What’s in a name? Do people with the same name sometimes have much in common? We can look at two famous men in the Bible, both named Joseph, and see their similarities.
Joseph of the Old Testament is the first Joseph. The Church refers to him as a type, or foreshadowing, of Christ. But many saints hold that the first Joseph is also a prefigurement for St. Joseph. Let us consider ten parallels between Joseph of the Old Testament and St. Joseph.
First, both of them had a father named Jacob. Remember the biblical references to the great patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Jacob’s son was Joseph. Matthew’s gospel, which traces the family tree of Jesus, says that Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom Christ was bom.
The second parallel is that both of them were royalty. The first Joseph was a patriarch, following the great line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He was the last and perhaps the greatest of the Old Testament patriarchs. St. Joseph also was royalty since he was a descendant of King David. Some Scripture scholars speculate that if Rome had not occupied Palestine at the time, and if the Davidic line was still intact, St. Joseph would have been eligible for the throne.
The third parallel between the first Joseph and St. Joseph is that both of them suffered and put up with the difficulties of their daily life without complaint. The first Joseph was minding his own business going out into the fields to see his brothers, and they plotted to kill him. They seized him, stripped him and threw him into a well. Then, when they saw a caravan of gypsies going to Egypt, they sold him into slavery. Joseph could have said, “Lord, here I am; a good man. Why are you allowing this suffering in my life?” Isn’t that what we say at times? When we have difficult times in our life, we often ask “God, why me? What have I done wrong?” But, sometimes God allows us to go through suffering and pain for a greater good, just as he did with Joseph in Egypt. Because Joseph was able to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams, Pharaoh made him lord and ruler over his house.
Joseph, formerly a shepherd boy, was now one of the most important men in Egypt.
St. Joseph had to go through many sufferings as well. Mary was well along in her pregnancy when, as members of the House of David, they had to journey to Bethlehem to take part in the census ordered by the Roman rulers. That involved a difficult journey of perhaps 85 miles on a donkey with no advance lodging reservations. But Joseph obeyed the law. He went and could find no lodging since Bethlehem was packed with other visitors who came for the same purpose. He kept knocking at the doors, but found no room. Think what was going through Joseph’s mind. He was the husband, the provider, and knew that Mary’s child was of divine origin. Finally, they found a cave in the countryside where the shepherds tended their sheep, and Jesus was bom in a place where animals were sheltered. The King of heaven and earth was laid in a manger – a trough where the animals ate. Think of the suffering, the difficult time that Joseph went through. But, looking at it, good came from even that trying experience. For example, the prophecy that the Messiah was to be bom in Bethlehem was fulfilled. It was not the prophecy that the Messiah was to be born in Nazareth. Additionally, the Holy Family had more privacy in the cave than they would have had in the crowded inn. A secondary benefit is that now we can sing songs like “Away in a Manger” rather than “Away in a Marriott.”
The fourth similarity between Joseph and St. Joseph is that both left their homes and went to Egypt. Joseph was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt. St. Joseph fled to Egypt with his family to escape Herod’s wrath.
The ability to understand dreams is their fifth similarity. In the Old Testament, Joseph gained fame for this ability. While still in prison, he was able to interpret the dreams of the baker and the cupbearer of Pharaoh. When Pharaoh had a strange dream of 7 fat cows being devoured by 7 skinny cows, he couldn’t understand it. Pharaoh also had the dream of the stalk, which had seven healthy ears of corn. Suddenly there was a stalk with 7 withered ears of corn, which swallowed the healthy stalk. Pharaoh couldn’t understand these dreams, so he called his magicians but they could not interpret the dreams. Pharaoh had heard of Joseph’s ability, so he sent for him and asked him to interpret these dreams. Joseph gave Pharaoh the interpretation – that God was going to bless Egypt with 7 years of plenty, but after that would come 7 years of terrible famine. Because of this insight into the future, Pharaoh picked Joseph to be the manager of his house and ruler over all his possessions.
St. Joseph also understood the meaning of his dreams. The New Testament relates four dreams, which St. Joseph understood and unhesitatingly acted upon. The first was when he had doubts about whether to take Mary as his wife. The angel said “Fear not, Joseph, to accept Mary as your wife. It is by the Holy Spirit that she has conceived this Child.” Joseph recognized the guidance in the dream as coming from God and followed the angel’s bidding. Likewise, he recognized the urgency of the message conveyed in the second dream – “flee into Egypt. Herod is trying to kill the Child.” In the third dream, Joseph understood that it was safe to return to Palestine since Herod was dead. Lastly, in the fourth dream, Joseph accepted the angel’s advice to return to Nazareth because Herod’s son had become king. St. Joseph’s ability to recognize the divine guidance sent to him in dreams literally saved the Holy Family on several occasions.
The sixth parallel is that of being the ruler of the king’s house and possessions. Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, made Joseph ruler and lord over all his possessions in Egypt. St. Joseph, as head of the Holy Family, was ruler over the King of the Universe’s home in Nazareth. Jesus, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega, chose Joseph to be the head of the Holy Family, to be the lord, master and ruler over the house.
The seventh similarity between the Joseph of the Old and Joseph of the New Testament is their purity and chastity. Remember what happened to Joseph. Joseph was a very strong man, a very handsome man, and Potiphar’s wife fell in love with him and tried to seduce him. Day after day she would ask him and try to lead him into having an adulterous affair, but Joseph steadfastly refused. Eventually, she lied and told Potiphar, “Look what this Hebrew tried to do to me.” Potiphar put Joseph into prison, where he stayed for two years.
In the New Testament, St. Joseph is the virginal husband of Mary.
St. Joseph, the most pure and chaste man that God ever created, married the Blessed Mother. They lived a virginal life their entire marriage. The beautiful virtues of purity and chastity are thus exemplified in both Joseph of the Old and St. Joseph of the New.
The eighth parallel is that they both experienced poverty. Joseph of the Old Testament had everything material taken from him – his brothers stole his inheritance, he was sold into slavery and owned nothing, and he was unjustly imprisoned for a few years.
St. Joseph knew poverty as well. We are told in the gospels that he was a carpenter, a member of the working class. When he uprooted his family and went to Bethlehem and then to Egypt, he probably took his tools with him so he could continue earning a living, but that is about all he had in terms of material goods. We also know that the Holy Family was poor because at the Presentation they gave two turtle doves, the offering of the poor.
Both Josephs were responsible for feeding the entire world, which is their ninth similarity. Because of Joseph’s advice, Egypt was the only country in the world that had grain during the famine. The other nations came to Egypt to buy their grain. Thanks to Joseph, the peoples of the world had food, and Pharaoh became even richer and more powerful. How does that relate to St. Joseph? St. Joseph was the nurturer and the one who fed Jesus. He practiced his trade and earned the money to buy the food, which fed Jesus. St. Joseph, as head of the Holy Family, taught Jesus a trade and provided his initial religious instruction. He helped Jesus grow to manhood and become for us the Eucharist, feeding us with his own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Thus, indirectly Joseph has fed the entire world with the Bread of Life.
Lastly, we can go to both Josephs in times of need. The people of Egypt and the other nations went to Joseph for the grain they needed during the great famine. During this time of suffering there was a saying, “Go to Joseph for what you need.” Because Joseph had such tremendous influence with the Pharaoh, many peoples’ petitions were answered. We priests, religious and lay people can go to St. Joseph in our time of need. Whatever difficulties and sufferings we have, we go to Joseph because he has great influence with his Son, the King of the Universe. Jesus, good Son that he is, still follows the precepts of the Fourth Commandment and, so long as it is in accord with the will of the Father, does as his mother and foster father ask.
These, then, are ten similarities between Joseph of the Old Testament and St. Joseph, two of the greatest figures in the Bible. Let us now recognize how they have experienced many of the same trials and sorrows we face, and let us follow their example of steadfast love and service of God. They stand ready and able to help us, if we but “go to Joseph.”
“Both Nero and Hadrian had a special devotion to enriching
and reviving the culture of the Greek world”.
Neil Godfrey
The term redivivus, meaning a ‘return to life’, can trigger for me the thought that the supposedly re-vivified one might be, in fact, the same person as the original, living one.
And sometimes this supposition pays off. See for instance, my article:
where I was ultimately able to identify Micah, known by scholars as “Amos redivivus”, with the prophet Amos himself.
Using a different, but somewhat analogous, methodology, I had thought to identify – as one – two other famous ancient potentates on the basis that scholars have found it very difficult to determine which is the architecture of the one, and which is that of the other.
I am referring this time to Herod and Hadrian, who, though situated about a century apart according to the conventional history, were, according to my revised view of things, actual contemporaries and colleagues.
For I have identified Herod as Philip the barbarous Phrygian, who was second to Hadrian in the latter’s guise as King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’. On this, see e.g. my article:
identified a second – as I believe Philip was to King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ – for each of this latter king’s alter ego guises.
(The second is listed in bold on the right):
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ – Philip the Phrygian
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus – Herod ‘the Great’ / Marcus Agrippa
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus ‘Caligula’ – Marcus Agrippa
Hadrian – Herodes Atticus
There is some commonality of names amongst my candidates for Herod ‘the Great’: Herod/Herodes, of course; Agrippa, a name common to the Herods; and Atticus, into which family Marcus Agrippa married. And, as I have only just discovered, there was a Marcus (Julius Agrippa) Herod.
Architectural quirks
I have picked up some of these in various articles.
And I am sure that there are a lot more yet to be pointed out.
For instance:
Herod and Hadrian
As referred to at the beginning of this article, their architecture can be difficult to differentiate.
“Differentiating the works of the two sovereigns is neither easy nor, in the context of current politics, especially sought after. In some quarters, Herod – the half Jew – is viewed in a poor light, but then Hadrian, the nemesis of the Jews, is castigated as a vicious tyrant …”.
Building-wise, in Jerusalem, it is apparently difficult to separate Herod from Hadrian.
In the city of Jerusalem both Herod the Great and the Roman Emperor Hadrian built on a monumental scale. Directing public works little more than a century apart, the two monarchs built in a similar style and with a common – Roman – technology. In the later Hadrianic period material from the earlier Herodian constructions was reused, resetting the distinctive “Herodian” blocks in new locations.
Both potentates wielded vast resources but an order of magnitude set them apart. For all his grandiosity, Herod was the client king of a minor kingdom; Hadrian was master of the Roman world at an apogee in the empire’s fortunes. Among the resources at the emperor’s disposal were the legions, the most effective instrument of construction, as well as destruction, in the ancient world.
Differentiating the works of the two sovereigns is neither easy nor, in the context of current politics, especially sought after.
In some quarters, Herod – the half Jew [sic] – is viewed in a poor light, but then Hadrian, the nemesis of the Jews, is castigated as a vicious tyrant: “may his bones rot” is an injunction found in the Talmud itself. Much of the material written about the temples of Jerusalem fails even to mention the edifice built by Hadrian.
Great claims are made for Herod as a builder but could it be that Aelius Hadrianus was rather more involved in the sanctuary of Temple Mount than is generally supposed?
Jupiter on Temple Mount
“At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there.”
– Cassius Dio, Roman History, 69.12.
A Hadrianic temple complex superimposed on Temple Mount
Caesarea: Emperor Hadrian upgrades the city of Herod
An example from Caesarea provides some guidance for what may have happened in Jerusalem. Herod built his famous harbour of Sebastos (Greek for Augustus) with Roman engineers, Roman technology and Roman marine concrete. The port is regarded as Herod’s greatest work. But Herod’s trademark city actually owes more to Hadrian than it does to the Jewish king.
It was Hadrian who substantially developed and improved every aspect of the city.
In the original foundation, Herod built for his own enjoyment a palace, a theatre and a racetrack and to further ingratiate himself with his Roman master, a temple to the imperial cult. The civilian city beyond the port began to develop only after Caesarea had been chosen as the seat of Roman prefects and headquarters of the 10th Legion – from 6 AD onward, a decade after Herod’s death. Only then did it acquire its thorough-going Roman character.
Caesarea’s development actually accelerated during the conflict with Rome.
The city became the marshalling point for the Roman army and in July 67 sixty thousand troops assembled here.
The 5th legion joined the 10th in winter quarters in the city. Vespasian rewarded the locals with Italian rights and raised the status of the city, henceforth Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesarea.
After the war Caesarea grew rapidly, becoming the economic and political center of the province and hub of a new road network. Hadrian himself visited the city in 130 and again in 134, re-founding the city after extensive rebuilding which followed a severe earthquake two years earlier. The city responded with a Hadrianeum, a temple dedicated to the emperor.
Herod’s palace, refurbished as the governor’s headquarters, was extended fifty metres further east. Herod’s racetrack was shortened and redeveloped as an unusual elongated amphitheatre, with double the original seating capacity. A huge new hippodrome 460-metres long was built inland and a second amphitheatre was added on the north side of town. Pagan shrines proliferated, including a Mithraeum developed from an Herodian warehouse.
From the evidence of the theatre and elsewhere, “Herodian” materials were reused in the reconstruction.
By Hadrian’s time parts of the outer harbour had already deteriorated. Tectonic activity had lowered the ocean floor and sunken parts of the breakwater were causing a hazard to shipping. Hadrian’s repairs to the harbour included attaching a new pier to the Herodian structure in order to inhibit silting up of the inner harbour.
The Hadrianic city extended far beyond the Herodian foundation and had no defining city wall for more than 300 years. To supply the city’s larger population, Hadrian set the 10th legion to rebuilding the town’s aqueduct. Engineers tapped into a new water source, the Tanninim River, and attached a second aqueduct to the first built by Herod more than a century earlier. Thus, there are two channels to the famous aqueduct – one Herodian, the other built by Hadrian. The style and materials of the two channels are identical and in fact are indistinguishable but for the identifying plaques of the legion.
Fortunately, the legionaries who built the later channel also attached the emperor’s name – or we can be sure it would all be claimed for Herod! ….
The fall of Jupiter
Hadrian’s erasure of the ruins of the Herodian temple was so complete and the expulsion of the Jews so effective that by the 4th century even the location of the temple edifice was beyond recall.
“Rabbi Yermiah, son of Babylonia came to the Land of Israel and could not find the site of the Temple.”
– Tractate Shevuot (Oaths) 1 4b. ….
[End of quotes]
This already tells us a lot.
Like some Fifth Dynasty Egyptian Sun Temples that should be there, but just aren’t:
“It is clear too that, upon closer inspection, the heads of the Hadrian roundels were recarved to resemble Constantine. This type of re-decoration was somewhat unusual but not unheard of in Rome when the monument was first erected. Scholars agree that the recarving was part of a deliberate effort made by the arch’s designers to reinforce a link between Constantine and Hadrian”. ….
[End of quote]
We find that Marcus Agrippa, a supposed Roman, but “born in an uncertain location” (I suggest Phrygia), built an Odeum (Odeon) in Athens.
