The Eerie Similarities Between Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ

Over two-thousand years, some events happened. Tales of the events were passed down orally by common people, in societies where over 80% of the population was illiterate. The tales were modified over the almost 100 years that they were passed down verbally.   Local fathers changed certain details to meet the local geography, to make the story more relatable to their wide-eyed kids.

It is well-known that the Epic of Gilgamesh of the Babylonians matches almost exactly the Story of Noah's Flood from Genesis. Few credible scholars deny there was quite a bit of borrowing from one to the other.

This theory below, by Francesco Carotta, is more controversial.   But read the facts and determine whether you see the similarities.

Once upon a time, a great man lived whose initials were J.C. He was born quite poor, and lived among the common people, even though he was descended from the great, foundational King Romulus/King David. His aunt/his mother was named Maria. Some claimed for him a miraculous birth/a birth by Caesarian section. When he was still young, he was almost killed by the tyrant Sulla/Herod.

His deeds gained him significant fame during the early part of his public career, when he was operating in the province just to the north, called Gallia/Galilee. Everywhere he went, he was accompanied by his 12 faithful Lictors/disciples. He spoke in proverbs often, for example, “I came, I saw, I conquered/I came, I saw, I washed.” He was close to a promiscuous woman named Cleopatra/Magdalene and a righteous, powerful man named Nicodemus of Bithynia/Nicodemus of Bethany.

Eventually, his fate forced him to make a momentous decision and cross the Rubicon/Jordan river. On the way, he was tested at and performed miraculous deeds at a city called Corfinium/Cafarnaum. Then, he was operational in the capital, Rome/Jerusalem.

There had been a very similar man who he was close with, who had a similar following and career. Eventually though, Pompey/John the Baptist was beheaded by an Egyptian, and the head presented to him.

He was kind to the Caecilii (the blind), the Claudii (the lame), and the Metellii (the disfigured). He was so righteous that the common people started callimg him by the Greek term, “chrestos.” After operating in the capital for a while, his popularity was noticed by a jealous governing body, the Senate/the Sanhedrin. He was accused of having ambitions on becoming King.

He was betrayed by someone very close to him named Junius/Judas. The crowd is forced to choose between Brutus/Barabbas and him. A powerful man named Pontifex Lepidus/Pontius Pilate washes his hands of the matter. He is killed on March 15, wearing a Crown of Grass/Crown of Thorns. Right before being killed, he is stabbed between the ribs by someone named Cassius Longinus! His body was displayed to the people on a crucifix/he was crucified.

His followers were devastated, as predictions from all around the world had said that a Savior and the King of the World would be born around this time. So, he ascended into heaven and became a God. He took his place in the pantheon as the son of God – son of Jupiter/son of Jehovah.

Toward A New Understanding of Etruscan Origins

As this now archived thread on Anthrogenica shows, the two sides to the Etruscan debate are like ships passing in the night.  They can't seem to agree on much.  This post attempts to reconcile them, sort of, while debunking what I call the Contemporaneous Anatolian Origin of the Etruscans (CAOE) Model.

When talking about the origins of a people, it is important to specify timing as well.  Even the best scientists are guilty of disobeying this rule when they speak or write in shorthand.  The most obvious example is this: do you have any African blood?  Do you have an African origin?  You might answer, "no" if you took the question to mean in the genealogical time period (the last 500 years) or even during the post-Paleolithic time period (the last 40,000 years)!

But, as you know, everyone on the planet has an African origin if you go back long enough.  All modern humans migrated out of Africa.  So the same statements, "that population is of African origin" is both true and false, depending on the time context.

Let's apply this to the Etruscans.

What we have learned recently is that ALL Europeans descend from three primary groups:  Western European Hunter Gatherers (who originated in Western Europe during the Mesolithic), Farmers (who migrated from the Near East during the Neolithic), and Steppe People (who migrated from the flatlands between Europe and Asia during the early Bronze Age).

When the CAOE "Etruscans are exotic" folks ply their wares, they argue that Etruscans had an origin in Anatolia or the Aegean, right before they appeared in Italy.  Now, the first Etruscan sites date from approximately 900 BC.  We have clear Etruscan inscriptions dating to 750 BC, so they were probably writing by 800 BC.

I have always doubted there was a mass migration of Etruscans (from the Near East) before their appearance in Italy.  There are just too many facts weighing against it.

Then it dawned on me: we *all* came from the Middle East at some point.  Is it possible this argument is one of degrees?  That the CAOE folks have their timing wrong?  That the CAOE folks should have the "C" knocked off their theory, and the disagreements would be synthesized?

Here is how it might have worked:

There was mass migration to Europe of farmers from the Near East, and it appears to have been quite strong around 3000 BC.  The final waves of farmers were migrating to Europe around 2500 BC.  Now is it proper to call these "Anatolians" or "Aegeans" or "Near Easterners."  Insofar as those designations are intended to mean anything beyond geography: no.  This was pre-race, and since these people "became" modern Europeans, any such designation is pretty meaningless.  Most modern Europeans are about 40% descended from these people.

Is it possible that the Etruscans, having a stable, affluent, consistent civilization, retained more of their cultural practices, traditions, and indeed language, and thus some vague collective memory of this mass migration?  Is it possible that the first Italian culture to have writing was able to transmit more culture down between the generations because of it?  Because that is how it works.

In other words, ALL peoples in Europe then and now are partly descended from farmers who originated in the Middle East a long time ago.  If the Etruscan people (bringing the language) was from one of the later waves, and the Etruscan society was stable and had the ability to transmit culture, could these transmissions and uniqueness be the signals that the CAOE folks misinterpret and cite as evidence for a later Anatolian origin of the Etruscans?

Let's be clear: the land of the Etruscans overlaps perfectly with the land of the Villanovans, and there is no evidence for discontinuity or rapid replacement or trauma when Villanovan culture becomes unequivocally Etruscan.  I firmly believe the odds of an Etruscan "migration" event around 900-750 BC is sheer fantasy.

BUT, I think it is possible that of the peoples in Italy, the Etruscans, by holding the richest, most fertile, most well-defended, and most defendable pieces of real estate, simply did not suffer any further migrations and inflows after they established themselves in say, 2000 BC.  In other words, the Indo-Europeanized peoples of Italy ALSO descend from Western Hunter Gatherers and Neolithic Farmers (and the genetic evidence CERTAINLY backs me up on this point), BUT the Indo-Europeanized peoples of Italy (Latins, Umbrians, Oscans), experienced a more recent inflow of both people and genes, which resulted in language and culture change.  The Etruscans, for reasons already given, did not.

To this day there is very little genetic difference between the people of Tuscany and their neighbors in Italy.  The ancient Etruscans cluster with Southern Italians genetically, which would be consistent with this theory: that the ancient Etruscans had a smidge more Neolithic Farmer, plus cultural continuity, because they did not suffer an upheaval like the other peoples, when the Iron Age Indo European speaking Steppe people invaded.

This makes good sense.  This would explain also why the Etruscan language survived as a relic amidst a sea of Indo-European.

So next time you meet someone who thinks the Etruscans were contemporaneous (and ethnic) migrants to Italy from the Near East, remind them of the wealth of evidence against it.  And then, if they are the reasonable type, explain to them how ALL Europeans descended in a large part from people, who DID migrate to Europe from the same areas, just 1000 years before.  They could be spouting a mere truism, and be off by 1000 years or so.