that
he perished—like Jesus.
Even the limitations to their clementia are the same: Caesar forgave all his
enemies—except the repeat offenders who mocked his clementia;52 Jesus forgave all
sinners—except those who sinned against the Holy Spirit.
Thus the main features of the picture seem to fit.

Further it is striking that the names of people and places hardly differentiate in
either report: Gallia and Galilaea, Corfinium and Cafarnaum, Bithynia and
Bethania, Junius and Judas, Mària and Marìa, Nicomedes and Nicodemus, Pontifex
Lepidus and Pontius Pilatus, etc. In addition, other names, dissimilar to each
other, seems to be translations: the Caecilii as the blind, the Claudii as the
lame, Metellus as mutilated, the man with a withered hand. And those conquered by
Caesar are found again, as those healed by Jesus. And those besieged by Caesar are
possessed in the Jesus story—whereby it is to notice that ‘besieged’ and
‘possessed’ are both ‘obsessus’ in Latin. Even the respective figures close to
them correspond with each other. For example, Caesar’s precursor and opponent, the
great Pompeius, was beheaded and his head presented in a dish, and the very same
thing happens to John the Baptist.
There are differences to be ascertained. Both were murdered; Caesar, however, was
stabbed while Jesus was crucified—but with a stab wound in his side. A Cassius
Longinus gave Caesar the deadly stab with a dagger, while Jesus was stabbed with a
lance on the cross—but also by a Longinus! (This Longinus became a saint, and his
feast day is on March 15—the same date as the ides of March, on which Caesar was
murdered by the homonymous Longinus). Caesar’s corpse was burned unlike Jesus’,
but it was shown to the people as a wax figure hanging on a cross-shaped tropaeum.
And cremo in Latin means ‘to cremate’, but the similar sounding Greek word kremô
means ‘to hang’, ‘to crucify’.
So, in the history of Caesar and Jesus, people and places have the same names. But
even more important is the fact that these names appear in the same order. And
this also applies to famous citations. Often verbatim:
Caesar: ‘Who is not on any side, is on my side.’ Jesus: ‘Who is not against us, he
is for us.’
Caesar: ‘I am not King, I am Caesar.’ About Jesus: ‘We have no king but Caesar.’
Caesar: ‘The best death is a sudden death.’ Jesus: ‘What you will do (i. e. lead
me to death) do quickly.’
Caesar: ‘Oh, have I saved them, that they may destroy me?’ About Jesus: ‘He saved
others, himself he cannot save.’
Sometimes with a small, discreet shift of meaning:
Caesar: ‘Alea iacta esto—Cast the die.’ Jesus: ‘Cast out, fisher’ whereby the
Greek word ‘(h)aleeis’, fisher, instead of the Latin word ‘alea’, die, is used.
Caesar: ‘Veni vidi vici—I came, I saw, I conquered.’ And in the Jesus story the
blind man, who has been healed, says: ‘I came, washed and saw,’ whereby ‘enipsa’,
I washed, replaces ‘enikisa’, I conquered.
In addition it turns out that contradictions in the Gospels become understandable
if they are traced back to the Caesar sources. The Galilean ‘Sea’ for example,
which is made up of fresh water and is thus not a ‘sea’, is named correctly
however, because it is originally the ‘Gallic Sea’, a part of the Adriatic.
Finally, all the symbols of Christianity are anticipated in the cult of Divus
Iulius, the posthumously deified Caesar: the titles (God, Son of God, the
Almighty, the Merciful, the Savior or Redeemer, etc.); the Mother of God; the
cross in all its variations; the crucified one; the face on the Pietà; the crown
of thorns; the long hair; the beard, the loincloth; the rod; the halo; the star of
Bethlehem; the resurrection; the ascension, etc.
Thus, recognizing they were actually one and the same story became unavoidable. in
other words: Jesus proves to be Divus Iulius, the deified Caesar, passed down in
tradition.
This discovery is not completely new. In the 50’s the German theologian Ethelbert
Stauffer noted that the Easter liturgy did not follow the Gospel narrative, but
the funeral ritual of Caesar. Unfortunately, only his early work ‘Christ and the
Caesars’ was translated into English, not his later ‘Jerusalem and Rome’ which
stated things more clearly. What is new is the proof presented in our study that
the entire Gospel is a mutated history of the Roman Civil War, from the Rubicon to
the assassination and burial of Caesar, i. e. from the Jordan to the ‘capture’ and
the ‘crucifixion’ of Jesus. The basis of the Marcan Gospel is to be looked for in
the Historiae of Asinius Pollio. His Historiae are lost to us, but were used by
Appianus and Plutarchus, sometimes copied word for word, allowing for a comparison
with the Gospel of Mark.

5) what was the romans reasoning for creating christianity ? in what purpose did
suit them? why christianity was hunted by the jews?
Christianity was not created by the "Romans", but by the people, who wanted the
murdered Caesar deified, who were persuaded that he was risen to the Gods. The
consecration of Divus Julius, (Θεός Ιούλιος), the founding act of what had to
become Christianity, was the posthumous victory of Julius Caesar, together with
his successors: the people, especially the women, the veterans – and the
triumvirs. They were populares, democrats, and had to fight a war against the
optimates, the aristocrats, in order to obtain a more righteous order, to give the
land to the veterans, the poor, and not let it in the hands of the latifundium-
owners, the rich. It was also a fight for giving the Roman citizenship to Non-
Roman populations, which begun in Numantia, continued with the social war, and
conducted to victory with the civil wars. An old, grimly fight, with a long chain
of martyrs: the Gracchi, Drusus, Saturninus, Marius, Gratidianus, Publius Clodius,
Caesar ...
Like the populares, Christianity was always opposed from two sides: by the Roman
aristocracy, who wanted to preserve their privileges against the poor, the
veterans and the new Romans, and by the nationalists of different populations, who
wanted to preserve their independence (i.e. to oppress other nations, who then
regularly called on Rome for help). Both, the Roman aristocracy and the different
nationalists called that their liberty – which has a very beautiful name, but
often results in oppression of the weak. Caesar was the savior and the redeemer of
all the oppressed, the Romans and the would-be Romans. That's why he had to fight
the Gallic War against the gallic nationalists, and the Civil War against Roman
aristocracy. The Jews acted the same way as the Gauls and almost all other
populations, partly wanting to become Roman, partly rebelling; but this was later
under the Flavii. At the time of Pompeius the Jews were divided in a succession
war between two brothers and pretendents; in the civil war, most of the Jews were
on the side of Pompeius, but some also on that of Caesar. Later Caesar gave the
command over Palestina to an Idumean, who had been more loyal during the
Alexandrian war, to Antipatros, the father of Herodes. This did not compromise his
relation to the Jews, who, as Caesar was killed, came flocking to the Forum and
lamented for several nights in succession. During the first Jewish war, the Jews
were partly rebelling, but partly on the side of the Romans, following King
Agrippa, a descendent of Herodes, allied to Vespasianus. Josephus, who was first
on the side of the rebels, changed parts, went over to Vespasianus and became
Flavius Josephus, the famous Jewish-Roman historian who wrote Greek: We suppose
that he was the historical Apostle Paul, who also first persecuted the Christians
and then converted from Saul to Paul. Under Hadrian, Bar Kochba seems to have
persecuted the Christians because they were on the side of the Romans, who
supported the oppressed gentile part of the population of Palestina.

6) in his development christianity had changed a lot , mainly by the additions in

its holly texts. had these changes done from the same centres that inspired
christianity? and what happened with the heretics? how and why the first of them
were created?
The changes were mostly a result of the adaptation to a new situation, and to new
dynasties. The decisive factor were always the reasons of State. Our Gospels were
written, i.e. re-written, between 70 and 100, under the Flavii, as this new Roman
dynasty, risen in Galilee, needed a Galilean Jesus, and no longer a Gallian one,
like the Iulii, who had risen in Gaul.

7) the gospels -hidden or not- are the only sources that exist about the life of
jesus. when these had been written by the historians? does the scientific
community rates them a reliable historical sourse?
Yes, they are mutatis mutandis a reliable historical source. But we have to take
in account that they were rewritten, i.e. transposed, delocalized and adapted.

8) what is the role of hellas in the expansion of christianity? do you keep in

touch with authors from our country? in recent years in hellas we have
developments around this issue that we are discussing right now since there is a
growing dispute that creates a lot of debates. it is the glorious ancient past
that comes into the picture again too.
Hellas played a very important role. Rome in general and Caesar in particular can
be considered late hellenistic. Caesar studied in Rhodos, spoke Greek with his
officers and surely with Cleopatra, with whom he had a son, with the double
programmatic name Ptolemaios Kaisarion. He protected the Artemis of Ephesus, re-
founded Corinth, and his last words to Brutus were spoken in Greek: Kai su,
teknon? He wept before the statue of Alexander, who had conquered the world at an
age where he had performed nothing yet, and, like Alexander was elevated to the
gods as Amon-Zeus, he became also a God: Divus Iulius.
The Roman empire was always bilingual. The first Roman historians, e.g. Fabius
Pictor, wrote in Greek, Polybios and Plutarch were Greeks, but Romans as well.
Rome is not to be understood as opposed to Hellas, like Latium or Italy are. Rome
was in Latium, in Italy, but Rome was a multinational construction from the very
beginning, with Etruscan, Latin, Sabine, Greek (first from south Italy = Magna
Graecia), Pelasgian components, and the Roman empire incorporated later more and
more people, Hispanians, Lusitanians, Gauls, Germans, Britannians, etc. in the
west, and the heritage of Alexander's empire in the east. In order to understand
it, we have to figure that the Roman Empire was like the European Union today.
Europe is not in opposition to the nations which are part of it: one is Greek and
European, another Belgian and European, etc. The same was Rome. Everybody belonged
to his nation and was Roman too: Greek and Roman, Gaul and Roman, Hispanian and
Roman, Italian and Roman, Egyptian and Roman, Syrian and Roman, etc. Nationality:
Greek; citizenship: Roman.
(As for the other question: I keep in touch with several authors, also from your
country, but I do not use to make public the names of my academic contact persons,
for discretion. The sole exceptions are those who have expressed their opinion
publicly – see the blurbs: http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html )

9) under the arguments that i explained to you before, there is a great dispute
about the relation of east roman empire with hellenism, and if exists any. what
believes a historian that has studied profoundly the origins of what can be
described as the founding core of this empire, that is christianity?
Four centuries after Caesar, Constantine moved the capital from Rome to
Constantinople, the Second Rome, and the Byzantines called themselves 'Rhômaioi',
i.e. Romans. The Orthodox Church is the Greek part of the Roman Church, like the
Catholic Church is the Latin part of the same Roman Church. Their separation, the
schism, was the consequence of the division of the Roman empire. Those Churches
are the form in which both parts of the Roman empire have survived its fall. There
is of course a relation between the east Roman empire with Hellenism, mediated
through Rome, which can be considered a late hellenistic empire, particularly in
its oriental part (v.s.).
10) Please tell us your predictions about the future of christianity in the world
scene having in mind the globalization process and the action of fundamentalist
christian denominations in the other antlantic.
Without a historical Jesus, Christianity will become a religion among others,
menaced by secession, atheism and sects. Possibly we will have to fear a
resurgence of Christian fundamentalism as a counter-altar to the Islamic one, a
clash of religions accompanying the clash of civilisations. Knowing the historical
Jesus, i.e. Caesar, by recognizing Him, the cult of Divus Julius could become the
common denominator of all world religions – which it was in fact from the very
beginning –, help to surmount the divisions and liberate the oppressed. Could.

11) at the end we would like to send a message in the audience of metafysiko.gr
No message, please. Our motive was – and is – only the curiosity of a researcher.
If you want at all costs a message, then only this one:
We should cultivate our little garden, i.e. the desire to know everything and to
believe nothing.
Nevertheless, if we know the true history under the historically grown palimpsest,
then we may learn from history, and not be damned to repeat the errors of the
past. Three exemples:
– Knowing that the Holy Land was invented by Constantine – and not by Caesar, i.e.
Jesus – what sense do Crusades make, undertaken to liberate a Holy Grave that was
never in Jerusalem?
– At the beginning of his crusade against the ‘terrorism’ of the Islamic
fundamentalists, US President Bush issued the slogan: You’re either with us or
with the terrorists. He did it as a good Christian, believing they were the words
of the Lord. After all, they were written in Mt 12:30 and Lk 11:23: He that is not
with me is against me. By tracing them back to the Caesar sources, we were able to
prove that those words were spoken by Pompeius, alias John the Baptist, and that
in contrast, Jesus—that is to say Caesar—had actually said the exact opposite,
namely: For he that is not against us is on our part (Mk 9:40; Lk 9:50). Had the
President known this, he might have thought twice about adopting the slogan of a
loser, one that makes those who are neutral your enemies and thus leads to
isolation. He himself, his country, his allies, and not least the world, could
have been spared a painful experience.
– Today, as was once, there is talk of religious wars in which we are entangled,
and of religious liberty which should be granted to everyone as his private,
inalienable right. With Caesar, however, religio hardly means ‘religion’ in our
sense, but either ‘superstition’ or else—and more frequently—‘oath of allegiance’.
Are we sure that we should open the floodgates to superstition? And are we sure
that an oath of allegiance is a private matter that is none of our business?