Crosswords30 mins ago
Jesus the son of Caesar and Cleopatra?
31 Answers
I've only come across this theory and was wondering could there be any truth to it. I've always sort of believed that Mary, the mother of Jesus was the daughter of a very wealthy family and the virgin birth story was concocted so as not to bring shame upon the family. However, this theory could also be valid as I also believe history has been created by the powerful rulers of the past, created as they wished it to be told. Has anyone else ever come across this theory and do you think there could be any truth in it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Most historians place the birth of Jesus around 4BC, which is 40 years after the death of Julius Caesar.
Cleopatra certainly wasn't trying to hide the birth of a child fathered by Caesar. She always claimed that he fathered her son Ptolemy Caesarion (who was born in 47BC), but Julius Caesar refused to recognise the boy as his son and heir.
Chris
Cleopatra certainly wasn't trying to hide the birth of a child fathered by Caesar. She always claimed that he fathered her son Ptolemy Caesarion (who was born in 47BC), but Julius Caesar refused to recognise the boy as his son and heir.
Chris
The stark truth is that we can know nothing about the birth of Jesus (if he existed). The two nativity stories are mutually contradictory and were written almost a century after the supposed event by unknown people who weren't there and who had no previous writings to go on. And how anyone could have known, at such remove, anything about the state of Mary's hymen before the birth is an unfathomable mystery.
Which means, of course, that any fantasy about Jesus' origins is as good as any other. I think he was the result of an adulterous affair between Pilate's wife, Procula, and the palace chef, who seduced her with chocolate eclairs. This is why she tried to stop her husband from 'trying' Jesus. Or maybe...
Which means, of course, that any fantasy about Jesus' origins is as good as any other. I think he was the result of an adulterous affair between Pilate's wife, Procula, and the palace chef, who seduced her with chocolate eclairs. This is why she tried to stop her husband from 'trying' Jesus. Or maybe...
its not about that speficially. presume you are referring to a book that claims jesus was royal blood descent, believed to be the 'great grandson' of cleopatra 7, hence why he was visited by the magi bah de blah de blah ?
this is the story of princess scota and prince gaythelos who were exiled from egypt. the claim that jesus was the last of the pharoahs is not new.
i suppose it is no more implausible than the biblical version of events.
this is the story of princess scota and prince gaythelos who were exiled from egypt. the claim that jesus was the last of the pharoahs is not new.
i suppose it is no more implausible than the biblical version of events.
-- answer removed --
Although I believe Robert Graves' basic theory is right, I think he’s reached his conclusion by a rather fanciful and complex route. However, there is simpler theory that promulgates the idea that Jesus was a direct descendent (through Joseph) of the House of David (the true royal bloodline). If that is correct, then he was, indeed, the rightful king of the Jews, and as such, a threat not only to Herod, a king elected by the Romans, but to the Romans themselves. If we assume the New Testament, the only record we have, contains something of the history of the area and the times (which I do) this makes perfect sense. It would account for the Slaughter of the Innocents, and for the flight into Egypt. It would also explain the charge the Romans levelled against Jesus, and the sign they pinned to the cross. Many believe that Jesus was executed for blasphemy, but since the Romans worshipped multiple gods, they did not acknowledge blasphemy as a crime, and crucified Jesus on a charge of insurrection. In other words, they saw him as a trouble-maker. If Jesus was indeed the rightful heir to the throne, then that information had the potential of causing even more unrest in an already volatile area, and consequently major political difficulties for the Romans, so perhaps this is why there are no official records of the trial or the crucifixion - and no official documentation confirming that Jesus ever lived.
Of course, the story has since been manipulated in a direct attempt to demonise the Jews - and it worked. Spin is nothing new! (Incidentally, I don't believe Jesus died on the cross - I think he was rescued).
Of course, the story has since been manipulated in a direct attempt to demonise the Jews - and it worked. Spin is nothing new! (Incidentally, I don't believe Jesus died on the cross - I think he was rescued).
