Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.244.219.99 (talk) at 22:48, 1 September 2010 (→life - death?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template:AncientEgyptBanner Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cleopatra's Death

Okay. This page says:

Cleopatra followed his example by committing suicide on August 12, 30 BC.

Now if we actually go to Cleopatra's page we see this date instead:

A few days later, on November 30, Cleopatra also died by snakebite.

So which one is right? Obviously someone has not checked their facts. I'm tempted to remove both until a date is actually known. If it is questionable, that is to say, if there is still an ongoing debate of the date, then it should state so clearly in both articles. Thoughts? If no one responds, then I'll remove them in a few days. MagnoliaSouth 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well todays research indicates that Octavian could of captured Cleopatra and wanted to take her to the triumvir, but she wanted to kill herself, and succeed before she was taken to Rome. But more common theory is that Anthony heard Cleo had killed herself while she was not, and Anthony killed himself, and later Cleo followed. Most common is the theory that Cleo killed herself and when Anthony heard the news, he killed himself. Go figure.

Then there is the more mythical theory: both Anthony nor Cleopatra did not die, they faked their death, or Octavian and his troops did not find them so they told other "yes yes they are dead", but actually Anthony and Cleopatra escaped to India also, stayed there with Caesarion, and some years later came back to Syria/Palestine with new identities Josef and Mary with their son Jesus. They moved to live with the Essene community.

A lot of famous historical people actually have faked their death. Like roman emperor Nero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillBildUnion (talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That comment is over three years old, the issue has long since been taken care of. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Anglicised Names

Does anyone think the standard Anglicised names Octavian and Antony shound be used over the Latin "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus" and "Marcus Antonius?"

Does it really matter in the Eternal scheme of things? Tomtom9041

Actually, yeah, in answer to the original question, I definitely think we should use the anglicised names; those are their names in the English language, which is what we're writing in. The layman refers to them by their anglicised names; the scholar refers to them (in an overwhelming majority) by their anglicised names. So if we insist on using the Latin nomenclature, not only are we actively working against our own purpose here (by needlessly confusing our readership by using names other than the ones they will instantly associate with the individuals in question) but we also come off looking like amateurish intellectual snobs trying to act better than we are, and our only justification for doing so is snide, irrelevant commentary about "the Eternal scheme of things".

Bearing in mind the original question (which seems to me to be in favour of anglicising the names) was asked in July, and that in the time since then it's gained one response which essentially says "I don't care" and (now) one in favour, that seems like consensus to me. This seems like a valid issue, since it strikes at the idea of just how accessible our work on the history of this time period is going to be to the layman reader, so maybe next week while I'm on holiday I'll start a discussion about it at the talkpage for Mark Antony or Pompey the Great.Binabik80 15:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who was his father?

Is it true that Julius Caesar never recognized him as a son? In this case, which is the source that reports his father to be Caesar? --Panairjdde 16:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it depends what you mean by "acknowledged"; Suetonius tells us that he "allowed a son born of their union to bear his name", which sounds tantamount to an acknowledgement to me. As E.E. Rice puts it, the use of Caesar as his name is probably a pretty sure indication that Caesar at least believed Caesarion to be his. Certainly the majority of ancient sources seem to take it for granted that he was Caesar's son. Octavian, of course, insisted he wasn't, but his vested interest in the matter is self-evident (as is Mark Antony's when he claimed to the Senate that Caesar had acknowledged the child); most of the claims disputing Caesar's paternity—just like all the other claims about Cleopatra's sexual wantonness—seem to come from writers under Octavian's influence, or subsequent writers who use them as sources. Though the OCD rightly points out that "the facts are beyond recovery", we would really need evidence to give weight to any claim that Caesar wasn't Caesarion's father; in the absence of such evidence, we have to assume that he was. Binabik80 00:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Under Roman law, a father had to recognize a son, to get him/her in the family; in this case, the son should have been named Gaius Julius Caesar, not Ptolemy Philopator Philometor Caesar. In there's a throughtful examination of the matter, and, without copying the article, I think we should say that the matter is dubious. Furthermore, the possibility that Caesarion was not legally Caesar's son changes the prospective of Octavian acts.--Panairjdde 09:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Several points:

