Part One:
King Romulus
by
Damien F. Mackey
“The tempest being over and the light breaking out, when the people
gathered again, they missed and inquired for their king; the senators suffered
them not to search, or busy themselves about the matter, but commanded them to
honour and worship Romulus as one taken up to the gods, and about to be to
them, in the place of a good prince, now a propitious god”.
Plutarch: Parallel Lives.
Hugh J.
Schonfield (d. 1988) is well known for his controversial book about Jesus,
entitled The
Passover Plot, which he
wrote in 1965.
According to the
author, Jesus, desirous of saving his people, actually - and one must think,
somewhat incredibly - orchestrated, as far as he could, his own manner of
death, so as to accord with the ancient Messianic prophecies. “…the Crucifixion was part of a larger, conscious attempt by Jesus to fulfill the Messianic
expectations rampant in his time, and that the plan went unexpectedly wrong”.
I recently read Schonfield’s follow-up book to The Passover Plot, which, written in
1981, he had entitled After the Cross.
On pp. 115-117 of this book the author introduced the Greek historian
Plutarch’s piece about King Romulus, supposed first king of Rome, beginning
with:
Very few Christians would seem to be aware,
however, of the strong similarity that exists between the image of the death
and resurrection of Jesus and that of Romulus, the eponymous founder of Rome.
The latter is set down in Plutarch’s Parallel
Lives. Plutarch was born in the
reign of the Emperor Claudius (41-54 A.D.) and was a contemporary of the
authors of the Gospels. The relevant passage is quoted in full from an old
English translation, which gives the flavor of the Authorized Version of the
Bible.
Before quoting
this passage (and I shall be using instead John Dryden’s translation), I should
like to preface it by recalling, once again, that Greco-Roman mythology and pseudo-history
is replete with appropriations and distortions of the original Hebrew biblical tales.
I have written articles on this subject, including the Greek appropriation of
King Solomon as Solon.
Solomon and Sheba
Anyway, here is
the passage by Plutarch (http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html):
… whereas Romulus, when he
vanished, left neither the least part of his body, nor any
remnant of his clothes to be seen. So that some fancied the
senators, having fallen upon him in the temple of Vulcan, cut
his body into pieces, and took each a part away in his bosom;
others think his disappearance was neither in the temple of
Vulcan, nor with the senators only by, but that it came to pass that, as he was haranguing the people without the city, near a place
called the Goat's Marsh,
[Comment: “… without the
city” is appropriate, as is Goat. Recall the goat for sin offering]
on a sudden strange and
unaccountable disorders and alterations took place in the air;
the face of the sun was darkened, and the day turned into
night, and that, too, no quiet, peaceable night, but with terrible thunderings,
and boisterous winds from all quarters; during which the common people
dispersed and fled, but the senators [read Sanhedrin?] kept close together. The
tempest being over and the light breaking out, when the people
gathered again, they missed and inquired for their king; the
senators suffered them not to search, or busy themselves about
the matter, but commanded them to honour and worship Romulus as
one taken up to the gods, and about to be to them, in the place
of a good prince, now a propitious god. The multitude, hearing this,
went away believing and rejoicing in hopes of good things from him; but there were some, who, canvassing the matter in a hostile
temper, accused and aspersed the patricians, as men that
persuaded the people to believe ridiculous tales, when they
themselves were the murderers of the king.
[Comment: Wife of Pontius
Pilate was Claudia Procula].
by name, presented himself in
the forum; and, taking a most sacred oath, protested before
them all, that, as he was travelling on the road, he had seen
Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and comelier than ever, dressed
in shining and flaming armour; and he, being affrighted at the apparition,
said, "Why, O king, or for what purpose have you abandoned us
to unjust and wicked surmises, and the whole city to bereavement and endless sorrow?" and that he made answer, "It pleased
the gods, O Proculus, that we, who came from them, should
remain so long a time amongst men as we did; and, having built
a city to be the greatest in the world for empire and glory,
should again return to heaven. But farewell; and tell the Romans, that,
by the exercise of temperance and fortitude, they shall attain the height
of human power; we will be to you the propitious god Quirinus." This seemed credible to the Romans, upon the honesty and oath of
the relater, and indeed, too, there mingled with it a certain
divine passion, some preternatural influence similar to
possession by a divinity; nobody contradicted it, but, laying
aside all jealousies and detractions, they prayed to Quirinus and
saluted him as a god.