Likewise did Herodes Atticus, a presumed Athenian, build an Odeum in Athens.
“The original structure was destroyed some 100 years after it was built during the invasion of the Erouloi in 268 AD”. ….
The Olympeion in Athens, begun supposedly by Peisistratos (C6th BC), is said to have been resumed by Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (C2nd BC), and later by Hadrian (C2nd AD).
But wait a minute, doesn’t our table above (an emperor and his second) identify Antiochus with Hadrian? I wrote about this Olympeion in my article:
“The Panhellenion was devised with a view to associating the Roman Emperor
with the protection of Greek culture and of the “liberties” of Greece – in this case, urban self-government. It allowed Hadrian to appear as the fictive heir to Pericles, who supposedly had convened a previous Panhellenic Congress …”.
Peisistratus
Rethinking Revolutions Through Ancient Greece: “Pisistratus is a prolific builder in Athens and inaugurates the Olympeion that Hadrian is to finish”.
Dedicated to Olympian Zeus, the Olympieion was situated on the bank of the river Ilissus southeast of the Acropolis.
It was built on the site of an ancient Doric temple, the foundation of which had been laid out by the tyrant Pisistratus, but construction was abandoned several decades later in 510 BC when his son Hippias, whose rule had become increasingly despotic, was expelled from Athens and a democracy established (he would return twenty years later with the Persians at Marathon, Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, VI.54ff). Aristotle cites the temple and the pyramids of Egypt as examples of how rulers subdue their populations by engaging them in such grandiose projects. Kept poor and preoccupied with hard work, there was not the time to conspire (Politics, V.11). Over three centuries later, in 174 BC, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (king of Syria and the “vile person” of Daniel 11:21) commissioned the Roman architect Cossutius to begin work again on the same ground plan. He did so “with great skill and taste,” says Vitruvius, constructing a temple “of large dimensions, and of the Corinthian order and proportions” (On Architecture, VII, Pref.15, 17). Of all the works of Antiochus, the Temple of Jupiter Olympius or Olympian (as the Romans called it) was the “only one in the world, the plan of which was suitable to the greatness of the deity” (Livy, History of Rome, XLI.20). But when the king died a decade later, the temple still was “left half finished” (Strabo, Geography, IX.1.17), although it extended at least to the architrave of the columns still standing at the southeastern corner. ….
Plutarch writes that Pericles “introduced a bill to the effect that all Hellenes wheresoever resident in Europe or in Asia, small and large cities alike, should be invited to send deputies to a council at Athens.” The aim was to discuss matters of common interest—restoration of the temples the Persians had burned down, payment of vows to the gods for the great deliverance, and clearing the seas of pirates. ….
More than half a millennium later [sic] Hadrian picked it up where it had fallen. During his previous visit, his attention had been caught by the synedrion, or council, at Delphi for the Amphictyonic League, but it did not include enough Greek cities. He decided to launch a new Panhellenion along Periclean lines. As before, a grandly refurbished Athens was to be the headquarters and Greek cities would be invited to send delegates to an inaugural assembly. Member communities had to prove their Greekness, both culturally and in genetic descent, although in practice some bogus pedigrees were accepted.
The enterprise had a somewhat antiquarian character. So far as we can tell from the fragmentary surviving evidence, Hadrian aimed at roughly the same catchment area as Pericles had done—in essence, the basin of the Ionian Sea. Italy and Sicily were excluded once again, and there was no representation of Greek settlements in Egypt, Syria, or Anatolia. The emperor made a point of visiting Sparta, presumably to ensure that it did not stay away as it had done in the fifth century. ….
“Hadrian brought the Temple of Olympian Zeus to completion after it had languished for 600 years. He had four more-than-life-size statues of himself at its entrance and was worshipped along with Zeus”. ….
Or, did Hadrian both inaugurate and complete the Olympeion?
A final piece of architecture to be considered here is the famous Pantheon in Rome.
Built by Marcus Agrippa, or Hadrian? In my scheme they are allied contemporaries.
The Pantheon has represented the greatest expression of the glory of Rome for more than two thousand years. The story of the Pantheon is inseparably tied to the Eternal City … and been its image through the centuries. Built by Agrippa between 25 and 27 BC the Pantheon was a temple dedicated to the twelve Gods and to the living Sovran. Traditionally it is believed that the present building is result of the radical reconstruction by Hadrian between 118 and 125 AD. It is the only ancient Roman building that has remained practically intact through the centuries. ….
The Pantheon bears the name of M. Agrippa. Would not Hadrian have over-written his own name there had he come on the scene a century and a half later?
Nero
Now, to the main point of this present article, Nero and Hadrian can often be – just as we have found to have been the case with Herod and Hadrian – difficult to differentiate the one from the other.
I, tantalised by the common description of Hadrian as a “Nero Redivivus”, found myself wondering again if Nero and Hadrian could also be merged into one.
But now I think that the situation is as with Herod and Hadrian, like but different.
The better solution in the case of Nero and Hadrian, is, as with Herod and Hadrian, not to identify the two names as belonging to the one person, but to regard the one as being the second dutifully serving his emperor (that is, Hadrian).
Name wise, Nero equates far better with Herod than it does with Hadrian – who, though, we now know had many guises.
There is no doubting that Nero and Hadrian were alike in certain ways – so much so that the latter can be discussed in contexts of Nero redivivus.
Here is Neil Godfrey’s view of this very subject (ibid):
Hadrian as Nero Redivivus
Key points in this post:
Both Nero and Hadrian waged war with the Jews.
Both Nero and Hadrian had a special devotion to enriching and reviving the culture of the Greek world
Nero pursued the cultic-religious worship of his own person, Hadrian that of Antinous (and more to be covered in upcoming posts)
The travel coins minted by Hadrian mirror the Corinthian local coinage reflecting Nero’s visit there.
The rule of Hadrian witnessed a flourishing of Jewish apocalyptic writings, including the identification of Hadrian with Nero redivivus.
Hadrian brought the Temple of Olympian Zeus to completion after it had languished for 600 years. He had four more-than-life-size statues of himself at its entrance and was worshipped along with Zeus. ….
[End of quote]
Consider also the comparisons between Nero and Hadrian as provided in Calenda’s article: https://calenda.org/885625
Nero and Hadrian: two emperors united by a passion for the arts; both reformers in the artistic and also, in particular, in the architectural and administrative spheres. Two characters, the first much discussed, the second much less. Recent critics have portrayed them in an innovative and pioneering light, at least from a purely cultural point of view.
Their passion for the arts is a well-explored topic, but rarely refers to both of them: yet, when assessing the most famous creations only, the Domus Aurea and Villa Adriana in Tivoli, fundamental signs of continuity can be perceived.
Hadrian’s great interest in architecture and a desire to experiment with new forms and structural solutions was fully applied in the residential complex of Villa Adriana, thanks to the considerable development of building techniques imparted during previous experiences in the imperial age, like that of the Domus Aurea. Just like Nero’s residence, in which the buildings alternated with sumptuous gardens with basins, pools, nymphaea and fountains, in Villa Adriana, despite being in a territorial and landscape context distant from the urban dimension, the spaces containing buildings were also interspersed with multiple forms of greenery and water features; the different sectors responded to a precise logic based on intended use, combining public and official elements with elements of a private and intimate nature.
Looking at the decorative features, the Domus Aurea represented a huge leap forward with respect to the past, with a quantity and quality of paintings and marble coverings, inconceivable in previous eras. Following Nero’s example, the stuccoes, paintings and marbles, along with other rare and exotic materials such as gems and precious metals, were also carefully distributed according to the status of the rooms at Villa Adriana, to achieve effects of refined elegance and wonder. The same goes for the sculptural elements, with original statues of Greek art placed alongside works especially commissioned to decorate the new spaces and convey the message of imperial power and magnificence. The Domus Aurea and Villa Adriana are emblematic examples of the will of the two emperors to pass on precise political, philosophical and ideological choices.
In Rome, Hadrian’s building activities became materially intertwined with Nero’s pre-existing constructions, as in the Palatine imperial residence or the temple of Venus and Roma on the Velian Hill, where the vestibule of the Domus Aurea was functional in the construction of the religious building, involving the extraordinary repositioning of the Colossus of Nero in the square of the Flavian Amphitheatre. A propensity for spectacularisation in the use of urban spaces found an ideal terrain in Campus Martius, a backdrop for Emperor Julius-Claudius’s aquatic festivals and at the same time a source of inspiration for the Egyptian-style settings of Villa Adriana, as well as a place dedicated to the creation of grandiose building projects, such as the Baths of Nero and the Pantheon.
The historical and material evidence that links the affairs of the two emperors goes well beyond Rome, as in the case of the imperial villa in Anzio: the spectacular complex built on the coast of Lazio, although inextricably linked to the memory of Nero, also contains considerable material traces accompanied by literary evidence that refers to Hadrian’s stays in Anzio. It is a well-known fact that both emperors were interested in the Phlegraean Fields area. This was dictated not only by the healthiness of the area and the beauty of the landscape, but also by the strategic importance of the villages of Cumae, Baiae, Pozzuoli and Miseno for the economic and military interests of the empire.
The charm of Hellenism transpires for both emperors in all the displays of imperial power, both public and private, as well as in the architectural designs enriched by suggestions and references to the refined culture of the eastern provinces.
These examples reveal how human experience and the historical legacy of the two emperors were intertwined. The conference intends, for the first time, to explore this aspect, with the particular aim of examining the possibilities offered by art, architecture, theatre and literature for developing new languages and consolidating that intertwining of culture and politics that became distinctive in the image of power until the present day, without forgetting the huge legacy left by the two historical figures and their influence in the arts exercised over the centuries. ….
[End of quote]
I think that many more comparisons between Nero and Hadrian can be made.
Nero, famous for his corruption and depravity, and his portrayal in plays and movies, is actually a most obscure character. He stands in need of a serious alter ego, or more.
“Who was Nero?” is the question posed in an article below:
“Most of what we know about Nero comes from the surviving works of three historians – Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio. All written decades after Nero’s death, their accounts have long shaped our understanding of this emperor’s rule. However, far from being impartial narrators presenting objective accounts of past events, these authors and their sources wrote with a very clear agenda in mind”.
We found a similar situation with Hadrian, who, whilst leaving an enormous impression upon antiquity, is, strangely, poorly sourced.
Anthony Everitt writes of this in his book, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (Random House, 2009): “The most serious problem has been the ancient literary sources of which a mere handful survive, mangled and mutilated”.
And, in the case of King Herod, although much has been written about him (at least by Josephus), I was stunned to learn:
In the article: Who was Nero? We read at the beginning: “Nero is one of Rome’s most infamous rulers, notorious for his cruelty, debauchery and eccentricity”.
The same could be said for my alter ego (one of them) for Nero, King Herod:
…. Tony Reinke has a helpful podcast interview with Dr. Maier about the paranoid tyrant [Herod] who ended up killing three of his sons on suspicion of treason, putting to death his favorite wife (of his ten wives!), killing one of his mothers-in-law, drowning a high priest, and killing several uncles and a couple of cousins.
They also talk about Herod’s plot to kill a stadium of Jewish leaders, and … the slaughter of the innocent male children recorded only in Matthew 2 ….
Who was Nero? continues – notice the return of the name Agrippa, in Agrippina:
But was he really the tyrant that history has painted him to be? Nero exhibition curator Francesca Bologna goes in search of the real Nero.
Who was Nero?
Nero was the 5th emperor of Rome and the last of Rome’s first dynasty, the Julio-Claudians, founded by Augustus (the adopted son of Julius Caesar). Nero is known as one of Rome’s most infamous rulers, notorious for his cruelty and debauchery. He ascended to power in AD 54 aged just 16 and died at 30. He ruled at a time of great social and political change, overseeing momentous events such as the Great Fire of Rome and Boudica’s rebellion in Britain. He allegedly killed his mother and two of his wives, only cared about his art and had very little interest in ruling the empire.
But what do we really know about Nero? Can we separate the scandalous stories told by later authors from the reality of his rule?
Most of what we know about Nero comes from the surviving works of three historians – Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio. All written decades after Nero’s death, their accounts have long shaped our understanding of this emperor’s rule. However, far from being impartial narrators presenting objective accounts of past events, these authors and their sources wrote with a very clear agenda in mind. Nero’s demise brought forward a period of chaos and civil war – one that ended only when a new dynasty seized power, the Flavians.
Authors writing under the Flavians all had an interest in legitimising the new ruling family by portraying the last of the Julio-Claudians in the worst possible light, turning history into propaganda. These accounts became the ‘historical’ sources used by later historians, therefore perpetuating a fabricated image of Nero, which has survived all the way to the present.
….
Nero was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus on 15 December AD 37.
He was the son of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and Agrippina the Younger. Both Gnaeus and Agrippina were the grandchildren of Augustus, giving Nero Augustus’ great, great grandson a strong claim to power.
Nero was only two years old when his mother was exiled and three when his father died. His inheritance was taken from him and he was sent to live with his aunt. However, Nero’s fate changed again when Claudius became emperor, restoring the boy’s property and recalling his mother Agrippina from exile.
Aged 13 – adoption
In AD 49 the emperor Claudius married Agrippina, and adopted Nero the following year. It is at this point that Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus changed his name to Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus. In Roman times it was normal to change your name when adopted, abandoning your family name in favour of your adoptive father’s. Nero was a common name among members of the Claudian family, especially in Claudius’ branch.
Nero and Agrippina offered Claudius a politically useful link back to Augustus, strengthening his position.
Claudius appeared to favour Nero over his natural son, Britannicus, marking Nero as the designated heir.
….
When Claudius died in AD 54, Nero became emperor just two months before turning 17.
….
As he was supported by both the army and the senate, his rise to power was smooth. His mother Agrippina exerted a significant influence, especially at the beginning of his rule.
Aged 21 – Agrippina’s murder
The Roman historians Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio all claim that Nero, fed up with Agrippina’s interference, decided to kill her.
Given the lack of eyewitnesses, there is no way of knowing if or how this happened. However, this did not stop historians from fabricating dramatic stories of Agrippina’s murder, asserting that Nero tried (and failed) to kill her with a boat engineered to sink, before sending his men to do the job.
Agrippina allegedly told them to stab her in the womb that bore Nero, her last words clearly borrowed from stage plays.
As he was supported by both the army and the senate, his rise to power was smooth. ….
The marriage between Nero and Octavia, aged 15 and 13/14 at the time, was arranged by their parents in order to further legitimise Nero’s claim to the throne. Octavia was the daughter of the emperor Claudius from a previous marriage, so when Claudius married Agrippina and adopted her son Nero, Nero and Octavia became brother and sister. In order to arrange their marriage, Octavia had to be adopted into another family.
Their marriage was not a happy one. According to ancient writers, Nero had various affairs until his lover Poppaea Sabina convinced him to divorce his wife. Octavia was first exiled then executed in AD 62 on adultery charges. According to ancient writers, her banishment and death caused great unrest among the public, who sympathised with the dutiful Octavia.