1. Once Caesar achieved his dictatorship, questions of what he "had" to do under Roman law become irrelevant, as Roman law was superceded from that point on—first by Caesar, then by the triumvirs, then by Augustus. If any of these had decided to treat Caesarion as Caesar's son and heir, he would have been accepted as such, regardless of whether Caesar ever issued a formal acknowledgement, in his will or otherwise; not least because Caesar's biological paternity went largely unquestioned except by sources dependent upon Octavian.
2. Similarly, the name Roman custom would expect of Caesar's son is irrelevant when we're dealing with the god-king of the richest and second-most-powerful kingdom of the Mediterranean, especially since the normal rule of Roman law has already been suspended by the fact of Caesar's rise to power. That the king of Egypt had an appropriate name for a king of Egypt shouldn't seem surprising. No one ever made the argument that he wasn't Caesar's heir because he didn't have a Roman name or because he wasn't a citizen, because
3. Caesarion didn't need to care about Roman citizenship; he claimed the right to rule Rome, not the right to trial by jury. Caesar had placed himself "above" Roman law, similar to a monarch; the triumvirs achieved the same status for themselves. Establishing Caesarion as Caesar's biological son and rightful heir would similarly place him "above" the law, so the rights and protections of citizenship would be irrelevant to him. This was not the Republic of Cincinnatus or Cato the Elder.
4. The question of Caesarion's paternity has always—both in ancient times and today—revolved around biology, not the law. It's taken as too obvious to need stating that if Caesarion is Caesar's biological son, then he's Caesar's most valid political heir, regardless of his legal standing.

The website you point to comes pretty emphatically to the conclusion that Caesar was Caesarion's father, including the statement, "I see no reason to doubt Caesar's paternity." It also contains no reference to the question of Caesarion's legal status under Roman law; the author takes it as given that Caesar's biological paternity is what would establish Caesarion as his heir.

I would not object to the insertion of a statement that some ancient and modern writers have doubted Caesar's paternity, and that true certainty is impossible to ascertain. I would object to any statement or implication that we do not have a strong (overwhelming, really) preponderance of evidence that Caesar was in fact Caesarion's father.

Binabik80 03:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we agree that it is higly possible that Caesar was his biological father. But I want to stress that none of your points goes against the fact that Caesarion was not recognized by Caesar as his son in front of Roman law; this means that Caesarion had no rights, even if Caesar had a lot of power: remember that Caesar actually adopted Octavian to make him his heir, because Caesar was a Roman, and believed in the Roman view of family. If Caesar had a rightful son, with rights under the Roman law, why did he need to adopt Octavian for? Under this point of view, Octavian action was almost rightful, from the ancient times point of view, since possible Caesarion claims on Rome were those of a stranger.--Panairjdde 07:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Except that Marc Antony had claimed that Octavian's adoption was forged. I'm not saying Antony is right (because Antony clearly has vested interest in slandering Octavian) or that Octavian is right (because Octavian clearly has vested interest in slandering Cleopatra/Caesarion), I'm simply stating that matters are complex with the he-said-she-said complexities of a power vacuum from which any one of several key persons could have potentially won (and written History in their own favor). What exactly was Julius Caesar's intention is not known and short of a time-machine the evidence we have access to is conflicting with Antony saying one thing and Octavian saying another -- 64.119.91.129 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that no one, including Octavian, ever tried to make the argument that Caesarion wasn't a valid heir because he had no Roman legal standing. Octavian was a smart guy & a masterful politician; if that argument had been there to be made, he would have made it. Note also that Caesar adopted Octavian as his personal heir, not political—he left Octavian his private propety, not his rank.

The Romans of the period had pretty much no concept of political heirs; it was something they had to make up as they went along as it slowly dawned on them how completely the old order had been destroyed. In the tumult of the late 40s and 30s BC, a natural son of Caesar seemed to everyone—including Octavian, or we wouldn't have been so concerned with casting aspersions on Caesarion's paternity—to have at least as much right to claim to be Caesar's political heir as his principal lieutenant (Antony) or the undistinguished distant relative to whom he left his fortune (Octavian). Binabik80 14:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

One point not considered here is the ability of Caesar to father a child at all. I think the evidence is in a preponderance towards the negative. He had one child and, according to sources, bedded every woman in Rome and beyond resulting in not a single pregnancy. I think it is highly unlikely he is the father of the child. Nevertheless nothing can be proved. I woudn't mind removing the "highly likely" and replacing it with "questionably". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlib (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: It's just occured to me that I'm pretty sure Caesarion could never have been a Roman citizen anyway under the letter of Roman law, as (though I can't find anything at hand about the specifics of the situation in 47/44 BC), generally speaking, only the children of a citizen father and a citizen or conubium-holding mother could inherit citizenship. So if anyone thought Caesarion would need a claim of citizenship to make a valid heir, there wouldn't have been any debate in the first place (or there would have been a movement in the Senate to pass a law granting him citizenship).