Naomi, are you saying that you believe Jesus was rescued and disappeared before his execution could be carried out and then his side got the story out that he actually was executed but rose from the dead? Surely this story would not have been allowed to develop as it has obvious connotations to Jesus' claims.
the herod of the jesus story wasn't a king elected by romans. his dad was.
herod antipas was a tetrarch, ruler of aquarter, along with his brothers, following the break up of their dads kingdom.
he would have been more concerned about his brothers' claims than one peasant jew usurper i would have thought. getting his minions to bump jesus off in a dark alley without the grand parade would have been easy in those times, especially if this jew was trying to make a claim on his territory.
herod antipas was a tetrarch, ruler of aquarter, along with his brothers, following the break up of their dads kingdom.
he would have been more concerned about his brothers' claims than one peasant jew usurper i would have thought. getting his minions to bump jesus off in a dark alley without the grand parade would have been easy in those times, especially if this jew was trying to make a claim on his territory.
flobadob, no, I'm saying that when he was taken from the cross, he wasn't dead. Death by crucifixion is a very long and painful process lasting several days - but Jesus apparently died within a few hours. When Pilate was told Jesus was dead, even he expressed his astonishment.
As for Jesus' claims, it wasn't he who made the claims - it was others.
Ankou, Herod the Great, the king elected by the Romans, slaughtered the innocents. When he died in 4BC, his kingdom was split up, and in that particular area, he was suceeded by his son, Herod Antipas, who was prominent in the remainder of the Jesus story.
As for Jesus' claims, it wasn't he who made the claims - it was others.
Ankou, Herod the Great, the king elected by the Romans, slaughtered the innocents. When he died in 4BC, his kingdom was split up, and in that particular area, he was suceeded by his son, Herod Antipas, who was prominent in the remainder of the Jesus story.
Ankou, No need to thank me. I didn't repeat what you said. Whilst I agreed with you that upon the death of Herod the Great, his kingdom was divided up, I disagreed with you that his son was the sole King Herod mentioned in the story. He wasn't.
This is what you said:
//the herod of the jesus story wasn't a king elected by romans. his dad was.//
That isn't accurate. Had Jesus been the true heir, then initially it would have been the throne of Herod the Great (the one elected by the Romans, or the dad, if you like) that would have been under threat - which is why he ordered the Slaughter of the Innocents - and Jesus would have remained a threat to the throne of Herod Antipas too.
Incidentally, according to most scholars Herod the Great didn't die 'several years before Jesus was apparently born'. Jesus is thought to have been born some time between 6BC and 4BC.
This is what you said:
//the herod of the jesus story wasn't a king elected by romans. his dad was.//
That isn't accurate. Had Jesus been the true heir, then initially it would have been the throne of Herod the Great (the one elected by the Romans, or the dad, if you like) that would have been under threat - which is why he ordered the Slaughter of the Innocents - and Jesus would have remained a threat to the throne of Herod Antipas too.
Incidentally, according to most scholars Herod the Great didn't die 'several years before Jesus was apparently born'. Jesus is thought to have been born some time between 6BC and 4BC.
the slaughter of the babies of bethlehem was so small in comparison with his other crimes that it is not even mentioned by josephus. he left a very detailed record of king herods life, exalting his triumphs and not hiding his failures. but missed that bit little bit out.
king herod lets not forget had to flee his kingdom in fear after his own summons to the sanhedrin and when his only friend and patron julius caesar was killed. it waas mark anthony who assumed rule and eventually, thanks to some hefty wedge ina brown envelope allowed herod to be the buffer against the parthians.
herod was always in fear of being murdered by his fellow romans, we all know justhow many of his closest friends, relations and wives he had tortured and executed or simply ‘removed’ from the world. crikey towards the end of his life the man was clinically insane.
similarly his son antipas had his whole life mired by plots and paranoia. he had far more problems with his subjects, herodias, pilate, and calligula in the end he was accused of conspiracy against the romans and banished to spain, so thoughts of being dethroned by a middle aged jewish rebel would have been quite isignificant.
ok, presume ‘most scholars’ means all then that believe in it all anyway. "most scholars” believe that 9 bc., 8 bc., and 1 bc. are all the possible years for the death of herod the great so neither of us are right or wrong.
after all is said and done, we are debatin written history against a fabled account and pluggin the gaps with imagination. ps, i’m not keyplus, but if you want to go on and on and roundabout in the usual fashion, feel free. this is my last word.