Part One (b):
Romulus, Remus and
Old Testament
“The modern [sic] connection of Romulus and Remus would be the story of
Cain and Abel. Remus is like Cain because they are the jealous brothers, and
Abel is like Romulus because they are the good brothers. In the story of Cain
and Abel, Cain killed [Abel] because he was jealous that God favored Abel’s
offering more than Cain’s. But with Romulus and Remus, Remus was jealous of
Romulus’s wall around the hill, so they argued and Romulus killed Remus. Both
stories have a sibling rivalry and in the end, both stories have one brother
killing the other. Also in both stories, jealousy is involved, but both for
different reasons”.
Introduction
Like so many of
the Greco-Roman myths - even the so-called history of ancient philosophy - the
well-known characters were distorted, garbled versions of originally Egyptian,
Hebrew and Near Eastern persons. These being cultures and civilisations far
older than those of the Greeks and the Romans. Thus, for instance, in typical
Greek fashion, a Hebrew prophet will be re-presented as a philosopher. See e.g. my:
'Socrates' as a Prophet
We saw in Part One of this present series that
the absolutely unique accounts in the Gospels of the Death and Resurrection of
Jesus Christ were picked up (albeit messily) in the writings of the
approximately contemporary Greek biographer and essayist, Plutarch, and applied
to the legendary first king of Rome, Romulus.
In Part Three of ‘Socrates’ above, the
renowned, so-called Greek philosopher, it is argued, had no actual historical
reality qua Socrates, but, rather, was
a biblical composite. To consider just one of his biblical ‘manifestations’, Socrates,
who is so often likened to Jesus Christ, will be found in Plato’s Meno doing what Jesus in fact did: writing
on the ground (John 8:6, 8).
But what will
Socrates write? Not something ethical.
In typically
Greek fashion he will draw geometric figures in the ground.
The mythological
Romulus and Remus, too, are biblical composites. They are commonly compared
with Cain and Abel, and also with Moses. And one could no doubt find other
biblical manifestations of them as well (see e.g. previous comparisons with
Jesus Christ and Romulus).
Like Cain and Abel
Romulus and
Remus were twin brothers and their mother was princess Rhea Silvia.
So, apparently,
were Eve’s sons, Cain and Abel, twins.
Their Births
It is a well-known fact that Jacob and Esau were
twins, but what is not commonly known is that Cain and Abel were also twins. In
the normal Hebraic accounting of multiple births the conception then birth of
each child is mentioned such as we can see in Genesis 29:32-33 where it states
that Leah conceived and bore a son, and then she conceived again and bore a
son. Note that there are two conceptions and two births. But notice how it is
worded in Genesis 4:1-2.
Now Adam
knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain; And again, she bore his
brother Abel. (RSV)
|
Notice that there is only one
conception, but two births. The Hebrew word for "again" is asaph,
meaning to add something, in this case the birthing of Abel was added to the
birthing of Cain. Cain and Abel were twins.
And, further (https://sites.google.com/site/creationmythofromulsuandremus/):
The
modern [sic] connection of Romulus and Remus would be the story of Cain and
Abel. Remus is like Cain because they are the jealous brothers, and Abel is
like Romulus because they are the good brothers. In the story of Cain and Abel,
Cain killed [Abel] because he was jealous that God favored Abel’s offering more
than Cain’s. But with Romulus and Remus, Remus was jealous of Romulus’s wall
around the hill, so they argued and Romulus killed Remus. Both stories have a
sibling rivalry and in the end, both stories have one brother killing the
other. Also in both stories, jealousy is involved, but both for different
reasons. Both stories are involved with marks. Cain is marked so everyone knows
he killed his brother, Abel. But in the Roman myth, Romulus marks Rome by
naming it after himself.
The tradition of
twins as the progenitors of tribal units or city builders is very well
documented in Semitic and Indo-European cultures. When birth order is
specified, the younger twin always receives the blessing over the first born
brother. In the account of the sons of Adam, the first born twin is envious of
the second and commits fratricide. There are many variations on this theme in
other twin genesis accounts. Jacob is fearful that Esau will kill him, Romulus
killed Remus and Gwyn and Gwythurin in Celtic tradition duel every May.