I notice the article currently has no mention whatsoever of the legal question. I have no objection to the insertion of a remark that it's doubtful Caesar ever acknowledged him as his son, though noting that Antony informed the Senate that he did. Binabik80 14:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Caesarion's Name

As I'm not entirely sure why it's there (the mistake is so glaring that it has me completely confused), I will turn to the author(s) to explain why the Greek version of Caesarion's name as listed near the top of the page says Cleopatra (the transliteration of Κλεοπατρα). Was he named for his mother or was there some matronymic feature common amongst the Ptolemies which was not used otherwise in Greek naming conventions? If this is simply a mistake, I believe that it should be changed to Καισαριον (the proper transliteration of Caesarion). --KraDakar 01:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Did Caesarion avoid execution?

How come I can find no mention of the relevancy of this video? http://youtube.com/watch?v=rWs5OUxYzUs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.193.157 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking into the sources like The Parallel Lives by Plutarch which discusses the the life of Mark Antony reveals that Caesarion "was sent by his mother, with much treasure, into India, by way of Ethiopia". He is said to have then returned, by foolishness or be being deceived, and is killed. What if he escaped, learnt the teachings of the Buddha, changed his name to Jesus, and returned to rule over Rome with an entirely new Holy Roman Empire?

Selene had one son Ptolemy, and Ptolemy had at least one daugther, Drusilla, before he was murdered by caligula. But Drusilla, and the remainder of the First Family were "absorbed" into the Jewish ruling families. ( Not J.Caesar's direct line, but Cleopatra's and Mark Antony)--mj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.226.214 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ptolemaic system

There is no possible relevance of Ptolemaic system, or any part of it, to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is, because the "see also" section has many uses, the purpose like in this case vary, but for example, they were relatives, both from Ptolemaic dynasty. For you to remove the link you need to explain what is "see also", it certainly have no rules like what you try to apply.WillBildUnion (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a link to Ptolemaic dynasty; Ptolemaic system adds nothing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well in the dynasty page it does not talk any other than the kings and queens, not for example Ptolemy the astronomer and mathematician. Nobody else than you have a problem with the link. Why is that?WillBildUnion (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Ptolemy the astronomer was part of the Ptolemaic dynasty? If not, linking to the Ptolemaic system because of the Ptolemaic dynasty is like putting Will Smith in the see also section of the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Son of (a) god

Even the sources provided by the SPA didn't say "son of god", they said he was declared a god, and the son of a god. (The same applies to Augustus, but that article was not subject to SPA attacks.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He was deified at the donations, but also in time of his birth. His egyptians names were:

* "Heir of the God who saves" -----> son of god

* "Chosen of Ptah" -------> chosen by the savior god

* "Living Image of Amun" ---------> living god of the god amun

WillBildUnion (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change my original translation from when this subsection was created?

Iwa pa NTR nti nhm stp n Pth ir Maat Ra skhem ankh Amen Is HIS NAME.

Heir of That God who saves, Chosen of the Father, The Sun of Righteousness, The Living Power of the Hidden God is it's translation.

Hunu nfr bnr mrut Ka nkht jakhu sktet ra iah ptlwmis Djd twnf kjsrs ankh ddt mrj Pth-Ast

ankh udja senb (I hate that the rest was deleted as well, but I guess fire burns, even digitally) MBJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

More over Looking at the date you did it is wickedness -- you people are Sun worshipers -- idolatrous hypocrits who hate truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevance

Even if he was declared "king of kings", we would need some evidence that it wasn't common at the time for emperors to be so declared, for it to be notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Reinhold it was very unusual in the context of Roman client-kingship, if precedented in hellenistic culture. Paul B (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He was. DO your research. ANd read also other than Augustus autobiography.WillBildUnion (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

life - death?

On the header it says: For eighteen days, up to August, 30 BC he was sole pharaoh, when he was killed on orders of Octavian.

But it's also mentioned that he fled to India and was pursued to come back. Well, you don't rule Egypt for eighteen days, fled to India, and on the eighteenth day had come back and face death by Octavian's men.

This does not add up, and so does not many other in the article. And, Clepatra had for sure forbid him to come back by any means.