No further motives were offered for Octavia’s death other than Nero’s passion for Poppaea, and we will probably never know what transpired at court. The fact that Octavia couldn’t produce an heir while Poppaea was pregnant with Nero’s daughter likely played an important role in deciding Octavia’s fate.
Aged 26 – Great Fire of Rome
Peter Ustinov plays Nero in Quo Vadis, 1951. The character of Nero plays the lyre as Rome burns. Courtesy of the Everett Collection.
On 19 July AD 64, a fire started close to the Circus Maximus. The flames soon encompassed the entire city of Rome and the fire raged for nine days. Only four of the 14 districts of the capital were spared, while three were completely destroyed.
Rome had already been razed by flames – and would be again in its long history – but this event was so severe it came to be known as the Great Fire of Rome.
Later historians blamed Nero for the event, claiming that he set the capital ablaze in order to clear land for the construction of a vast new palace. According to Suetonius and Cassius Dio, Nero took in the view of the burning city from the imperial residence while playing the lyre and singing about the fall of Troy. This story, however, is fictional.
Tacitus, the only historian who was actually alive at the time of the Great Fire of Rome (although only 8 years old), wrote that Nero was not even in Rome when the fire started, but returned to the capital and led the relief efforts.
Aged 27 – death of Poppaea
….
Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio all describe Nero as being blinded by passion for his wife Poppaea, yet they accuse him of killing her, allegedly by kicking her in an outburst of rage while she was pregnant.
Interestingly, pregnant women being kicked to death by enraged husbands is a recurring theme in ancient literature, used to explore the (self) destructive tendencies of autocrats. The Greek writer Herodotus tells the story of how the Persian king Cambyses kicked his pregnant wife in the stomach, causing her death. A similar episode is told of Periander, tyrant of Corinth. Nero is just one of many allegedly ‘mad’ tyrants for which this literary convention was used.
Poppaea probably died from complications connected with her pregnancy and not at Nero’s hands. She was given a lavish funeral and was deified.
….
Aged 30 – death
In AD 68, Vindex, the governor of Gaul (France), rebelled against Nero and declared his support for Galba, the governor of Spain.
Vindex was defeated in battle by troops loyal to Nero, yet Galba started gaining more military support.
It was at this point that Nero lost the support of Rome’s people due to a grain shortage, caused by a rebellious commander who cut the crucial food supply from Egypt to the capital. Abandoned by the people and declared an enemy of the state by the senate, Nero tried to flee Rome and eventually committed suicide.
….
Following his death, Nero’s memory was condemned (a practice called damnatio memoriae) and the images of the emperor were destroyed, removed or reworked. However, Nero was still given an expensive funeral and for a long time people decorated his tomb with flowers, some even believing he was still alive. ….
Nero appears to have been a grandiose builder, though few of the buildings he constructed survive. Early in his reign, he began building a gymnasium and a bath-house, which was used to stage the Neronia. Although one can find reconstructions, these are highly speculative and there is nothing left. There is even disagreement as to whether [the] baths and gymnasium formed a single complex or were separate buildings, partly because the limited sources are unclear.
Nevertheless, a gymnasium was a Hellenistic ideal imported from the East and there is an association of gymnasia and bath houses. The building was in itself innovative, but not wildly so.
Agrippa built the Laconicum Gymnasium in 25 BC, which seems to have associated a large public bath house with a gymnasium. The building was adorned with Greek statuary and may have been built as a public amenity to echo the grand private villas of the rich and powerful. It is possible to understand Nero’s building both as … a civic improvement echoing the work of Augustus and Agrippa and as making available the benefits of Greek culture to the wider Roman public.
More obviously regal was the his building of the Domus Transitoria. This building is also lost, destroyed in the great fire of Rome and buried under the Domus Aurea. It appears to have been a major construction designed to encompass some of the grand gardens in Rome (horti maecenatis) into the imperial palace.
The topography of the region is extremely complex, partly because of the repeated building over of the area in this period. Augustus, Tiberius, and Gaius had all built palatial structures or extended existing buildings.
LANCIANI’S 1897 MAP OF THE ARCHAEOLOGY NORTH OF THE COLOSSEUM
In 64, a fire swept through much of Rome. Only four of the fourteen districts survived more or less intact, while seven were badly damaged and three destroyed. Nero had been away from the city when the fire broke out, and returned when it threatened his palace. He was not able to save the palace. It was at this point that he was moved to sing of the calamities that befell cities (Tacitus, Annales 15.38-39). After five days, the flames were put out by creating a large fire break. Almost immediately, a further fire broke out, and it is this second fire for which Nero was blamed.
In part, it was because it was associated with the estate of Tigellinus, the praetorian prefect. In response to the fire, Nero spent money housing the displaced and rebuilding the city.
There were people who might benefit from a conflagration. Property would be left unguarded. there were opportunities for the organised to loot. Chaos allowed mischief (Dio, 62 16-17). But Rome was a city built chaotically, using a mix of materials, especially wood in upper stories. It was and is a hot city and without pressurised water or anything like a fire-brigade, it was a fire risk. There had been major fires: this was just one of the biggest.
Nero made the most of this opportunity. Rubble was cleared and used to fill the marshes at Ostia. The city was replanned with wider streets. Building regulations imposed an upper height limit on tenements. Wooden beams were restricted and each building was required to have its own wall to create the smallest of firebreaks. Water supplies were better regulated so that each district would have a substantial supply. Much of the vast sums required appear to have come from the emperor, though he may have required aristocratic contributions (Suetonius, Nero 16.1; Tacitus, Annales 15. 40–43).
The fire gave Nero room for the most extravagant of buildings, the Domus Aurea, the Golden House of Nero …The site was rapidly remodeeled after AD 69 and formed the basis of buildings of Vespasian and Trajan.The remains are fragmentary and subject to on-going archaeological investigation and restoration. This was a huge construction that bridged the Palatine and Esquiline Hills. The vestibule was of sufficient size to accommodate a 120-foot-high statue of Nero. The palace was fronted by a triple colonnade stretching for a mile. Extensive gardens were attached to the house, including vineyards, woods and pastures, all stocked with appropriate animals and, around a pool, there were models of buildings. There were rooms of immense luxury: a dining room with an ivory ceiling, another that revolved somehow. His baths were filled with sea water and sulphur water. It was a dominating monument of conspicuous luxury. The building monumentalised Nero’s domination of the city of Rome. Here was a representation of the world within a city, all overseen by the towering presence of Nero (Suetonius, Nero 31; Tacitus, Annales 15. 42). Nero’s house was a public expression of his power, a palace of unbelievable opulence that marked imperial civilization.
The palace was later dismantled: its meanings too tyrannical for imperial Rome. The massive statue of the emperor which gave the name to the Colosseum was reworked into a statue of Sol. The Colosseum itself, built under Vespasian, became the grand democratic location of games and public celebrations, turning the palatial into the public, turning away from the ideologies of Neronian Rome.
But the Flavian remaking of the area draws attention to the ideologies embedded within the architecture. We may dismiss the palace is grandiosity and luxury, symbolic of how out of touch Nero was with the mood and needs of his people, but that is to put the story before the evidence: we supposedly know Nero was out of touch and so we see his buildings as reflecting his moral failings. But what if turn the question round? A great palace was not a private house. A gymnasium was a public amenity not just a gesture of cultural allegiance to the Greek world. Is it possible that Nero’s ideological construction of Rome’s greatness needed the great palaces and Greek-style buildings? Augustus is praised for his extensive monumental building programme. Why is Nero critiqued?
[End of quote]
The lost buildings of Nero are fully compensated for in the massive and extensive building programme undertaken by Nero’s alter ego (according to my reconstruction): Marcus Agrippa/Herod.
“A congiarium of three gold coins was distributed in Rome … with Trajan’s portrait on the obverse, in military dress … and Hadrian’s portrait on the reverse, identical to Trajan’s in profile but with a beard and nude,
bearing the name Hadrianus Traianus Caesar”.
Amanda Claridge
As far as conventional history is concerned, Trajan and Hadrian are two most notable Roman emperors, with Hadrian being perhaps the adopted successor of Trajan.
Sometimes in ancient history, though, as I have found, two supposed sequential kings, each considered to be great in his own right, have turned out to be just the one king. My major example of this phenomenon, worked into a university thesis (2007), was the neo-Assyrian case of two of the greatest names, Sargon II and Sennacherib, generally considered to have been, respectively, a father and his son.
My first step, assisted by a colleague, was to see a significant overlap in the reigns, something not recognised by conventional scholars. Partial overlap began to merge into a total overlap, eventually leading me to conclude that Sargon II was Sennacherib:
Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap
After long consideration about Trajan, and where to fit him into a revised scheme of things, I have come to the same conclusion as with those neo-Assyrian names, that Trajan was his supposed successor and adopted heir, the look-alike Hadrian.
Why do coins frequently include the name Traianus (Trajan), or Traian, in Hadrian’s name? For example:
RIC II, Part 3 (second edition) Hadrian 57. Denarius. Struck AD 117. Rome mint. Obv: IMP CAES TRAIAN HADRIANO AVG DIVI TRA, Bust of Hadrian, laureate, bare chest, traces of drapery on far shoulder usually visible, right Rev: PARTH F DIVI NER NEP P M TR P COS // FORT RED (in exergue), Fortuna seated left, holding rudder and cornucopia
Could this presumed succession of Roman emperors, Trajan and Hadrian, have been, instead, just the one mighty ruler?
And was this ruler an ethnic Roman anyway?
While I have left Trajan virtually untouched so far, for want of ideas about him, I have written a lot about Hadrian, who, I have concluded, was not a Grecophile Roman at all, but a Seleucid Greek, the most notorious one of all: King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’.
Yet Hadrian was much more even than that.
In my article:
Hadrian was not ‘Nero Redivivus’ – but was close to it
I identify Hadrian all at once as – apart from Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’:
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus; and
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus ‘Caligula’
with Constantine also under some serious consideration.
According to my revision, Hadrian belonged, not to the C2nd AD, but to the time of the Maccabees, when he, as King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, the “little horn” of Daniel 7:8, desecrated the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem.
In other words, Hadrian, the Philhellene emperor, was a Seleucid Greek, and not a Roman.
But I have also made a second major chronological move, collapsing the Maccabean era, in part, into the Infancy period of Jesus Christ – the Bar Kochba revolt against Hadrian pertaining to the Maccabees:
Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”
Comparative Essay on Roman Empire: Rule of Augustus and Trajan
….
There are many debates as to which emperor was the better ruler, Trajan or Augustus? It can perhaps be considered an unfair question, as each ruled the empire in vastly different political climates. Trajan ruled for nineteen years between 98 AD to 117 AD and is considered to be one of the greatest emperors in the history of Rome. Known as ‘Optimus Princeps,’ which translates to ‘greatest of princes,’ Trajan’s rule is believed to be “the period in history during which the human race was most happy and prosperous.” So much so that subsequent emperors often attempted to elevate their own reign by association with Trajan.
He conquered many lands and grew the Roman Empire to its largest expanse in history which resulted in his rule being a time of great prosperity for Rome. Similarly to Augustus, Trajan embraced his role as emperor by showing his support for adhering to traditional hierarchies and senatorial morals. He did this by openly shunning many of Domitian’s policies, such as his preference for equestrian officers. Many political writers of the Imperial Roman Age considered this to be one of the many reasons Trajan was such a well-received emperor, as he ruled less by fear such as Domitian and Titus, and more by acting as a role model and setting a good example, “men learn better from examples.” Aligning himself with Augustus’ autocratic way of ruling, Trajan “wielded autocratic power through moderatio instead of contumacia – moderation instead of insolence.” It was this approach to autocracy, his deferential behaviour towards his peers, that garnered him the respect and regard as a virtuous monarch.
Trajan is acknowledged to have created the best model of ruling an empire than any emperor before or after him. Domitian only strived to please the military and paid little attention to the Senate and Nerva concentrated his efforts on the Senate and disregarded the army whereas Trajan proved that actions could be taken to satisfy both the Senate’s and the army’s needs. However, in direct contrast with Augustus’ way of ruling, Trajan transformed the role of the emperor as he encroached on the senate’s authority, turning several senatorial provinces into imperial provinces in order to quell out-of-control spending on the local magnates part. Trajan essentially absolved the role of the senate as, according to Pliny, Trajan was a good emperor due to him approving and blaming the same things that the Senate would have approved or blamed.
Trajan garnered widespread support from his subjects as he presented himself very differently than previous emperors. Upon Trajan’s arrival in Rome he displayed a refreshing and grounding humble personality, as instead of arriving in a litter or chariot, he walked amongst the streets, greeting his subjects, senators and knights with equal warmth. Trajan did what no emperor had done before him, when referring to his subjects and in particular the army, Trajan uses the term ‘we’ instead of ‘them,’ showing solidarity and fellowship with those others considered to be below them. Trajan even went as far as becoming a ‘regular’ soldier himself; eating in the military mess, marching on foot, fording rivers, campaigning in person and honouring his fellow fallen soldiers with an annual ceremony. It is a measure of a great leader when one can inspire bravery and action in so many, and it is because of the way Trajan presented himself as ‘one of them’ that his troops were willing to risk all and display great prowess on his behalf, as he would do for them. This is further exaggerated when we look at documents written regarding Trajan’s death,
“After his death, it was said that no other emperor excelled or even equalled him in popularity with the people and his memory remained green for centuries. It was said that he displayed the utmost integrity and virtue in affairs of state and arms. The forum of Trajan, no matter how often we see it, is always wonderful.”
In conclusion, the conception of the role of the emperor across the years, particularly between the rule of Augustus and Trajan, experienced many changes. Augustus established the empire after his victory at the Battle of Actium and therefore began his rule as a strong and respected leader. He transformed the crumbling ruins of the Republic into a thriving and successful empire.
Augustus’s role as emperor consisted of heavy intervention into both private and public affairs, undertaking the role as ‘pater’ for all Roman households and sculpting the ‘perfect’ Roman family. He delegated much of his power to the senate and the people of Rome, whilst simultaneously establishing himself as an autocratic ruler. Additionally, Augustus believed that one’s family also played a part in the role of an emperor. Augustus was well-received and liked by his subjects, especially after his revival of traditional Roman morals and many popular policies of the idealised Republic. Although Trajan and Augustus shared many similarities in the role they performed as emperors, the main difference in the conception of the role of the emperor was Trajan’s decision to effectively absolve the power of the Senate and rule on their behalf. Trajan is considered to be the most loved of all the Roman Emperors as he presented himself as a humble, well-meaning and hard-working man. From walking on foot with his fellow soldiers to walking the streets and greeting his subjects, Trajan appeared to align himself as a fellow subject and soldier. If one is to attempt to answer the question of who was the better emperor, one can consider the quote, “May he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan,” which suggests that Augustus was a good emperor establishing the empire at a terrible time of turmoil and that Trajan was a good emperor because he began his rule at a time when Rome was already stable and flourishing. However, both emperors presented themselves as one who wanted to rule with the intent to improve the political, legal and social systems of Rome and did so without the use of fear or intimidation.