The Gemini twins, Castor and
Pollux, shared a mortal and an immortal existence. Castor was killed on a
cattle raid but Pollux persuaded Zeus to allow the brothers to switch places
periodically. The word Gemini comes from the PIE root *ym which means 'to
pair'. This word is very similar to the Hebrew im mimation suffix but, of
course, linguists say they are unrelated (sigh). ….
Parallels to Moses
Romulus and
Remus, abandoned on the bank of the Tiber river, were famously suckled by a
she-wolf.
From whence did
this pagan myth arise?
We well know the
Exodus (2:1-10) account of the birth of Moses and the forced abandonment of him
due to the decree of the cruel Pharaoh – how the baby Moses was placed in a
papyrus basket and set adrift on the river Nile (which the Romans inevitably
replaced with their Tiber). Long before the Romans, I suggest, the ancient Egyptians had corrupted the legend of
the baby Moses in the bulrushes so that now it became the goddess Isis who drew
the baby Horus from the Nile and had him suckled by Hathor (the goddess in the
form of a cow – the Egyptian personification of wisdom).
In the original story, of course, baby Moses was
drawn from the water by an Egyptian princess, not a goddess, and was weaned by
Moses’s own mother (Exodus 2:5-9).
Thus the story evolved from the original Hebrew
account, suckled by the mother, to
the Egyptian version, suckled by the
goddess in the form of a cow, to an entirely bestial suckler in the Roman
account, a she-wolf.
In the name Remus (also Cadmus), the mus element is suspiciously Moses like.
Part Two:
Apollonius of
Tyana
“Presenting further evidence that Philostratus's biography of
Apollonius is in many ways a replica of the life of Jesus, Cardinal Newman
writes: The favour in which Apollonius from a child was held by gods and men;
his conversations when a youth in the Temple of Aesculapius; his determination,
in spite of danger to go up to Rome; the cowardice of his disciples in
deserting him …”.
Introduction
The supposed C1st AD character,
Apollonius of Tyana, is such a Jesus-like figure in many ways that some
commentators would insist that the Gospels were based on the life of this
Apollonius. Whereas, as I am arguing in this series, the precedence ought to be
given to the Gospel version over the pagan one. And there are very good reasons,
again, for claiming this to be correct, given the vagueness surrounding the author
of the “Life of Apollonius”, the Greek sophist Philostratus, and that he wrote
about Apollonius much later than the Gospels, in the C3rd AD. I favour Fr. Jean
Carmignac’s compelling argument, as set out in his Birth of the Synoptics (1987), that the Synoptic Gospels were written by
eyewitnesses at a very early date.
Philostratus
As I have often remarked, one of the most
common phrases used by the conventional historians of ancient history is this
one, “… little is known about …”. And that fully applies to Philostratus, who
himself, I suspect, may not have been an actual historical character, but a ‘ghost’
based upon some previous person - perhaps upon one of the Evangelists. Thus we
read of Philostratus
Very little
is known of his career. Even his name is doubtful. The Lives of the Sophists
gives the praenomen Flavius, which, however, is found elsewhere only in
Tzetzes. Eunapius and Synesius call him a Lemnian; Photius a Tyrian; his
letters refer to him as an Athenian. It is probable that he was born in Lemnos,
studied and taught at Athens, and then settled in Rome ….
I rest my case.
But furthermore:
The Lives are not in the true sense biographical, but rather
picturesque impressions of leading representatives of an attitude of mind full
of curiosity, alert and versatile, but lacking scientific method, preferring
the external excellence of style and manner to the solid achievements of
serious writing. The philosopher, as he says, investigates truth; the sophist
embellishes it, and takes it for granted. ….
That appears to
be a very shaky historical foundation, indeed, upon which to raise a life story
of one who is considered by some to have been the exemplar for Jesus Christ
himself.
Apollonius of Tyana
Most commentators simply
presume the historicity of Philostratus when considering the Apollonius of
Tyana of whom he wrote.
Two such, who would regard
Apollonius as being modelled upon Jesus Christ, were F. Bauer and Cardinal
Newman http://www.mountainman.com.au/Apollonius_the_Nazarene_3.htm
Even as
late as 1832, [F.] Bauer attempted to show that not only were there
resemblances between the "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" and the
Gospels, but that Philostratus deliberately modeled his hero on the type set
forth by the Evangelists. He was followed in this view by Zeller, the
celebrated Greek historian.
Typical
of latter nineteenth century views on the subject is that of Cardinal Newman, a
Catholic apologist, who, admitting the identity of Apollonius and the Gospel
messiah, considers the former an imitation of the latter, in spite of the fact
that he preceded him by three centuries (For the Jesus of the Gospels was
evidently born in the year 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicea, rather than when
the star appeared over Bethlehem).
To
support his view, Newman mentions certain typical examples, such as
Apollonius's bringing to life a dead girl in Rome, which he considers as
"an attempt, and an elaborate, pretentious attempt, to outdo certain
narratives in the Gospels (Mark v. 29, Luke vii. John xi: 41-43, Acts iii:
4-6). This incident, is described by Philostratus.
Presenting
further evidence that Philostratus's biography of Apollonius is in many ways a
replica of the life of Jesus, Cardinal Newman writes: The favour in which
Apollonius from a child was held by gods and men; his conversations when a
youth in the Temple of Aesculapius; his determination, in spite of danger to go
up to Rome; the cowardice of his disciples in deserting him; the charge brought
against him of disaffection to Caesar; the Minister's acknowledging, on his
private examination, that he was more than man; the ignominious treatment of
him by Domitian on his second appearance at Rome; his imprisonment with
criminals; his vanishing from Court and sudden reappearance to his mourning
disciples at Puteoli--these, with other particulars of a similar cast, evidence
a history modelled after the narrative of the Evangelists. Expressions,
moreover, and descriptions occur, clearly imitated "from the sacred
volume."
Reville,
another Catholic apologist, thinks as does Newman that "the biography of
Apollonius is in great measure an imitation of the Gospel narrative.'*
(*Reville bases his argument on the similarity of the characters of Apollonius
and Pythagoras (which is natural in view of Apollonius following Pythagoras as
his example); and he seeks to prove that Apollonius, rather than Jesus, is a
fictitious creation, rather than an historical character. Reville writes:
"It is hard to say whether the Pythagoras of the Alexandrians is not an
Apollonius of an earlier date by some centuries, or whether the Apollonius of
Julia Domna, besides his resemblance to Christ, is not a Pythagoras endowed
with a second youth. The real truth of the matter will probably be found to lie
between the two suggestions."
[End of
quotes]
For my view that
Pythagoras was, for his part, based upon an ancient Hebrew sage, see e.g.:
Joseph of Egypt and Pythagoras
Philostratus’s
account of the life of Apollonius of Tyana is thought to have been written as
late as the 220’s/230’s AD, which is obviously later than the Gospels.
Wikipedia gives these:
Similarities
shared by the stories about Apollonius and the life of Jesus [23]
- Birth miraculously announced by God
- Religiously precocious as a child
- Asserted to be a native speaker of Aramaic
- Influenced by Plato/ reflected Platonism (Jesus)
- [Renounced/ denounced (Jesus)] wealth
- Followed abstinence and asceticism
- Wore long hair and robes
- Was unmarried and childless
- Was anointed with oil
- Went to Jerusalem
- Spoke in [metaphors/ parables] (Jesus)
- Saw and predicted the future
- Healed the sick
- Cast out evil spirits/ Drove out demons (Jesus)
- Raised the daughter of a [Roman official/ Jewish official (Jesus)] from the dead
- Spoke as a "law-giver"
- Was on a mission to bring [Greek culture/ Jewish culture (Jesus)] to [the "barbarians"/ the " nations" (Jesus)]
- Believed to be "saviors" from heaven
- Were accused of being a magician
- Were accused of killing a boy
- Condemned [by Roman emperor/ by Roman authorities (Jesus)]
- Imprisoned [at Rome/ at Jerusalem (Jesus)]
- Was assumed into heaven/ Ascended into heaven (Jesus)
- Appeared posthumously to a detractor as a brilliant light
- Had his image revered [in temples/ in churches (Jesus)]
No comments:
Post a Comment