I would say the latest edits to this article are poorly made. And the sources are only 4, 3 new.

Yes, I could also write Roman history during Reign of Augustus by out of Augustus autobiography (that he did), but there are other sources as well. If contradictory, all the information should be put forth. It's unencyclopediac to state in the header he was killed by Octavian when clearly that is not the case.WillBildUnion (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It says there were possible plans of escape to India, and only that Plutarch says that he made it. Doesn't mean Plutarch is right. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources are from "Augustus' autobiography", which does not exist. Even Plutrach is ambiguous, since when he says "there" he may mean Ethiopia (which does not mean the modern state of Ethiopia, but is a generic term for Africa south and east of Egypt). All of the sources say he was killed by Octavian. None say he wasn't. And we have no idea what Cleopatra "for sure" forbid him to do. BTW, on the title "king of kings", Plutarch says that this title was not unique to Caesarion: "he declared Cleopatra Queen of Egypt, Cyprus, Libya, and Coele Syria, and she was to share her throne with Caesarion. Caesarion was believed to be a son of the former Caesar, by whom Cleopatra was left pregnant. In the second place, he proclaimed his own sons by Cleopatra Kings of Kings." Paul B (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No sir. Caesar did not leave Cleopatra pregnant. Cleopatra and Caesar(ion) were living in Rome on the ides of March! mbj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "left pregnant" is a quotation from Plutarch, genius. Try to read more carefully. It does not mean he abandoned her while she was pregnant! Paul B (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul this is language and semantics, what is the conotation of "left pregnant"? Then kind sir, why do I need to read, more clearly, words that have clear definitions. Plutarch had motivation to denigrate the Imperial family so the words he chose were to imply that Caesar left Cleopatra pregnant. Also your arguments about Cleopatra "sharing" the throne with Caesar are false conjecture. At Dendera, Cleopatra is depicted standing behind Caesar -- this suggest that Caesar was fully Pharoah, Nsut Bti, Stn Stniu. As this is the only surviving depiction of them (Caesar as an adult), and it was created by them , it is much more credible than any of the opinions you have to offer. I guess I am a radical -- the man's name was not "caesarion" that is a name roman authors used. The heiroglyphs of his name is more like "K-I-S-R-Z" poissibly "Caesaros" (as he is hellinic). Regardless it is clearly not Caesarion. And IMHO, to stick him with the name his murderers gave him is just wrong. Maybe you can help me with one thing though, why is it roman sympathizers applaud octavian for being appointed to the Triumvirate at 17 -- but think Caesar(ion) was too young to be Pharoah? MBJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.219.46 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who these Romans who said he was too young may be. Never heard of any. For the rest, 'my arguments' are simply quotations from Plutarch, who you are either misinterpreting or choosing to disregard. Of course he wasn't writing in English, phrases like 'left pregnant' are just idioms of the translator. Paul B (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Those Roman sympathizers would be Plutarch, Josephus, and those who quote them. Caesar was crowned King at Coptos on July 19 when he was 2! Then he shared his throne with Cleopatra. The coronation ("donations") was orchestrated for Caesar to 'come into his own'. 'Too young' refers to the prevailing opinion that Caesar was too young to be Pharoah and therefore shared his throne with his mother. The existing record does not support that conclusion.MBJ 69.244.219.99 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian Messiah

• This post is created for Discussion regarding Caesar as the Historic Christ

What makes a man the annointed king of Israel? Pomergrante Oil. Caesar(ion) need only be anointed with Pomergrante oil in order to be the recognized King of Israel. From Birth he was recognized as the messiah ( THE TEMPLE OF MENTU AT ARMANT) I have not found any reference to him receiving such anointing. What I do know is that Caesar(ion) owned a Pomergrante plantation in Israel (Herod complained of paying the Imperial family the increase of their property). We do know that Caesar(ion) (and Cleopatra) appointed Aristobulus High Priest of Israel. We do KNOW Cleopatra and Caesar(ion)'s obvious intention and aim was to present themselves as the Divine Mother and Son. We do KNOW that it was there intention to create the Messianic Kingdom. Why wouldn't Caesar(ion) have been anoninted with pomergrante oil? -- they did everything else, and He had the materials and people to do it!