1. Spanish heritage: Both Trajan and Hadrian were of Hispanic origin.
2. Military achievements: Both emperors had successful military campaigns, with Trajan conquering new territories and Hadrian consolidating existing ones.
3. Administrative reforms: Both Trajan and Hadrian implemented administrative reforms to improve the functioning of the Roman Empire.
4. Attention to infrastructure: Both emperors invested in public works and infrastructure projects to improve cities and provinces.
5. Civic projects: Trajan and Hadrian sponsored numerous civic projects, such as the construction of public buildings, roads, and bridges.
6. Favorable public opinion: Both emperors were generally well-regarded by the public, being known for their fair and just rule.
7. Interest in architecture: Both Trajan and Hadrian demonstrated a strong interest in architecture and left a lasting architectural legacy.
8. Patronage of the arts: Both emperors supported and patronized the arts, particularly literature and poetry.
9. Honoring the military: Both Trajan and Hadrian showed great respect and appreciation for the Roman military.
10. Longevity of reigns: Both emperors had relatively long reigns, with Trajan ruling for 19 years and Hadrian for 21 years.
“If the Forum of Trajan remained relatively intact until the late Antiquity, it virtually disappeared in the Middle Ages. Many of the forum’s buildings were destroyed in an earthquake in 801.
Subsequently, the Forum’s materials were looted and new buildings were gradually built above the ruins of the ancient monuments”.
The main culprit is given here as an earthquake, followed by looting, and new buildings over built on the site.
I discussed a similar problem for ancient Egypt, with Sun Temples unable to be found:
A similar problem arises with the so-called Fifth Dynasty,
with four of its supposed six sun temples undiscovered.
A different approach is obviously needed when, after decades or more of searching, a famous ancient capital city such as Akkad (Agade) cannot be found; nor can the tombs of virtually an entire dynasty (Egyptian Second); nor can four whole sun temples (Egyptian Fifth Dynasty).
The Second Dynasty of Egypt, however – whose beginning I would re-date to about a millennium later than does the conventional model – appears to overlap, in great part, with (according to what I have already tentatively determined) the very beginnings of Egyptian dynastic history.
That the Second Dynasty may be, to a great extent at least, a duplication of the First Dynasty, may be supported by the disturbing (for Egyptologists) non-existence of Second Dynasty burials (Miroslav Verner, Abusir, p. 16. My emphasis): “The tombs of the rulers of the Second Dynasty, which for the most part have not yet been discovered, represent one of the greatest problems of Egyptian archaeology”.
A similar problem arises with the so-called Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, with four of its supposed six sun temples undiscovered.
Thus Jeff Burzacott, “The missing sun temples of Abusir”:
Abusir is one of the large cemeteries of the Old Kingdom kings, around 16 kilometres south of the famous Great Pyramids of Giza.
Although the history of the Abusir necropolis began in the 2nd Dynasty, it wasn’t until King Userkaf, the first ruler of the Fifth Dynasty, chose to build here that the Abusir skyline changed forever.
What Userkaf built here wasn’t a pyramid; he nestled his final resting place close to the world’s first pyramid, that of Djoser at Saqqara. What Userkaf raised at Abusir was something new – a sun temple.
The sun temple was a large, squat obelisk, raised on a grand pedestal, and connected with the worship of the setting sun. Each day the sun sank below the western horizon into the Underworld where it faced a dangerous journey before rising triumphantly, reborn at dawn. It was a powerful symbol of cyclical resurrection. The obelisk shape is likely symbolic of the sacred benben stone of Heliopolis, which represented the primeval mound, the first land to rise from the waters of Nun at the dawn of time, and where creation began. This was the centre of the cosmos.
For the next 70 years, Abusir was a hive of activity as the pyramids of Userkaf’s sons, Sahure (rightmost pyramid) and Neferirkare, (leftmost pyramid), as well as his grandson, Niuserre (centre) raised their own step pyramids and sun temples there.
Buried in the Abusir sand are also the barely-started pyramids of Fifth Dynasty pharaohs whose short-lived reigns saw their grand monuments hastily sealed, just a few courses of stone above the desert.
Six sun temples are mentioned in inscriptions, although only the ruins of Userkaf’s and Niuserre’s have been discovered. Hopefully, buried out there somewhere lay four more sun temples, waiting to feel Ra’s rays once again.
[End of quote]
Massimiliano Nuzzolo and Patrizia Zanfagna have sensibly turned to high tech for the purpose of detecting any lost Egyptian monuments:
The Search for the Lost Sun Temples: A Glimpse from the Satellite
But, just as I would not hold much hope for Jeff Burzacott’s “four more sun temples, waiting to feel Ra’s rays once again”, I would not expect satellite technology to find those four, supposedly missing, sun temples. For it is my belief that the rulers of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, just like those of the Second, have been duplicated – {a duplication of dynasties occurring at various stages of Egyptian history as well} – meaning that there were not six rulers who built six sun temples.
Most likely, then, all (two) of the sun temples that were built have already been discovered.
[End of article]
Could the same be the case for Trajan’s Forum?
That we already have more of it, but under the name of a duplicated ruler (rulers)?
Boys and wine
Trajan:
I know, of course, that he was devoted to boys and to wine, but if he had ever committed or endured any base or wicked deed as the result of this, he would have incurred censure; as it was, however, he drank all the wine he wanted ….
Although it was not uncommon for his predecessors to have taken gay lovers alongside a female spouse, Hadrian was unique in making his love “official” in a way that no other emperor had before him.
… [Hadrian] followed Trajan to the Dacian Wars in a position of fairly close intimacy; at this time, indeed, he states that he indulged in wine too, so as to fall in with Trajan’s habits, and that he was very richly rewarded for this by Trajan.
The gymnasium of Salamis in Cyprus, with its colonnaded palaestra, was built over the ruins of an earlier Hellenistic gymnasium in the 2nd century CE [sic] during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian after Salamis had been greatly damaged during the Jewish revolt in 116 CE.
I Maccabees 1:14-15
So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.
The emperor Trajan … was a vicious anti-Semite, and the Jews suffered terribly through his long reign. Dreaming of extending the Roman Empire beyond the countries Alexander the Great had conquered, even to fabled India, Trajan knew that Babylon, heavily populated by Jews, lay in his path. The Babylonian Jews found themselves in a terrible dilemma: Should they resist the Romans, thereby endangering all the Jews in the Roman Empire, or should they not fight alongside their Babylonian countrymen to repulse Trajan, and thereby being accused of treason? Alarmed at the prospect of all the world’s Jews falling under Roman domination, the Jews of Babylon chose the former. As such, the Romans conquered Babylon, but held it only a short time.
Infuriated by the Jewish role in Trajan’s defeat, the anti-Semitic Greeks of Alexandria, Egypt, assisted by Roman troops, instigated pogroms against the Alexandrian Jews, the largest Jewish population of any city in the Roman Empire. Many Jews had assembled for prayer at the Great Synagogue, which was so vast that sextons standing with flags indicated the time to respond Amento the blessings.
At prayer, the Jews were massacred to the last person.
When the Jews of Cyprus and Libya discovered what had happened to the empire’s largest and wealthiest Jewish community, they readied themselves to resist the inevitable attacks. Taking their preparations as a sign of incipient revolt, Trajan sent Roman legions to assist the Greeks in wiping out the Jews. To this day, church historians, full of malice toward Jews, have distorted these events, stating that the Jews both attempted a general uprising against Rome and engaged in wholesale massacres of Greeks and Romans. However, papyrus writings of that period indicate that the Greeks were the instigators.
During Trajan’s rule, the sages had to leave Yavneh and met secretly. Convening surreptitiously in the town of Lod, in the attic of the Nitzah family, their meetings are recorded in the Talmud as B’Aliyas Beit Nitzah B’Lud. At this time, Trajan appointed a special governor for Eretz Israel, Quietus, who caused so much anguish that to commemorate the intense suffering the sages forbade brides to wear crowns. He was so hated that the date of Quietus’ removal from office was celebrated annually.
Hadrian
If Trajan was horrible, he was benign compared to his successor Hadrian, who of all the Roman emperors was the single worst ruler of the Jewish people. Remarkably, though, Hadrian began his reign favorably inclined to the Jews. Roman oppression of Jews throughout the empire ceased, and the Sanhedrin was permitted to reconvene openly, this time in the town of Usha in the Galilee. Hadrian even gave permission to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash.
Understandably, excitement in the Jewish world reached a fever pitch. Vast sums of money were gathered, and multitudes of Jews streamed toward Eretz Israel. However, the Samaritan inhabitants of the land, long-time foes of the Jews, were terrified by the possibility of a Jewish rejuvenation. Convincing Hadrian that a Jewish rejuvenation would spark a revolt, the Samaritans advised Hadrian to retract his magnanimous gesture. Not willing to change his mind openly, Hadrian allowed the Jews to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash, but stipulated that it could not be in its original place. Since Jewish law precisely fixes the site of the Temple, this decree was tantamount to a revocation of the promise.
Greatly dismayed at having their hopes so cruelly dashed, many Jews began talking openly of revolt, and it took the valiant efforts of the great sage Rabbi Joshua to ameliorate the people’s anger. The turning point was his parable of a bird that removes a bone stuck in a lion’s throat, then demands a reward. The lion replies that the ability to boast of sticking one’s neck into a lion’s mouth and escaping unscathed is itself the greatest reward. Likewise, Rabbi Joshua continued, Jews should be grateful that they are not being persecuted, and therefore not demand too much from the Romans. Mollified, the people accepted Rabbi Joshua’s logic, and calm was temporarily restored.
Over time, however, Hadrian realized that the mitzvahsof the Torah, rather than national independence, were the backbone of the Jewish people – and he set out to break it. Indeed, Hadrian took several steps that convinced the Jewish people that there was no alternative to rising up against an oppressor bent on destroying them spiritually.
First, Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the site of the Beit Hamikdash, and then began constructing a new Roman city, naming it Aelia Capitolina, on the ruins of Jerusalem. To accomplish his aims, Hadrian completely ploughed over the remnants of Jerusalem, thereby removing all traces of the former Jewish presence. As the destruction of the Holy Temple itself, this tragedy also occurred on Tisha B’Av, and is one of the reasons for the fast. In a departure from previous Roman policy, Hadrian also decreed against the observance of key mitzvahs: bris milah, the Sabbath, and taharas mishpacha, family purity. As in the times of Antiochus, this blow against the Torah sparked the second great Jewish revolt against Rome.
[End of quote]
“As in the times of Antiochus … the … great Jewish revolt …”.
Hadrian’s era was “… the times of Antiochus … the … great Jewish revolt …”.
according to which the famed Jewish heroine, Judith, of c. 700 BC (conventional dating), has been strangely projected into a (artificial, I believe) c. 900 AD scenario, as Judith (or Gudit), complete with some Judith-like named ancestors.
The kingdom of Axum (or Aksum), I have concluded, appears to have been substituted for the ancient kingdom of Assyria (both in the case of Gudit and that of Mohammed).
Illig also reports on the conspicuous similarities between the Byzantine state of affairs of the 7th and the 10th centuries.
“Around the year 600 AD the advancing Avars weaken the imperial realm militarily on the Balkan peninsula”, he writes.
Let us not forget: with the correction of the 300 years the time of the advancement of the Avars coincides with the advancement of the Magyars. Since Byzantium will need to involve itself in another conflict with yet another strong northern enemy, this time in the beginning of the 900’s and the Magyars, there is a strong suspicion that the entire Avar era is nothing but a chronologically predated duplicate of the Magyar reconquest.
Illig refers to Manfred Zeller, who in his work about the steppe peoples points out: “the number of these horse peoples doubles in the 1st millennium, filling up the empty centuries!” Hence the Avars are simply just a duplicate. They are nothing other than a nation created from one of the adjectives used to describe the Hun-Magyars and its only purpose was to fill out the empty centuries. The rich archaeological finds admired under the Avar name might as well be the legacy of the Huns of Attila.
But let us return to Byzantium:
in 602 a frightening and talentless figure sits on the Byzantine throne in the person of Phokas, who can only come to power by regicide. Husrau II, the Persian king takes advantage of the favouring moment and attacks Byzantium, allegedly to avenge the death of the emperor. Although in 610 Heracleitos topples the terror reign of Phokas, the relentless advance of the Persians continues: they conquer East Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and via the shores of North Africa march all the way to Tripoli. The taking of Jerusalem and the capture of the Holy Cross takes place on May 22, 614 AD, after three weeks of siege. It is interesting to note, that Heracleitos has a co-ruler, his own son, who is crowned already at two years of age, but who lives in the shadow of his father for a long time without any real executive powers. When he finally and belatedly comes to genuine power, suddenly his wasting existence ends. The person in question is none other than Constantine III. On top of it all, this is the very same Constantine III also mentioned in the Chronicon Pictum in connection with the dating of the Magyar reconquest:
“… hundred and four years after the death of the Hungarian king Attila, in the time of emperor Constantinus III and pope Zachary – as it is written in the chronicles
of the Romans – the Magyars emerged a second time out of Scythia…”
Very strange it is that the author of the Chronicon Pictum manages to find the Byzantine emperor at the time of the Magyar reconquest to be an emperor living in the 600’s!
As we know, according to the theory of Illig the fictitious centuries start the year 614, that is, not long after the capturing of the Holy Cross. Constantine III is already crowned co-ruler, yet he is only three years old. The time when he comes to genuine power, actually already takes place in the phantom era.
If Illig’s theory is correct, then Constantine III has to appear in some form also in the 10th century. And lo and behold, the miracle of miracles, in the 10th century we again meet a Constantine – true, this time not III but VII! Indeed, it is the very Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus who in all likelihood was one of the creators of the fictitious centuries.
After all this, Illig starts to examine the 10th century life history of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. The story begins somewhere at the start of the 10th century, when pope Leo is widowed three times within four years, before Zoe gives birth to an illegitimate son. After crowning this boy co-ruler the year before, Leo dies in 912. (It is worthwhile to point out that according to the theory of Illig history starts again in 911, therefore, at the time of the crowning of his illegitimate son in 912, we are again witnessing genuine history take its course!) This boy rises to real power very late, 24 years after his coronation, meaning that up until then others were managing the affairs of the realm, which obviously must have stung in the eyes of the young emperor. In this regard he resembled very much Constantine III, who also got his hands on the governmental reins rather late, and who also was crowned co-ruler by his daddy, the emperor.
At this point who do you think was the illegitimate son of emperor Leo of the 10th century? Indeed, none other than Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus himself!