king herod lets not forget had to flee his kingdom in fear after his own summons to the sanhedrin and when his only friend and patron julius caesar was killed. it waas mark anthony who assumed rule and eventually, thanks to some hefty wedge ina brown envelope allowed herod to be the buffer against the parthians.
herod was always in fear of being murdered by his fellow romans, we all know justhow many of his closest friends, relations and wives he had tortured and executed or simply ‘removed’ from the world. crikey towards the end of his life the man was clinically insane.
similarly his son antipas had his whole life mired by plots and paranoia. he had far more problems with his subjects, herodias, pilate, and calligula in the end he was accused of conspiracy against the romans and banished to spain, so thoughts of being dethroned by a middle aged jewish rebel would have been quite isignificant.
ok, presume ‘most scholars’ means all then that believe in it all anyway. "most scholars” believe that 9 bc., 8 bc., and 1 bc. are all the possible years for the death of herod the great so neither of us are right or wrong.
after all is said and done, we are debatin written history against a fabled account and pluggin the gaps with imagination. ps, i’m not keyplus, but if you want to go on and on and roundabout in the usual fashion, feel free. this is my last word.
the slaughter of the babies of bethlehem was so small in comparison with his other crimes that it is not even mentioned by josephus.
Specifically which crime did he commit more worthy of mention than the supposed murder of every first born male?
I find it incredible that such a crime would slip Josephus' mention
Specifically which crime did he commit more worthy of mention than the supposed murder of every first born male?
I find it incredible that such a crime would slip Josephus' mention
for you jake. it certainly sounds like something herod would have enjoyed doing, and certainly we could surmise from josephus writings that he hated the man, so strange not to mention this episode no ?
perhaps this episode is a myth, or just the practice of repeition in prophey to give it a more etheral meaning. pehaps matthew just copied the story from exodus 1 when it was the hebrews and the pharaoh and made it relevant to the jesus story ? i think the word is midrash. you couldn't make it up. doh !
perhaps this episode is a myth, or just the practice of repeition in prophey to give it a more etheral meaning. pehaps matthew just copied the story from exodus 1 when it was the hebrews and the pharaoh and made it relevant to the jesus story ? i think the word is midrash. you couldn't make it up. doh !
We have rehearsed before the many reasons why Jesus is unlikely to have been dead after such a short time on the cross. That is, of course, if you believe the gospels anyway.
But naomi, you are unwise to consider the New Testament as any record of the history of the times, especially in the period we're tallking about.
Firstly, the census set up by Quirinius (Cyrenius) applied only to Judaea, not to Nazareth in Galilee where (according to Luke) Joseph then lived. Secondly, the idea that people had to travel to their ancestral home is comically silly: the whole idea of the census was to tell the Romans how many men lived and worked in each town so as to able to assess what taxes were due from there. The idea of everyone criss-crossing the desert to go somewhere else is farcical. Thirdly, women did not count, so Joseph would not have needed to put his highly pregnant partner on a mule or whatever to travel 80 miles.
As for Matthew (which, of course, has them living in Bethlehem from the beginning and no census is mentioned) any slaughter of a whole generation of male babies would certainly have been noticed by historians if only because of the demographic effects for years afterwards.
It's all fantasy, not history. Lovely story, though, and I'll be singing beautiful carols with the best of tem.
But naomi, you are unwise to consider the New Testament as any record of the history of the times, especially in the period we're tallking about.
Firstly, the census set up by Quirinius (Cyrenius) applied only to Judaea, not to Nazareth in Galilee where (according to Luke) Joseph then lived. Secondly, the idea that people had to travel to their ancestral home is comically silly: the whole idea of the census was to tell the Romans how many men lived and worked in each town so as to able to assess what taxes were due from there. The idea of everyone criss-crossing the desert to go somewhere else is farcical. Thirdly, women did not count, so Joseph would not have needed to put his highly pregnant partner on a mule or whatever to travel 80 miles.
As for Matthew (which, of course, has them living in Bethlehem from the beginning and no census is mentioned) any slaughter of a whole generation of male babies would certainly have been noticed by historians if only because of the demographic effects for years afterwards.
It's all fantasy, not history. Lovely story, though, and I'll be singing beautiful carols with the best of tem.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.