What did nero say of the followers of Serapis? That they said they were the true bishops of christ? Where did the Ptolymies keep the Septuagint? The library of the Serapeum. Why would the followers of Serapis say they were the true bishops of christ? Don't know, but I guess it is due to Serapis(God)-Aset(Cleopatra)-Heru(Caesar(ion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 67.237.113.168 (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of Original

Caesarion is Christ

I am elated to read these discussions, a few years ago when I first began sharing my opinion with others I was met with much resistance and anger -- It is good to see there are some open to the idea. In the video link posted above I must disagree with on one fact, Caesar was 17 when octavian invaded Kmt, moreover Herod handed Caesar(ion) over to Octavian. Historians record the "legendary" meeting of octavian and herod, where herod pledges to be more loyal to octavian than he had been to Antony (but his actions to prove his loyalty are never relayed). In fact Herod provided a tutor for young Caesar, who was also Herod's spy. The tutor is said to have murdered "Caesarion" -- but I believe all three children were cruxfied. Those who were cruxified by Rome with Jesus were called "Theives" and were said to 'share in his condemnation" (were accused of the same thing). From the roman perspective, are there any greater theives than Caesar Ptolemy, Alexander, and Philadelphus -- all three accused of being "kings". The sun waxed dim is an allusion to Helios, and the veil to the temple is an allusion to Philadelphus (Septuagint, the word/text is the "veil" of the religion). There is no evidence Alexander or Philadelphus ever lived in rome, and classical sources report "they died from the cold". Moreover, after the Christ is murdered His kingdom is divided (Proverbs 1). Herod receives vast land awards from the new "augustus". But the best evidence is the evidence presented by Rome herself. The entire complex is centered on a tekhen(obelisk) surmounted by a cross "that holds a fragment of the cross" and dedicated to "The DIVINE AUGUSTUS and DIVINE TIBERIUS". They are celebrating the fact that they murdered the Pharoah, they are not memorializing Christ victory over death -- but man's victory over the Living God. They declare it through other words -- they say it "shows christ victory over paganism". Caesarion was the son of all the "pagan gods" of Serapis, of Amen-ra, of Venus, of Aphrodite. And as the Aeneas/Heru/Eros/Christ was the living symbol of the natural religions (nature based) - - :This reply is to be read with a lot of unwritten question marks. It is a brief collection of lines of my study of this. I'm not claiming authority beyond the authority of my intuition. I do seek to contemplate all theories as possibly empirically fit. I also attempt, methodically, to not be prejudgemental on behalf of any historical figure or party, believing all have shares in the big picture. The idea of Caesarion as Christ should not necessarily be in conflict with a christian theological perspective. If indeed the theory is empirical fit the question is why he became detested by the Maccabean elite. Or, maybe he wasn't. Of course, the theory is alternative because it is commonly believed that Caesarion was killed at the age of 17. But it sounds relieable that in fact Caesarion planned and did flee eastwards from his enemies. Christ, thus understood as an inheritable title adhering to the King of Kings pertaining to a hellenised rendering of the joint kingdom/empire of Israel and Kingdom of Judah. It doesn't seem that it is contested that Christ is identical to Messiah or Messiah (or specifically Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ, Modern Mašíaḥ Tiberian Māšîªḥ; in modern Jewish texts in English sometimes spelled Moshiach; Aramaic: משיחא, Greek: Μεσσίας, Məšîḥā, Arabic: المسيح‎, al-Masīḥ, Latin: Messias. literally means "anointed (one)". The title or supposed divine figure may also be identified as the Partian/Persian Mithra, later evolving into the Mithra cult of the Roman empire before melting into the Catholic Christendom through the operations of emperor Constantin I the Great. Even the vedic Maitreya is of particular interest because of the Seleucian lineage of Cleopatra VII carrying a Buddhist (or traces of such) heritage from Seleucus I Nicator, acknowledged as probable model, or originator of the Buddha sculptures we have today. Maitreya is in the Buddha teachings the future Buddha. Shakyamuni (the historical Buddha) regarded, according to the Sutras Maitreya as his Regent. He himself, as prince, renounced the enthronement that would have made him be the expected Universal Monarch (a.k.a. God) of the Shakya clan. This notes are may be merely of interest due to the mentioned Buddhist line of the Seleucids, but also the Aramaic-Medic line may relate to this. This syncretic orientation may be is perhaps problematic in regard of tradition biblical exegese; but that is merely to the extent of the concept of Israel being due to a Judaic historiography; who may be seen as projecting the idea of a biblical Israel back into a prehistoric time (marked by the battle of Megiddo). Thus said, Israel may very well be conceived of under different denotations in different eras. The first of which relates to the rather mythic status of the story of Jacob (James/Israel) and his thirteen children, the pre-egyptian era. Israel in this era is suggested to be identical to the early Phoenicia, Canaan or more precisely Gna (Kna), centered around Byblos. It should also be contemplated that Moses (...M'ses?) is possible to understand as an egyptian prince, indicating that the tribes of Israel and the Egyptians of this era is probably not ethnically distinguishable. Rather, it is believable that it is in this era the Israelic identity emerged together with the monotheistic faith. This is of particular interest in regard of Akhenaton and the Battle of Megiddo (cf. Armageddon). Back to Ceasarion as candidate for being identified with Christ; it is believable, but rather as the father(?) of Jesus Christ, Joseph. It would in all measures be more fitting (in spite of the desire to see Cleopatra as the divine mother). But merely carrying the name Ceasar makes him, on the side of the signifier, identifiable as a Christ in a Hellenistic sense, although not Christ, the Saviour. Ceasarion seem to be a heir to both the Ptolomaic, the Seleucid, and the Roman Empire. And that's merely the surface of it, it seems. Another question arises: what throne is Caesarion not a claimant heir to. I would suggest it be of matrilinear descent. Then on we'll have a good candidate, I think..--Xact (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For those interested in raw information, The Journal of Roman Studies has two areticles that may be of interes to you. W.W. Tarn's Alexander Helios and the Golden Age, Vol 22 Part 2 pp 135-160 1932. and Alexander Helios and Caesarion by K.W. Meiklejohn, Vol 24 pp 191-195 1934.