So there is a conspicuous similarity between the lives of the Constantine (III) of the 7th century and the Constantine (VII) of the 10th century. It is interesting to note, that Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus gives the credit for repossessing the Holy Cross from the Persians not coincidentally to Heracleitos, since by this act he honoured his own (7th century) father, paying homage to his memory. Due to the fact that Heracleitos, by being the father of Constantine III of the 7th century, was in fact also the father of Constantine VII of the 10th century! On top of it all, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus manages things in such a way, that the genuine history more or less starts again from the time of his own coronation!
But not only do the persons of the two Constantines show conspicuous similarities, but also the foreign political affairs of 7th century and 10th century Byzantium. In the 7th century, as I have already mentioned, the Avar advance from the north was afflicting the empire, while the Persian conquests in the east were multiplying the worries of “Constantines” of all ages. In the 10th century it is as if history would repeat itself: from the north the Magyars are disturbing the peace of the empire, while from the southeast the Arab advance is doing the same. This is the point at which a feeling of apprehension starts to boil up inside: is it not possible, that looking at the Avars of the 7th century we actually see the 10th century Magyars? And is it not possible, that the advance of the 10th century Arabs in actual fact is identical with the 7th century Persian advance? If the Byzantine empire in the 7th century had to face the opposition of the Persians and Avars, then these peoples turn into Magyars and Arabs in the 10th century! In connection with the Arab-Persian problem Illig writes the following:
“A certain mystery of art history becomes clear, which asks why there are to be found many more Persian-Syrian than Arab elements in Spain. (…) We no longer have to wonder how a small number of Arabs from oases could succeed in attacking all nations of their time from Spain to the Indus river with such favourable results; this is more to be expected from the Persian armies.”
“And just as Judas Maccabeus is promised divine aid in a dream before his victory
over Nicanor, so Constantine dreams that he will conquer his rival Maxentius”.
Paul Stephenson
Some of the Greek (Seleucid) history, conventionally dated to the last several BC centuries, appears to have been projected (appropriated) into a fabricated Roman imperial history of the first several AD centuries.
Most notably, in this regard, is the supposed Second Jewish Revolt against emperor Hadrian’s Rome, which – on closer examination – turns out to have been the Maccabean Jewish revolt against Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, of whom emperor Hadrian is “a mirror image”.
See e.g. my series:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: “… a mirror image”
Now, last night (2nd December, 2019), as I was reading through a text-like book on Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor (The Overlook Press, NY, 2010), written by Paul Stephenson, I was struck by the similarities between the Dyarchy (Greek δι- “twice” and αρχια, “rule”) – which later became the Tetrarchy (Greek τετραρχία) of the four emperors – on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the Diadochoi following on from Alexander the Great.
Concerning the latter, we read (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, 75:103): “With Alexander’s death, the leadership of several successors (Diadochoi) was ineffectual, and finally a fourfold division of the empire took place”.
Compare the Roman Tetrarchy with the “fourfold division” of Alexander of Macedon’s empire.
Added to this was the parallel factor of the ‘Great Persecution’ against Christians (c. 300 AD, conventional dating), and, of course, the infamous persecution of the Jews by Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’.
And I have already pointed to similarities between one of the four Roman emperors, of the time of Constantine, Galerius, and Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’.
But these are the sorts of similarities of which Paul Stephenson (author of the book on Constantine) is also aware (on p. 128 below he uses the phrase “the remarkable coincidences”).
109:
Lactantius’ On the Deaths of the Persecutors is the best and fullest account of the period 303-13 and this is indispensable. But it is also an angry screed, with no known model in Greek or Latin literature, nor in Christian apologetic. Not only did Lactantius delight in the misfortune and demise of the persecuting emperors, he also attributed them to the intervention of the god of the Christians, defending the interest of the faithful. Such an approach rejected the very premise on which martyrs had accepted death at the hands of their persecutors: that their god did not meddle in earthly affairs to bring misfortune upon Roman emperors. This was the first step in articulating a new Christian triumphalist rhetoric, which we shall explore more fully in later chapters.
In doing so, Lactantius drew on an Old Testament model, the Second Book of Maccabees, which still forms an accepted part of the Orthodox canon. Thus, the opening refrain of each text thanks God for punishing the wicked, and the agonizing death of Galerius mirrors that of Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Maccabees 9). And just as Judas Maccabeus is promised divine aid in a dream before his victory over Nicanor, so Constantine dreams that he will conquer his rival Maxentius.
127
Lactantius took great pleasure relating [Galerius’] death as divine punishment for his persecutions, describing his repulsive symptoms and the failure of pagan doctors and prayers to heal him.
Here I (Damien Mackey) will take the description from:
“And now when Galerius was in the eighteenth year of his reign, God struck him with an incurable disease. A malignant ulcer formed itself in the secret parts and spread by degree. The physicians attempted to eradicate it… But the sore, after having been skimmed over, broke again; a vein burst, and the blood flowed in such quantity as to endanger his life… The physicians had to undertake their operations anew, and at length they cauterized the wound… He grew emaciated, pallid, and feeble, and the bleeding then stanched. The ulcer began to be insensible to the remedy as applied, and gangrene seized all the neighboring parts. It diffused itself the wider the more the corrupted flesh was cut away, and everything employed as the means of cure served but to aggravate the disease. The masters of the healing art withdrew. Then famous physicians were brought in from all quarters; but no human means had any success… and the distemper augmented. Already approaching to its deadly crisis, it had occupied the lower regions of his body, his bowels came out; and his whole seat putrefied.
The luckless physicians, although without hope of overcoming the malady, ceased not to apply fermentations and administer remedies. The humors having been repelled, the distemper attacked his intestines, and worms were generated in his body. The stench was so foul as to pervade not only the palace, but even the whole city; and no wonder, for by that time the passages from waste bladder and bowels, having been devoured by the worms, became indiscriminate, and his body, with intolerable anguish, was dissolved into one mass of corruption.”
128
… Already dying [Galerius] issued the following edict [ending persecution] ….
…. Lactantius cites the edict in full. The story has much in common with the account of the death of Antiochus, persecutor of the Jews in the Second Book of Maccabees. Lactantius must have been struck by the remarkable coincidences, and borrowed Antiochus’ worms and stench.
….
The plot now thickens, with the heretical Arius also dying a horrible (Antiochus-Galerius) type of death:
275
Under imperial instruction, Arius was to be marched into church and admitted into full communion, but he never made it. Tradition holds that he died on the way, a hideous death reminiscent of Galerius’, which in Lactantius’ account drew heavily upon the death of Antiochus, persecutor of the Jews in 2 Maccabees. ….
Constantine more like ‘Epiphanes’
Some substantial aspects of the life of Constantine seem to have been lifted
right out of the era of king Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ and the Maccabees.
As briefly noted above:
Constantine’s victory over Maxentius is somewhat reminiscent of the victory over Nicanor by the superb Jewish general, Judas Maccabeus.
“And just as Judas Maccabeus is promised divine aid in a dream before his victory over Nicanor, so Constantine dreams that he will conquer his rival Maxentius”.
Other comparisons can be drawn as well.
For instance, Constantine’s army, too, was significantly outnumbered by that of his opponent.
Again, after Constantine’s victory the head of Maxentius was publicly paraded:
“His body was recovered, his head removed, then mounted on a lance and paraded triumphantly by Constantine’s men”.
Cf. 2 Maccabees 15:30-33):
Then Judas, that man who was ever in body and soul the chief defender of his fellow citizens, and had maintained from youth his affection for his compatriots, ordered Nicanor’s head and right arm up to the shoulder to be cut off and taken to Jerusalem. When he arrived there, he assembled his compatriots, stationed the priests before the altar, and sent for those in the citadel.
He showed them the vile Nicanor’s head and the wretched blasphemer’s arm that had been boastfully stretched out against the holy dwelling of the Almighty. He cut out the tongue of the godless Nicanor, saying he would feed it piecemeal to the birds and would hang up the other wages of his folly opposite the temple.
Prior to his battle with Nicanor, Judas, according to 2 Maccabees (15:15-16), received from the deceased prophet Jeremiah, in “a dream, a kind of waking vision, worthy of belief” (v. 11), a golden sword.
Stretching out his right hand, Jeremiah presented a gold sword to Judas. As he gave it to him he said, ‘Accept this holy sword as a gift from God; with it you shall shatter your adversaries’.
Could this be the origin (in part) of the Excalibur (King Arthur) legends?
For Constantine apparently occupies a fair proportion of Arthurian legend according to:
Constantine the Great, who in AD 306 was proclaimed Roman emperor in York, forms 8% of Arthur’s story, whilst Magnus Maximus, a usurper from AD 383, completes a further 39%. Both men took troops from Britain to fight against the armies of Rome, Constantine defeating the emperor Maxentius; Maximus killing the emperor Gratian, before advancing to Italy. Both sequences are later duplicated in Arthur’s story.
Earlier, I had likened somewhat the fourfold division of the empire of Alexander the Great and the tetrarchy of Constantine’s reign, including the case of the emperor Galerius with whom I had previously identified Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’.
And, as I pointed out in the following article, historians can find it difficult to distinguish between the buildings of (the above-mentioned) Herod and those of Hadrian:
Of chronological ‘necessity’ they must assume that, as according to this article:
In the later Hadrianic period material from the earlier Herodian constructions was reused, resetting the distinctive “Herodian” blocks in new locations.
…. The first pair of roundels on the south side depicts Antinous, Hadrian, an attendant and a friend of the court (amicus principis) departing for the hunt (left tondo) and sacrificing to Silvanus, the Roman god of the woods and wild (right tondo).
Tondi Adrianei on the Arch of Constantine, Southern side – left lateral, LEFT: Departure for the hunt, RIGHT: Sacrifice to Silvanus
….
The first pair of roundels on the south side depicts a bear hunt (left tondo) and a sacrifice to the goddess of hunting Diana (right tondo).
….
On the north side, the left pair depicts a boar hunt (left tondo) and a sacrifice to Apollo (right tondo). The figure on the top left of the boar hunt relief is clearly identified as Antinous while Hadrian, on horseback and about to strike the boar with a spear, was recarved to resemble the young Constantine. The recarved emperor in the sacrifice scene is likely to be Licinius or Constantius Chlorus.
….
Tondi Adrianei on the Arch of Constantine, Northern side – left lateral, LEFT: Boar hunt, RIGHT: Sacrifice to Apollo
….
On the north side, the right pair depicts a lion hunt (left tondo) and a sacrifice to Hercules (right tondo). The figure of Hadrian in the hunt scene was recut to resemble the young Constantine while in the sacrifice scene the recarved emperor is either Licinius or Constantius Chlorus. The figure on the left of the hunt tondo may show Antinous as he was shortly before his death; with the [first] signs of a beard, meaning he was no longer a young man. These tondi are framed in purple-red porphyry. This framing is only extant on this side of the northern facade. ….
Fred S. Kleiner (A History of Roman Art, p. 326, my emphasis) will go as far as to write that “every block of the arch [of Constantine] were [sic] reused from earlier buildings”:
The Arch of Constantine was the largest erected in Rome since the end of the Severan dynasty nearly a century before, but recent investigations have shown that the columns and every block of the arch were reused from earlier buildings. …. Although the figures on many of the stone blocks were newly carved for this arch, much of the sculptural decoration was taken from monuments of Trajan, Hadrian …. Sculptors refashioned the second-century reliefs to honor Constantine by recutting the heads of the earlier emperors with the features of the new ruler. ….
The highly paganised (Sol Invictus) polytheistic worshipping, family murdering, Constantine makes for – somewhat like Charlemagne – a very strange, exemplary Christian emperor.
And Constantine’s rushed ‘conversion’ during his Persian campaign, just before his death: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/constantine-the-great-a-roman-emperor-history-essay.php “Since he was converted into Christianity later in his life, he was not baptized until a little time before his death. He died on May twenty second, A.D. 337 on the way to campaign against the Persians”, is something of a carbon copy of that of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, upon his flight from Persia, terminally ill. Besides all this, he would become a Jew himself and visit every inhabited place to proclaim there the power of God.
The whole account of it is, I think, vividly narrated in 2 Maccabees 9:1-29.
Nero, again like Herod, is found slaughtering many innocents.
It is to be expected that an event as cosmically significant, and indeed as colourful, as the Magi’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, to behold and pay homage to the Christ Child, the King of the Jews, would resonate in many world literatures and traditions.
For instance, I have followed Holger Kersten’s perceptive likening of the Magi incident with a famous Buddhist tradition, in my article:
There is an example of a much earlier appropriation of Matthew’s Gospel than this in an event supposedly occurring during the reign of the emperor Nero:
To seal Roman control over Armenia, Nero gave the throne of the country to King Tiridates, but obliged him to travel to Rome to accept it. Tiridates traveled with an entourage of three thousand who, by all accounts passed along their route like a plague of locusts, obliging the countries and provinces that they crossed to feed and support them. Pliny the Elder, Tacitus and Dion Cassius all describe the visit in their histories, with Pliny being cutting in his references, accusing Nero of “carrying out all kinds of stupidity”, but making the interesting comment in Historia Naturalis, 30:6, 16-18:
“Magus ad eum Tiridates venerat Armeniacum de se triumphum adferens et ideo provinciis gravis… quaereat aliquis, quae sint mentiti veteres Magi”.
The Magus Tiridates came to his court… and, with him, brought other Magi.
Tiridates knew his role well and greeted Nero with the words:
I have come to you, my god, who I have worshipped like the Sun
….
Though this supposedly historical incident is taken by some to have been the inspiration for Matthew’s account, I would have it the other way around – a pagan non-history appropriating the Gospel story.
Nero, again like Herod, is found slaughtering many innocents:
Another incident involving the slaughter of innocents concerns the murder of a leading senator in AD 61. ‘The senator was killed in his house’, Thorsten says, ‘and an ancient law stipulated that all of the household slaves should be executed to set a deterrent. There were 400 slaves in the house, so in an extreme case that would mean 399 of them were innocent. Debates were held in the Senate, and the younger senators felt this punishment was too harsh, but the old Senate leaders insisted on upholding the law. The plebs come out in support of the slaves, but Nero ended up backing the senators who wanted to follow the law. They were from key senatorial families who wanted power for themselves. Among them was one of the leading men of the Senate, and his son-in-law was Corbulo: the main Roman commander in the East. …’.
For further connecting between Nero and Herod, see e.g. my article:
Chilperic, the “Nero and Herod of our time” as quoted by Gregory of Tours, was the king of Soissons from 561 until his assassination in 584, an event Gregory seems to cherish, as it ended the reign of “this wicked man”. Gregory’s description of him is very unfavourable throughout the book. From the onset, Chilperic is described as a greedy man who inherited his late father’s treasury, and bribed all the prominent Franks to his side. (IV. 21) He also lusted after women, as he asked for the hand of Galswinth, the sister of his brother’s wife, even though he had a number of wives. He told his messengers to inform the people that he had gotten rid of the other wives, in order for him to marry someone with his own ranking, and with a large dowry. He went back and forth between Galswinth and his other trophy wife Fredegund, before ultimately choosing Galswinth. Ultimately, Galswinth died and within a couple of days, he was asking Fredegund to sleep with him again, and there was strong suspicion he killed Galswinth. (IV 27-8) He charged outrageous taxes for people under his control, and felt no contempt for the poor, rather burdened them with more debt, and banned them from the churches. (VI.46)
Chilperic was also described by Gregory of Tours as being a man of uncontrollable rage and violence. He burned much of the districts around Tours, and marched on Rheims burning and destroying almost everything in his path. (IV. 47)
When his brother Sigibert was killed, Sigila, who was associated with Sigibert’s death was captured by King Chilperic was burned by red hot pincers, and had his limbs torn limb by limb. (IV. 51) Obviously not trying to win a father of the year award, Chilperic had his son Clovis stabbed to death, had his wife Fredegund brutally murdered, and had his daughter thrown into a monastery. (V.1) And the woman who testified against Clovis was burnt alive. People who attempted to desert his city would be cut down and slaughtered by the thousands, and he even poked out people’s eyes for disobedience. In an exceedingly cruel act, Leudast, a man who had fallen on the King’s bad side, and was not allowed to take residence in the city, had his scalp chopped off. Still alive, Chilperic ordered that he receive medical attention until he healed, and then would be tortured to death, done by having a block of wood wedged behind his back while being bludgeoned to death by being repeatedly hit in the throat by another block of wood. (V1.32)
Chilperic was also described as an intolerant man, as he forbade his son Merovich from seeing Sigibert’s widowed wife, whom the King had banished to the city of Rouen and stole her treasure. When they refused to come out of church, Chilperic lied to them in order for them to come out, and took his son home with him, refusing the two to coalesce. When he still chose to defile his fathers [sic] wishes, Chilperic had his son held in exile in a narrow, roofless tower for two years. After these two years, Merovich was forced to become a priest and sent to live in a monastery. Merovich decided to take his life rather than allow his father to constantly dominate his life, so he had his friend Gailen kill him. In retaliation, Gailen was taken by Chilperic and had his hands, feet, ears and nose cut off, and was tortured to death. Anyone who was associated with Merovich were also tortured to death. (V1-18)
One aspect of judgement that Gregory of Tours holds against Chilperic is in regards to religion. Chilperic attacked and destroyed churches along the way, and made a mockery of the Lord.
He even argued Gregory’s religious views by stating to him that there should be no distinctions of Persons in the Holy Trinity. For him, they should all be referred to as God, as if he was a Person, and the Holy Ghost, Father, and Son were one. Gregory of Tours viciously debated his assertion, stating that anyone who agreed with Chilperic would be a fool. Chilperic even begged to the Bishop of Albi to believe his views. (V.44) Gregory of Tours dislike of Chilperic also stems from the fact that the King accused him of levelling wild accusations about his wife. Gregory shows that his judgements of Chilperic are due to the fact that he has been a victim of the Kings outrage. (V.49) Chilperic eventually turned towards Gregory and asked for a blessing to be performed on him. This newfound religious aspect, moved Chilperic to convert a great number of Jews to be baptized, and even carried out a number of baptisms. However, many “converted” Jews resorted to their old faith. He even gave to the churches, and the poor in an effort to show good grace. (V.34)
Overall, by bestowing the unfortunate name of “Nero and Herod” of our time, Gregory of Tours is claiming that King Chilperic was an evil, demonic tyrant, who lusted for power, and reviled in torturing others. His standard of judgement is being a victim himself of Chilperic’s outrage, and having witnessed grave atrocities. Personally, I see a direct link between Chilperic and a later tyrant, and the first tsar of Russia, Ivan Grozny. Ivan IV was a man similar in many ways, in that he had numerous wives, some whom [sic] strangely disappeared, but lusted after one in specific, Anastasia Romanov. More than that, he was a man who disliked the woman whom his son was dating, beat her until she had a miscarriage, and murdered his own son “accidentally”. He even set up the “oprichnina” and had thousands of fleeing citizens to Novgorod cut down and massacred. He was fascinated by torture, and seeing others in grave pain. Much like Chilperic, he would remove people’s eyes, much like he did with the two architects who made a beautiful church monument that outshone all others, and Ivan even found religion later on in life. Aside from my ramblings about similarities, overall I think Chilperic was a brutal man, who committed many acts of greed, gluttony and death, in order to elevate his status, and force obedience from other people. Too call him Nero is a very harsh comparison, but by looking at many of his acts, including the murder of Leudast, it may be deserved, as he was a man not afraid to torture, maim, and kill for his own personal enjoyment. Overall, Gregory is correct in looking down upon Chilperic, as he was a bad man.
….
Finally, Ernest Brehaut (1916) has designated king Chilperic I “the forerunner of the secular state in France”:
….
Gregory calls him “the Nero and Herod of our time,” and loads him with abuse. He ridicules his poems, and according to his own story overwhelms him with an avalanche of contempt when he ventures to state some new opinions on the Trinity. The significant thing about Chilperic was this, that he had at this time the independence of mind to make such a criticism, as well as the hard temper necessary to fight the bishops successfully. “In his reign,” Gregory tells us, “very few of the clergy reached the office of bishop.”
Chilperic used often to say:
“Behold our treasury has remained poor, our wealth has been transferred to the churches; there is no king but the bishops; my office has perished and passed over to the bishops of the cities.” [note: see p. 166 (Book VI: 46)] Chilperic was thus the forerunner of the secular state in France.
Wife, Fredegund
“Gregory credited himself with this last role – admittedly more a paradigm than biography – so that he could demonstrate what Marc Reydellet
has observed: ‘Gregory of Tours covers himself in the robe of the prophet
in order to cast anathema on the diabolical couple Chilperic and Fredegund, the new Ahab and Jezebel’.”
It is amazing just how many kings of the (supposedly) AD era have been described as Ahab-like, or as Nero-like, or as Herod-like, whilst any number of queens, especially those named Isabelle, have been likened to Jezebel or Herodias – so much so that I was prompted to ask:
…. Here is the most cartoonishly evil woman I have ever come across: Fredegund. This woman was a 6th-century Merovingian queen consort with a penchant for killing people. Her notable life went roughly as follows:
She works her way into the palace of Chilperic I as a serving woman for the queen, Audovera.
Chilperic I, although married to Audovera, takes Fredegund as a concubine.
Fredegund convinces him to divorce Audovera and send her to a nunnery.
Fredegund then quietly kills Audovera.
Chilperic then marries another woman, Galswintha.
Galswintha turns up strangled in her own bed.
Chilperic marries Fredegund a couple days later, presumably getting the hint.
Fredegund kills Chilperic’s brother Sigebert (the two brothers had been fighting). She also tries to kill Sigebert’s son.
Chilperic turns up mysteriously dead.
Immediately thereafter, Fredegund takes all his money, skips town, and starts living in Notre Dame Cathedral (sanctuary, indeed!) under the protection of Chilperic’s brother, Guntram.
Three years later she tries to assassinate Guntram.
Ten years later, Fredegund dies (how, I do not know).
If Fredegund had a foil, it was Galswintha’s sister (and Sigebert’s widow), Brunhild. For forty years, the two of them fought — resulting in endless warfare and, you can be sure, at least one assassination attempt.
In the end, Brunhild outlived Fredegund, but even from beyond the grave, Fredegund had the last word.
Mackey’s comment: Brunhild, too, has, for her part, been described as a ‘Jezebel”:
Sixteen years after Fredegund’s death, with Brunhild now a sixty-something woman, Fredegund’s son killed her in as brutal a manner as I’ve ever heard. First, torture on the rack.
Next, each of her extremities was tied to a different horse, and they were all set to run in different directions, tearing her apart. Lastly, they burnt her body.
But none of these are the craziest thing Fredegund ever did.
“Hey Rigunth, go pick out some jewelry from that treasure chest.”
So what is the craziest thing she ever did? Well, you see, she had a daughter, Rigunth. Rigunth, as princesses do, was looking forward to one day being queen herself. One day, exasperated by her daughter’s “I want to be queen nowww” whining, Fredegund told her to go look inside Chilperic’s treasure chest and pick out some jewelry for herself.
When Rigunth poked her head in the treasure chest, Fredegund slammed it shut on her neck. Had servants not stopped her, she would have killed her own daughter.
“Vengeance” is also well to the fore in the following lively account of queen Fredegund:
The Frankish Queen Fredegund is a rare exception to this rule – and, oddly enough, it’s not because historians portray her in a positive light. No, with this chick it’s because she truly was an utterly-bloodthirsty vengeance machine who rested at nothing short of the completely over-the-top torture deaths of all who stood in her path, obliterating dumbasses across the continent of Europe until every single human being – from King to Bishop to Peasant – who stupidly wound up on her bad side immediately found themselves face-down in a pool of their own blood surrounded by knife-wielding assassins, poisonous beverages, and/or well-sharpened instruments of painful torture and horrible mutilation.
She is one of history’s most violent and bloodthirsty queens, and her entire life was centered around the one primary tenet of unquestionable badassitude – Live for Revenge.
We don’t know much about where one of the world’s most epic vengeance-mongers actually came from. We’re pretty sure Fredegund (also known as Fredegond, Fredegunda, or simply Freddie) was Frankish, meaning that she was simultaneously French, German, and Belgian without actually being any of those things, and that when she was in her late teens she was sold as a slave to the wife of King Chilperic of Souissons – a guy who at the time sort-of ruled a piece of the Frankish Kingdom (when Chilperic’s dad died, he’d divided his empire up among his sons rather than putting one kid in charge of the entire kingdom…
….
Well Fredegund wasn’t all that particularly interested in being a servant-girl to the Queen, so instead … she seduced King Chilperic, hooked up with him, then convinced him to divorce the Queen and send that annoying primadonna off to live a life of celibacy in a convent somewhere. Unfortunately for Freddie, once the king was divorced he decided to marry some annoying Visigoth Princess instead, so once again Fredegund worked her magic and had that bitch strangled to death in her sleep.
After all the competition was dead or nunnified, Chilperic decided it was in the best interest of self-preservation to marry Fredegund, a woman who had now somehow awesomely gone from slave-girl to Queen of the Franks in the span of like a year and a half.
Well, naturally being the Queen was great and everything, but now Fredegund had a new problem to worry about – the hardcore sister of the recently-strangulated Visigoth Queen just so happened to be a … warrior-babe named Brunhilde, and Brunhilde was not a very happy girl. Brunhilde also just so happened to be a Queen in her own right, married to Chilperic’s brother Siegebert, a guy who was in charge of another part of the recently-divided Frankish Kingdom (still with me here?), and before long the two factions were in the process of stabbing each other in the face repeatedly and without mercy in an all-out war that stretched from Paris to Berlin.
Long story short, Chilperic/Fredegund fought an epic seven-year war with Siegebert/ Brunhilde, with either side sending their mailed knights charging spears-first into combat …. After a hard-fought campaign, Fredegund defeated her rivals, crushed them in battle, then had King Siegebert whacked by stabbing him in the kidneys by a pair of assassins while he was in the process of giving a speech about how he was going to get revenge … [on] Fredegund once and for all (I’m not sure if she planned the timing to work out like that, but it’s badass either way). With the rival King dead, Fredegund overran the rest of Siegebert’s men, captured Brunhilde, destroyed her cities, and then had Siegebert’s top government official (who was admittedly a greedy evil bastard known as “The Breaker of Wills”) executed by being systematically dismembered joint-by-joint with white-hot pokers and knives ….
Fredegund also planned to have Brunhilde whacked as well, but while she was trying to figure out some sort of awesome new cruel and unusual punishment to carry out some … [one] … broke Brunhilde out of prison and snuck her out of the realm.
….
Fredegund eventually tracked that guy down and had him stabbed to death by his own servants, then had his kid poisoned to death by an evil chef just for good measure.
With Brunhilde sort-of out of the way, Fredegund continued her mad rampage to consolidate power for her, her husband, and their now-newborn son.
First she went after the sons of Chilperic’s first wife (you know, the poor girl Fredegund had already exiled to a monastery), killing them by infecting them with dysentery until they died of their own explosive diarrhea. Then she went after some alleged conspirators and other people that talked trash about her, having them executed on torture racks and then throwing their broken bodies to wolves or lions. After that she attacked the clergy, most of whom weren’t all that cool with things like torture-related deaths and were stupid enough to say something like that out loud – first she whacked a dude named Mummolus the Perfect (who, let’s face it, couldn’t have been all that bad), then she publicly yelled at a Catholic Saint (and then silently watched the guy get stabbed and slowly bleed to death in his own cathedral), and, as if that’s not enough, she then tried to ice the Bishop of Bayeux for investigating the murder and sticking his stupid face where it didn’t belong (snitches get stitches).
….
Fredegund’s primary method of disposing of her enemies was by hiring easily-bribeable men to poison or shiv her enemies for her. Thanks to her own personal charm, a collection of dirty secrets that would make Nick Fury want to high-five her, and a nearly-limitless amount of gold at her disposal, the Queen of the Franks routinely hired everyone from Dukes and Priests to slaves and brigands to take up oleander-coated daggers and shank douchebags in her name. Her personal favorite method of execution was to hire a band of thugs armed with heavily-poisoned Swedish eating utensils known as scramsaxes (it even sounds like an IKEA thing) to fall upon her target in the woods … rob them, and leave them to die slow, agonizingly-painful deaths. Then, when the brigands would return to report the kill, Fredegund would have those …. whacked as well, regardless of whether they completed their mission or not (though it’s worth mentioning she’d just behead them with axes at dinner parties if they succeeded, whereas if they failed it was much worse… one poor cleric who failed to execute Brunhilde was punished by having his hands and feet cut off and then being thrown in a hole).
Eventually Fredegund’s enemies got a little fed up with all this nonsense and had her husband Chilperic assassinated (some people think this was Fredegund’s doing as well, but this seems unlikely). With her husband dead and her son still too young to rule, Fredegund fled Soissons to Paris, moved into the cathedral of Notre Dame, and took on the role of Queen Regent, where she controlled the day-to-day operations of the realm.
Now officially in charge of the Kingdom, she ruled with an iron fist, forging alliances, sending armies into the field, and utterly crushing anyone who she considered a threat to either herself or her son.
For the most part, things were pretty successful – she ruled solo for a decade, captured several cities near Paris, allied with the powerful Kingdom of Burgundy, won the throne for her son, and beat … Theodebert who was acting up and causing all sorts of trouble – all of which are notable achievements for anybody, let alone a woman ruling undisputed in the … Middle Ages. She did have a little trouble with her daughter though… Fredegund unwisely tried to marry that poor girl off to the Visigoths, but instead of accepting her into their tribe they just robbed her of her dowry and sent her back to Paris empty-handed. The girl lived at home for a while, and, as can tend to happen with teenaged daughters and their mothers, they didn’t really get along. The highlight of this feud was one time when the daughter came out and said she should be the Queen Regent and Fredegund should retire – Fredegund, who was in the treasure room picking out jewels at the time, asked the daughter to grab something for her out of a particularly-huge treasure chest. When the daughter reached in, Fredegund closed the chest on her head and choked her … until she got her act together. As if you needed more … about this woman, this story was so popular during the Middle Ages that Fredegund is sometimes cited as a possible inspiration for the Wicked Stepmother in Cinderella.
Fredegund eventually sorted [things] out with her kid, handed the reins off once her son was old enough to take over as King, and then died peacefully in her bed in Paris in 597 AD. She’d ruled for 40 years, killed everyone who opposed her, and lived for revenge in a way most action movie heroes could only dream about.
The only person who’d successfully eluded her wrath was that annoying do-gooder Brunhilde, but Fredegund’s son eventually settled that … once and for all as well – he captured the 60 year-old queen, put her on the rack for three days, then had her drawn and quartered by horses. His mom would have been proud. ….
“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of
the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius
was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register”.
Luke 2:1-3
Some Background
My proposed collision of Antiochus, Augustus and Hadrian may come across somewhat like the mad mash of ancient history that one will find in the writings of Islamic author, Ahmed Osman.
On this, see e.g. my series:
Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People
The Seleucid king, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (c. 170 BC), and the supposedly Roman emperors, Augustus (c. 1 AD) and Hadrian (c. 130 AD) – an historical span of some 300 years – all now to be fused as one? Incredible!
In various articles, though, I have built upon the amazing likenesses between ‘Epiphanes’ and Hadrian, prompting scholars to regard the one as being the mirror image of the other:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: “… a mirror image”
Added to this is the Jewish tradition that replaces king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ with Hadrian as the king overseeing the martyrdom of the Maccabean mother and her seven sons.
In conventional terms, this is a gross anachronism – but not according to my scheme.
Hadrian, a supposed Roman, is actually an inveterate Grecophile.
Rome keeps getting in the way, as in the quotation from Luke 2 above, according to which Caesar Augustus had ordered “a census … of the entire Roman world”.
The problem here is that “Roman” is nowhere mentioned in the original text (2:1), … πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην, meaning “the whole world”.
For more on my theme, ‘not all roads leading to Rome’, see e.g. my multi-part series:
Horrible Histories: Retracting Romans. Part One: Still a Republic at time of Herod ‘the Great’
A key point in this whole new reconstruction is my view that the census at the time of the Nativity of Jesus Christ the Messiah, the one issued by Caesar Augustus as considered above, needs to be recognised as being the very same census as the one referred to by rabbi Gamaliel, at the time of Judas the Galilean – the latter, in turn, being the same as Judas Maccabeus, hence a necessary crunching of some 170 years of conventional history.
On this, see e.g. my article:
Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”
A further potential point of correlation for linking, as one, emperors Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, Augustus and Hadrian, is that, associated with each of these names, was a virtually second-self high official capable of standing in for the king – one who exerted power in Palestine.
For Antiochus, it was Philip the Phrygian; for Augustus, it was Herod ‘the Great’, who was also Marcus Agrippa; whilst, for Hadrian, it was Herodes Atticus.
When reading through Anthony Everitt’s 392-page book, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (Random House, NY, 2009), I was struck by the constant flow of similarities between Hadrian and Augustus – which the author himself does nothing to hide.
Here are some of them:
Pp. 190-191:
Ten years into his reign, Hadrian announced to the world that, speaking symbolically, he was a reincarnation of Augustus.
P. x:
… Augustus, whom Hadrian greatly admired and emulated.
P. 145:
Flatterers said that [Hadrian’s] eyes were languishing, bright, piercing and full of light”. …. One may suspect that this was exactly what Hadrian liked to hear (just as his revered Augustus prided himself on his clear, bright eyes).
P. 190:
… the true hero among his predecessors was Augustus. For the image on Hadrian’s signet ring to have been that of the first princeps was an elegantly simple way of acknowledging indebtedness …. Later, he asked the Senate for permission to hang an ornamental shield, preferably of silver, in Augustus’ honor in the Senate.
P. 191:
What was it that Hadrian valued so highly in his predecessor? Not least the conduct of his daily life. Augustus lived with conscious simplicity and so far as he could avoided open displays of his preeminence.
P. 192:
Both Augustus and Hadrian made a point of being civiles principes, polite autocrats. …. Whenever Augustus was present, he took care to give his entire attention to the gladiatorial displays, animal hunts, and the rest of the bloodthirsty rigmarole. Hadrian followed suit.
P. 193:
Hadrian followed Augustus’ [consulship] example to the letter – that is, once confirmed in place, he abstained. …. Hadrian’s imitation of Augustus made it clear that he intended to rule in an orderly and law-abiding fashion … commitment to traditional romanitas, Romanness.
It was on these foundations that he would build the achievements of his reign. Like the first princeps, Hadrian looked back to paradigms of ancient virtue to guide modern governance. Augustus liked to see himself as a new Romulus …. Hadrian followed suit ….
P. 196:
[Juvenal] was granted … a pension and a small but adequate farmstead near Tibur …. Hadrian was, once again, modelling himself on Augustus, who was a generous patron of poets ….
P. 202:
[Hadrian] conceived a plan to visit every province in his wide dominions. Like the first princeps, he liked to see things for himself….
P. 208:
Hadrian introduced [militarily] the highest standards of discipline and kept the soldiers on continual exercises, as if war were imminent. In order to ensure consistency, he followed the example of Augustus (once again) … by publishing a manual of military regulations.
P. 255:
[Eleusis] … at one level [Hadrian] was merely treading in the footsteps of many Roman predecessors, among them Augustus.
P. 271:
… with his tenth anniversary behind him … the emperor judged the time right to accept the title of Pater Patriae, father of his people. Like Augustus, and probably in imitation of him, he had declined the Senate’s offer for a long time ….
P. 277:
[Hadrian] was soon widely known throughout the Hellenic eastern provinces as “Hadrianos Sebastos Olumpius”, Sebastos being the Greek word for Augustus ….
P. 322:
The consecration ceremony was modeled on the obsequies of Augustus.
Part Two:
Here are some more comparisons from the same book:
P. 31:
Augustus’ constitutional arrangements were durable and, with some refinements, were still in place a hundred years later when the young Hadrian was becoming politically aware.
P. 58:
In Augustus’ day, Virgil, the poet laureate of Roman power, had sung of an imperium sine fine. A century later he still pointed the way to an empire without end and without frontiers.
P. 130:
… [Hadrian] depended on friends to advise him. Augustus adopted this model ….
P. 168:
So far as Hadrian was concerned [the Senate] offered him the high title of pater patriae …. He declined, taking Augustus’ view that this was one honor that had to be earned; he would defer acceptance until he had some real achievements to his credit.
P. 173:
So military and financial reality argued against further enlargement of the empire. … Augustus, who had been an out and out expansionist for most of his career …. … the aged Augustus produced a list of the empire’s military resources very near the end of his life. …. Hadrian may well have seen a copy of, even read, the historian’s [Tacitus’] masterpiece. P. 188:
… all the relevant tax documents were assembled and publicly burned, to make it clear that this was a decision that could not be revoked. (Hadrian may have got the idea for the incineration from Augustus, for Suetonius records that … he had “burned the records of old debts to the treasury, which were by far the most frequent source of blackmail”).
P. 198:
His aim was to create a visual connection between himself and the first princeps, between the structures that Augustus and Agrippa had left behind them and his own grand edifices …. Beginning with the burned-out Pantheon. …. Hadrian had in mind something far more ambitious than Agrippa’s temple. …. With studied modesty he intended to retain the inscribed attribution to Agrippa, and nowhere would Hadrian’s name be mentioned.
Mackey’s comment: Hmmmm ….
P. 233:
It can be no accident that the ruler [Hadrian] revered so much, Augustus, took the same line on Parthia as he did – namely, that talking is better than fighting.
P. 324:
As we have seen, until the very end of his reign, Augustus was an uncompromising and bellicose imperialist. Dio’s prescription [“Even today the methods that he then introduced are the soldiers’ law of campaigning”] fits Hadrian much more closely, and he must surely have had this example in mind when penning these words.
Part Three
“This is the chief thing: Do not be perturbed, for all things are according to
the nature of the universal;and in a little time you will be nobody and nowhere,
Rome’s first emperor, Augustus (reigned 27 BC–AD 14), had also suffered severe military setbacks, and took the decision to stop expanding the empire.
In Hadrian’s early reign Augustus was an important role model. He had a portrait of him on his signet ring and kept a small bronze bust of him among the images of the household gods in his bedroom. Like Augustus before him, Hadrian began to fix the limits of the territory that Rome could control. He withdrew his army from Mesopotamia …where a serious insurgency had broken out, and abandoned the newly conquered provinces of Armenia and Assyria, as well as other parts of the empire. ….
Hadrian was even “a new Augustus” and an “Augustus redivivus”.
Thus Anthony R. Birley (Hadrian: The Restless Emperor, p. 147):
Hadrian’s presence at Tarraco in the 150th year after the first emperor was given the name Augustus (16 January 27 BC) seems to coincide with an important policy development. The imperial coinage at about this time drastically abbreviates Hadrian’s titulature. Instead of being styled ‘Imp. Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus’, he would soon be presented simply as ‘Hadrianus Augustus’. The message thereby conveyed is plain enough: he wished to be seen as a new Augustus. Such a notion had clearly been in his mind for some time. It cannot be mere chance that caused Suetonius to write in his newly published, Life of the Deified Augustus, that the first emperor had been, ‘far removed from the desire to increase the empire of for glory in war’ — an assertion which his own account appears to contradict in a later passage. Tacitus, by contrast, out of touch – and out of sympathy – with Hadrian from the start, but aware of his aspirations to be regarded as an Augustus redivivus, seems subversively to insinuate, in the Annals, that a closer parallel could be found in Tiberius. ….
“In Hadrian: The Restless Emperor, Anthony Birley, according to a review of his book, “brings together the new … story of a man who saw himself as a second Augustus and Olympian Zeus”.
The Pantheon is one of the few monuments to survive from the Hadrianic period, despite others in the vicinity having also been restored by him (SHA, Hadrian 19). What is unusual is that rather than replacing the dedicatory inscription with one which named him, Hadrian kept (or more likely recreated) the Agrippan inscription, reminding the populace of the original dedicator. At first this gives the impression that Hadrian was being modest, as he was not promoting himself. Contrast this with the second inscription on the façade, which commemorates the restoration of the Pantheon by Septimius Severus and Caracalla in 202 CE (CIL 6. 896). However, by reminding people of the Pantheon’s Augustan origins Hadrian was subtly associating himself with the first emperor. This helped him legitimise his position as ruler by suggesting that he was part of the natural succession of (deified) emperors.
It is worth noting that Domitian had restored the Pantheon following a fire in 80 CE (Dio Cassius 66.24.2), but Hadrian chose to name the original dedicator of the temple, Agrippa, rather than linking himself with an unpopular emperor. In addition, the unique architecture of the Pantheon, with its vast dome, was a more subtle way for Hadrian to leave his signature on the building than an inscription might have been – and it would have been more easily ‘read’ by a largely illiterate population.
Thomas Pownall (Notices and Descriptions of Antiquities of the Provincia Romana of Gaul), has Hadrian, “in Vienne”, purportedly repairing Augustan architecture (pp. 38-39):
That the several Trophaeal and other public Edifices, dedicated to the honour of the Generals of the State, were repaired by Augustus himself, or by his order, preserving to each the honour of his respective record of glory, we read in Suetonius ….
And it is a fact, that the inhabitants of Vienne raised a Triumphal Arc, to grace his progress and entry into their town. The reasons why I think that this may have been afterward repaired by Hadrian are, first, that he did actually repair and restore most of the Monuments, Temples, public Edifices, and public roads, in the Province: and next that I thought, when I viewed this Arc of Orange, I could distinguish the bas-relieves and other ornaments of the central part of this edifice; I mean particularly the bas-relief of the frieze, and of the attic of the center, were of an inferior and more antiquated taste of design and execution than those of the lateral parts; and that the Corinthian columns and their capitals were not of the simple style of architecture found in the Basilica, or Curia, in Vienne, which was undoubtedly erected in the time of Augustus, but exactly like those of the Maison carrée at Nimes, which was repaired by Hadrian.
La Maison Carrée de Nîmes
Edmund Thomas will go a step further, though, and tell that the Maison carrée belonged, rather, to the time of the emperor Hadrian (Monumentality and the Roman Empire: Architecture in the Antonine Age, p. 50):
Also worth mentioning is the so-called ‘Temple of Diana’ at Nîmes.
It was roofed with a barrel-vault of stone blocks, unusual for western architecture, and its interior walls, with engaged columns framing triangular and segmental pediments … resemble those of the ‘Temple of Bacchus’ at Baalbek …. It seems to have formed part of the substantial augusteum complex built around a substantial spring …. The date of the building is much disputed; but the resemblance to the architecture of Baalbek and the association of Antoninus Pius with Nemausus [Nîmes], may be indications of the Antonine date formerly suggested.
….
Indeed, the famous ‘Maison Carrée’ in the same city, usually regarded as an Augustan monument, has recently been redated to the same period, when the town was at its height, and may even be the ‘basilica of wonderful construction’ founded by Hadrian around 122 [sic] ‘in honour of Plotina the wife of Trajan’ ….
My first attempt at collapsing the Maccabean era into the approximate time of the Nativity of Jesus Christ – {which chronological revision needed to be done, so I had become convinced} – in an article entitled “A New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ”, fell down due to my failure then properly to weave Herod ‘the Great’ into the new tapestry.
The basic scenario (from memory), intertwining, I-II Maccabees with the Gospel Infancy narratives, had in common:
a major unifying edict (or decree), issued
for the entire kingdom, by
the current king-emperor;
a movement away to one’s ancestral home;
signs and portents in the skies; and
slaughtering of innocents.
This dual scenario now set up the likelihood that the grandiloquent emperor of Maccabees, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, be identified with the edict issuer of Luke, “Caesar Augustus” (meaning that the latter would have been a Greek, instead of a Roman).
I had jumped to the hopeful, but false, conclusion that Herod, too, was Hadrian.
Now needed is a more appropriate Maccabean model (than King Antiochus – his alter egos) for King Herod of Judea.
When we look at Maccabees in relation to Luke chapters 1-2, we find that, according to the latter, it was:
the time of Herod king of Judea (1:5); and
Caesar Augustus (2:1); when there was
(c) a governor of Syria (2:2).
In 1-2 Maccabees, we also once again have (b) an emperor, namely Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, and (c) a governor of Syria (2 Maccabees 4:4).
But do we have as well in Maccabees (a) a Herod-like governor of Judea at this time?
The purpose of this article will be to seek an answer that question.
According to what I wrote above:
“The basic scenario (from memory), intertwining, I-II Maccabees with the Gospel Infancy narratives, had in common (i) a major unifying edict (or decree), issued (ii) for the entire kingdom, by (iii) the current king-emperor; (iv) a movement away to one’s ancestral home; (v) signs and portents in the skies; and (vi) slaughtering of innocents”.
Before proceeding in this article to try to identify Herod ‘the Great’ himself in a Maccabean scenario, I need to recall for the reader basically some of my points of interconnection between these documents, as discussed in my now-discarded article, “A New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ”.
(i-iii) Edict for entire kingdom issued by current king-emperor
Luke 2:1: “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire [Roman] world”.
[Please note, the Greek phrase, pasan thn oikoumenhn, does not mention “Roman”].
I Maccabees 1:43: “Antiochus now issued a decree that all nations in his empire should abandon their own customs and become one people”.
(iv) Move back to ancestral home
Luke 2:4: “So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David”.
I Maccabees 2:1: “Mattathias, who was the son of John and the grandson of Simeon, moved from Jerusalem and settled in Modein” [the Maccabean ancestral home, cf. 9:19: “Jonathan and Simon took their brother’s body and buried it in the family tomb at Modein …”.]
(v) Signs and portents in sky
Luke 2:8-14: “And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger’. Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests’.”
2 Maccabees 5:1-4: “About this time Antiochus the Fourth made a second attack against Egypt. For nearly forty days people all over Jerusalem saw visions of cavalry troops in gold armor charging across the sky. The riders were armed with spears and their swords were drawn. They were lined up in battle against one another, attacking and counterattacking. Shields were clashing, there was a rain of spears, and arrows flew through the air. All the different kinds of armor and the gold bridles on the horses flashed in the sunlight. Everyone in the city prayed that these visions might be a good sign”.
(vi) Slaughter of innocents
Matthew 2:16: “When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi”.
1 Maccabees 1:60-61: “Mothers who had allowed their babies to be circumcised were put to death in accordance with the king’s decree. Their babies were hung around their necks, and their families and those who had circumcised them were put to death”.
1 Maccabees 2:9: “Our children have been killed in the streets, and our young men by the sword of the enemy”.
2 Maccabees 5:11-13: “When the news of what had happened in Jerusalem reached Antiochus, he thought the whole country of Judea was in revolt, and he became as furious as a wild animal. So he left Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm, giving his men orders to cut down without mercy everyone they met and to slaughter anyone they found hiding in the houses. They murdered everyone—men and women, boys and girls; even babies were butchered”.
“Philip” of 1-2 Maccabees shapes well as Herod
Despite the (i-vi) points of commonality found between the Maccabean and Infancy (Gospel) narratives, as discussed above, there was a sore need also, so I firmly believed, to be able to match, to Luke 2:1’s important “census”, a corresponding Maccabean one.
Nothing of the like seemed to be forthcoming from 1-2 Maccabees, though, I was finding.
There does exist such a census, however. And we need to go to the Book of Acts to learn of it. According to the famous Jewish teacher (rabbi), Gamaliel (Acts 5:37): “… Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt”.
Josephus gives a fuller account, according to which (as summarised at):
To curry favor with Rome, King Herod put a golden eagle outside of the Temple of Jerusalem. Like other military standards, this eagle was carried into battle. The presence of the eagle meant the presence of the Roman Legion. By placing one at the gates, Herod was making a powerful statement regarding Jerusalem’s sovereignty under Rome.
Making idols was forbidden to the Jewish people, even if there was no attempt to worship them. Yet the Romans regarded eagle standards as holy symbols, anointing them on special days. Two respected teachers of the law, Judas and Matthias, spoke to religious scholars about this violation.
A group of these men pulled down the golden eagle and cut it into pieces. The king’s captain detained 40 participants, along with Matthias and Judas, and brought them before Herod. They explained that they made the choice to destroy the idol because they upheld the laws of Moses, and loved their religion. ….
[End of quote]
The revolutionaries Judas and Matthias, in the garbled account of Josephus, are clearly the Maccabean pairing of Judas and his father, Mattathias.
But now, thanks to Gamaliel and Josephus, we can re-date this part of the Maccabean era to the time of king Herod of Jerusalem.
And that hopeful fusion of what are supposedly two quite different historical ages now makes it imperative – and, might I say it, inevitable – that we find Herod ‘the Great’ himself situated in the Maccabean narratives, officiating during the reign of king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’.
My Maccabean era alter ego for Herod
Herod ‘the Great’, revised, can only be the bloodthirsty “Phrygian” tyrant, “Philip”, whom Antiochus placed in charge of Jerusalem (2 Maccabees 5:21-22): “So Antiochus carried off eighteen hundred talents from the Temple, and hurried away to Antioch, thinking in his arrogance that he could sail on the land and walk on the sea, because his mind was elated. He left governors to oppress the people: at Jerusalem, Philip, by birth a Phrygian and in character more barbarous than the man who appointed him …”.
About half a dozen texts in 1-2 Maccabees refer to this “Philip”, whom I am now identifying with Herod ‘the Great’ – that is, in the context of my re-locating the Maccabean era to, in part, the time of the Nativity of Jesus the Messiah.
In presenting these texts here I shall be giving them, not in the sequence in which they appear, but according to what I would consider to be their proper (approximate) chronological order:
King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ appoints Philip to Jerusalem (2 Maccabees 5:21-23):
So Antiochus carried off eighteen hundred talents from the Temple, and hurried away to Antioch, thinking in his arrogance that he could sail on the land and walk on the sea, because his mind was elated. He left governors to oppress the people: at Jerusalem, Philip, by birth a Phrygian and in character more barbarous than the man who appointed him; and at Gerizim, Andronicus; and besides these Menelaus, who lorded it over his compatriots worse than the others did.
That Philip was even “more barbarous than” king Antiochus himself already tells us a lot about this character. Also, I am interested in the fact that Philip was “a Phrygian”.
Herod ‘the Great’ has always been thought of as a “half-Jew”, an Idumean (Edomite).
Philip, now under duress from Judas Maccabeus, must call upon his northern allies for military support (2 Maccabees 8:8-10):
When Philip saw that the man [Judas] was gaining ground little by little, and that he was pushing ahead with more frequent successes, he wrote to Ptolemy, the governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, to come to the aid of the king’s government.
Then Ptolemy promptly appointed Nicanor son of Patroclus, one of the king’s chiefFriends, and sent him, in command of no fewer than twenty thousand Gentiles of all nations, to wipe out the whole race of Judea.
He associated with him Gorgias, a general and a man of experience in military service. Nicanor determined to make up for the king the tribute due to the Romans, two thousand talents, by selling the captured Jews into slavery.
We have already read in this article about a rising against Herod ‘the Great’ by a Judas.
Philip had accompanied king Antiochus on his march eastwards, to Persia. The now-dying king, on his return, makes Philip “regent” (1 Maccabees 6:14-17):
Then he called for Philip, one of his Friends, and made him ruler over all his kingdom. He gave him the crown and his robe and the signet, so that he might guide his son Antiochus and bring him up to be king. Thus King Antiochus died there in the one hundred forty-ninth year.When Lysias learned that the king was dead, he set up Antiochus the king’sson to reign. Lysiashad brought him up from boyhood; he named him Eupator.
Philip was thus elevated to virtual kingship until the son of Antiochus was old enough to rule.
Philip returns the body of the deceased king (2 Maccabees 9:28-29):
So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land. And Philip, one of his courtiers, took his body home; then, fearing the son of Antiochus, he withdrew to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt.
Regarding Egypt, it is interesting that Herod ‘the Great’ had married a Cleopatra (though called “of Jerusalem”).
I am not sure if Philip’s flight to Egypt (like the Holy Family had done earlier because of Herod) occurred before, or after
his attempt to seize the kingdom for himself, which attempt Lysias was able to frustrate (I Maccabees 6:55-56, 63):
Then Lysias heard that Philip, whom King Antiochus while still living had appointed to bring up his son Antiochus to be king, had returned from Persia and Media with the forces that had gone with the king, and that he was trying to seize control of the government.
….
Then [Eupator] set off in haste and returned to Antioch. He found Philip in control of the city, but he fought against him, and took the city by force.
“What, therefore, do Caligula and Antiochus Epiphanes have in common,
as their reigns pertain to the Jews? Both reigned during a time when the Jews
were abandoning their God and breaking covenant with him on a national scale.
The one ruler officially desecrated the Temple, while the other planned to do so.
Both rulers were involved in the emperor cult that required worship
from those they ruled”.
King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, a Seleucid, to whom ‘Caligula’ is likened here, I have already determined to have been the same as the Grecophilic emperor, Hadrian, as according to a Jewish tradition.
The recognition of this obviously requires a massive alteration to ancient chronology, and to our concept of the history of the Roman Empire.
The enigmatic ‘Caligula’, a nickname meaning “little boots”, is likely to have had a far more solid alter ego. And that, I think, can be found in the combined potentate Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’/Hadrian.
‘Caligula’ had the very name of Augustus: Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus.
We definitely need to bring in Augustus here as well:
Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, as also the census emperor Augustus
Each of these manifestations of whom I consider to be just the one Emperor (‘Epiphanes’/Augustus/Hadrian) had to assist him, as I have previously noted, a second-in-command, who was a virtual emperor in his own right.
This may not be so surprising in the era of the Diadochoi.
For Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, the second man was Philip the Phrygian, whom I have identified as, in a revised history:
Herod ‘the Great’, revised, can only be the bloodthirsty “Phrygian” tyrant, “Philip”, whom Antiochus placed in charge of Jerusalem (2 Maccabees 5:21-22): “So Antiochus carried off eighteen hundred talents from the Temple, and hurried away to Antioch, thinking in his arrogance that he could sail on the land and walk on the sea, because his mind was elated. He left governors to oppress the people: at Jerusalem, Philip, by birth a Phrygian and in character more barbarous than the man who appointed him …”.
For Augustus, the second man was Marcus Agrippa (who, again, was Herod).
No one played better than Marcus Agrippa (and, apparently, Herod) the rôle of a second emperor.
For Hadrian, I would focus upon the wealthy Herodes Atticus, about whom we know somewhat less.
Note that this Herodes bears the name of Herod, and of Atticus, into which family Marcus Agrippa (that is, Herod) married.
Agrippa was also a name attached to the Herods.
For ‘Caligula’, the esteemed official was, again (a supposedly by now deceased, but I think not), Marcus Agrippa:
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, often called Caligula, was the third emperor of Rome, ruling from 37 – 41 AD. [2] The Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus both condemn Caligula due to rumours of his extreme eccentricity and cruelty, giving him one of the worst reputations of all Roman emperors. Caligula was assassinated after less than four years in power after his guards plotted against him, but despite this he managed to produce many different types of coins for different purposes.
The coin pictured to the left is an example of one of Caligula’s coin types. On the obverse is a portrait of his maternal grandfather Marcus Agrippa who was a renowned military commander and a trusted friend of Augustus, the first Roman emperor. [3] The legend surrounding the portrait of Agrippa identifies him, translating to “Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, three times consul”. Portraits on the obverse of coins usually wear a laurel wreath that was traditionally worn by emperors, but Agrippa did not hold this title and instead wears a rostral crown, which was awarded to commanders that won a great victory at sea. This crown can be identified by the prow of a ship that protrudes from its front, which can be seen on this coin between the L and F of the inscription. Agrippa’s greatest naval victory was in the Battle of Actium over the combined forces of Marcus Antonius (Antony) and Cleopatra. This battle eliminated Augustus’ rivals, allowing him to take complete control of Rome and create the Roman Empire. It also expanded the Roman Empire to include Egypt and its valuable resources. The coin therefore acknowledges the significant role Agrippa played in establishing and expanding the empire.
The reverse of the coin is also connected to Agrippa’s great naval victory at Actium because it depicts Neptune, the Roman god of the sea and affairs of navigation. Although the some of the details on this coin have been worn down over time, we know that Neptune holds a dolphin in his right hand and a trident in his left. These were traditional attributes of the god and symbolise his power to either grant a ship safe passage or send devastating storms. [4] Depicting Neptune and Agrippa together on this coin would have suggested that Agrippa had been granted the god’s favour, which according to Roman religion, would have been passed to his descendants, including Caligula.
Therefore, when viewed in conjunction, the two sides of this coin tell a story of Caligula’s remarkable ancestry. The portrait of Agrippa celebrating his success at sea, paired with the figure of Neptune and his traditional attributes of power, indicate that Caligula was descended from a naval hero whose victories were so significant that they enabled the establishment of the Roman Empire. Caligula wanted this coin to closely link him to Agrippa’s god-like success. Even without the coin mentioning Caligula by name, the people of Rome would have been familiar with his ancestry and would have recognised this as an attempt to link himself with the past success of his grandfather.
Another reason that Caligula produced coins depicting Agrippa was that it connected him to Augustus because, as mentioned above, Agrippa was one of Augustus’ closest friends.
After the battle of Actium, Augustus had produced a similar coin type that depicted his portrait beside Agrippa’s on the obverse and a crocodile chained to a palm tree, symbolising Rome’s conquest of Egypt. Caligula may have been imitating this style of coin to associate himself with Augustus who perfectly embodied what Rome expected of its emperors.
It is also possible that promoting a connection to Agrippa on coins would have been intended to advertise that Caligula may have been planning to invade Britain (Cassius Dio, 59.21), which would have involved crossing the English Channel, a naval campaign that was last attempted by Julius Caesar in 54 BC. By linking himself to Agrippa’s naval success, Caligula may have sought to inspire confidence in this endeavour.
This coin was one of the most common coin types produced during Caligula’s reign because of its important message that Caligula was descended from a famous commander. Many of the coins Caligula produced promoted members of his family, such as his mother Agrippina, father Germanicus or three sisters. His Agrippa coin type fits well into this series, giving Caligula’s coinage an overarching message of familial success that would have firmly established his legitimacy as emperor. Like the emperors before him, Caligula believed that his lineage was what justified his power and he therefore promoted this message on his coinage.
Caligula’s decision to use the portrait of his grandfather Agrippa on his coinage therefore served many purposes. It showed that he was the descendant of a successful military commander, legitimised his right to inherit Imperial power and connected him to Augustus, something that all Roman emperors strived to do. Reminding the public of Agrippa’s success, popularity and proximity to other powerful historical figures would have strengthened the perception of Caligula as a good emperor who could live up to the achievements of his ancestors. Despite this, he is primarily remembered for the unpleasant rumours preserved by ancient historians and his brutal assassination that resulted from his ultimate failure to live up to those he aspired to.
[1] Online Coins of the Roman Empire – RIC I (second edition) Gaius/Caligula 58
[2] Encyclopedia Britannica – Caligula
[3] Encyclopedia Britannica – Marcus Vispanius Agrippa
[4] Dictionary of Roman Coins, Republican and Imperial, 570
Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD 