Information is also found in the text of Dio, Suetonius, and Josephus. WW Tarn's article convinced me most that people living at the time would have belived Caesar was Christ. This article however focuses on Alexander Helios, though the evidence he uses to support Helios applies with greater strength to Caesarion. For example in his discussion of Virgil's Ecologue Tarn says the comming Messiah would be the son of a great warrior and elaborates on how Antony fills this role. However the military prowess of Julius Caesar is legendary, and that "prophecy" applies to Caesarion to a greater degree than it does to Helios.

I have been unable to establish Caesarion as the Jewish King but I belive there is strong evidence he could have been. THe practice in Judea for anointing non-hebrew kings was to annoint them with pomergrante oil. I do not know if Caesarion was annointed with the oil. But The Imperial Family did own a pomergrante plantation in judea, and they did everything possible to provide absolute credibility to Caesar -- Anoninting him with Pomergrante oil would be consistent with the numerous other actions taken in favor of Caesar. Additionally a slightly looked over fact is that Herod destroyed the House of Maccabee -- the preist-kings of Judea. Herod married into the ruling family, He wed Mariamme in order to gain legitmacy as a "king" of judea. Alexandra, Mariamme's mother, submitted a plea to the Imperial Family for the resolution of an issue. Her son Aristobolus was supposed to be ordained High Priest of Israel, however Herod resisted this because Aristobolus would have greater authority in judea than he would. Addtionally Aristobulus was legitmate, whereas Herod was an idumean (not even judean). Cleopatra intervened and insured Aristobulus was given his rightful position. Herod later murdered him and then the rest of the family, even his sons by Mariamme(with the PERMISSON of the"augustus".) I relayed that story because IF Cleopatra ensured the Maccabbean was High Priest -- it is likely the Priesthood of Judea would have annointed Caesar with Pomergrante oil. Military Generals of Judea were staunch supporters of Cleopatra, they helped her secure to secure the throne after her father's death.

The bible says the hebrew people said "We have no King but Caesar"! we read that as a reference to octavian -- but given the history they are just as likely to have been pleading for the life of Caesarion, the text contiues "and then they carried Jesus away to be cruxified".

One of the startling revelations of Caesarion to me is in Jesus' parables. Specifically the parable of the man who lent out his vineyard and sent for it's increase but the leasors refused to send the increase of the fields. So the man sent his Son, saying they will see my son, and then will they give me my due. Instead of providing payment, the leasors seize the heir, murder him, and keep the fields for themselves. Jesus ends the parable by asking ' what do you think will happen when the master cometh?' The reason this is startling is because the parables are a direct reference to the wisdom in Proverbs 1:10-19. Specifcally, conspiring to take innocent life in order to seize the spoils. The historical events surrounding the Coronation, War, and Land distributions thereafter are an exact parallel of the Proverb AND the PARABLE. So What will happen when the master cometh? It is already written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.226.214 (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Greek articles
• Unknown-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages