Mark Antony and the death of J.C.

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 What about Mark Antony?

 Well he, too, must be a composite, fictitious character based partly upon the procurator Pontius Pilate, whom I have identified, with the name Mark Antony,

as Marcus Antonius Felix.

  

 

With Julius Caesar and his ally, Mark Antony, so brilliantly portrayed by Shakespeare, we are moving in a world of fictitious composite characters – literary creations, but based upon real historical notables.

 

The primary historical matrix for this is the era of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, somewhat later than when Mark Antony is conventionally dated.

 

Aspects of Julius Caesar (J.C.) are based upon that other J.C.

For, as I wrote in my article:

 

Jesus Christ was the Model for some legends surrounding Julius Caesar

 

(3) Jesus Christ was the Model for some legends surrounding Julius Caesar

 

regarding “the distinct parallels now to be discussed between history’s most famous J.C’s – Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar – both referred to as the greatest man the earth has ever produced [Grant, M., Julius Caesar (Weidenfield and Nicholson, London, 1969), Foreword p. 15: “A hundred or even fifty years ago, Gaius Julius Caesar (J.C.) was variously described as the greatest man of action who ever lived, and even as ‘the entire and perfect man’.”].

 

Whilst in most aspects Jesus and Julius could not be any more different, there are nevertheless certain incredibly close likenesses, especially in regard to their violent deaths.

 

Both Jesus and Julius were born into poor circumstances; but their ancestry was one of blue blood: Davidic in the case of Jesus, Patrician in the case of Caesar. Their births were notable, a miraculous Virgin birth for Jesus, Julius’ birth giving rise to the term ‘Caesarian’.

 

Julius belonged to the populares, and Jesus was likewise for the common people.

“The tax collectors”, said Cicero, “have never been loyal, and are now very friendly with Caesar” [as cited ibid., p. 161]. Likewise, the Pharisees were critical of Jesus for eating with “tax collectors and sinners” (Matthew 9:11).

 

 

 

Trial and Death

 

Both Jesus and Julius had spoken of an early death.

Both had entered their capital city (Jerusalem, Rome) in triumph, on an ancient feast-day (Passover, Lupercalia), shortly before mid-March, and had been hailed as “king”. This had caused anger and had the plotters conspiring. But there was also an ambivalence about the kingship. Caesar, though a king in deed, had rejected the diadem thrice.

And Pilate had tried to get to the bottom of Jesus’ kingship: ‘So you are a king, then?’ (John 18:37); he eventually having written in three languages: “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews” (19:19).

 

The prime mover of Caesar’s fatal stabbing was the soldier, Gaius Cassius Longinus, the last name (Longinus) being the very name that tradition has associated with the Roman soldier who rent Christ’s side with a spear (19:34).

 

The zealot amongst the conspirators was the intense young Brutus, in whom Dante at least had obviously discerned a similarity with Judas, having located “Brutus and Cassius with Judas Iscariot in Hell” [as cited by Grant, op. cit., p. 257].

 

Even Christ’s words to Judas in Gethsemane, ‘So you would betray the Son of Man with a kiss?’ (Luke 22:48), resemble what is alleged to be Caesar’s anguished last cry: re-made by Shakespeare as ‘Et tu Brute?’.

 

There is the premonitory dream warning by the woman (cf. Matthew 27:19).

 

There may even be a confused reminiscence of Barabbas: “Caesar … staged an elaborate legal charade against an old man called Rabirius [Barabbas?] … [who] had been allegedly implicated in … murder … not interested in having the old Rabirius actually executed” [ibid., p. 51]. (Cf. Matthew 27:15-23).

 

On the Ides of March Julius Caesar is supposed to have died, like Jesus, riddled with wounds.

 

The ‘heretical’ question must now be asked: Did Julius Caesar really exist?

 

Or was his ‘life’ merely a mixture of his nephew Augustus, who also bore the name Julius Caesar, and aspects of the life of Jesus Christ according to Virgil’s biblical borrowings?

 

And perhaps other composites as well?

 

“Portrait busts are not a safe guide to [Julius Caesar’s] appearance, since they may or may not date from his life-time” [Grant, op. cit., p. 245].

….

 

And, in this Christmas season of the Epiphany, I might add another element as well, the Magi Star and the portents (at least in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar): “When beggars die, there are no comets seen; The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes”.

 

And, at the Death of Jesus Christ (Luke 23:44-45): “It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two”.

 

So, here we have the main players in the tale of Julius Caesar:

 

-         the assassinated Julius Caesar, partly based upon Jesus Christ;

-         the conspiratorial Brutus, partly based upon Judas;

-         the “lean and hungry” Cassius, partly based up Cassius Longinus;

-         the warnings of Calpurnia, partly based upon the wife of Pilate.

 

And other, lesser players could also be pointed out.

 

What about Mark Antony?

 

Well he, too, must be a composite, fictitious character based partly upon the procurator Pontius Pilate, whom I have identified, with the name Mark Antony, as: Marcus Antonius Felix:

 

Procurator Pontius Pilate and Procurator Marcus Ant. Felix

 

(4) Procurator Pontius Pilate and Procurator Marcus Ant. Felix

 

Thus it is correct to say that fortress Antonia was built in honour of Mark Antony, though not Shakespeare’s hero of that name, but, rather, Marcus Antonius Felix (Pilate):

 

Antonia as the praetorium of the procurator Pontius Pilate

 

(4) Antonia as the praetorium of the procurator Pontius Pilate

 

Nor was this the era of Caesar Augustus, nor Herod ‘the Great’, both long dead, but the era of the emperor Tiberius and Herod Antipas.

 

As in the fictitious version of Mark Antony, Ptolemy and Cleopatra also come into play, at least in my reconstruction:

 

Alexander Balas and Tryphon Diodotus, Marcus Pallas and Marcus Antonius Felix

 

(5) Alexander Balas and Tryphon Diodotus, Marcus Pallas and Marcus Antonius Felix

 

with Felix’s brother, Marcus Antonius Pallas, as Alexander Balas, marrying Ptolemy’s daughter, Cleopatra.

 

This, again, enables for a love link between a Cleopatra and a Marcus Antonius.

 

Marcus Antonius Felix, who crucified his enemies, was not well regarded by some ancient historians (e.g. Tacitus, Josephus).

 

FELIX (ANTONIUS FELIX) - JewishEncyclopedia.com

“Procurator of Judea. Felix, who was a freedman of the empress Antonia, was administrator of Samaria, and probably of Judea proper also, as early as the time of the procurator Cumanus (Tacitus, "Annales," xii. 54; Josephus, "Ant." xx. 7, § 1). The two procurators almost went to war with each other during the conflict that broke out between the Samaritans and the Galileans; but Cumanus was recalled.

Felix was thereupon appointed sole procurator of Judea by Claudius (52 C.E.) on the suggestion of the high priest Jonathan, who had gone to Rome with other nobles on account of the Samaritan disturbances (Josephus, "B. J." ii. 11, § 6; "Ant." xx. 8, § 5). Felix was also entrusted with the entire military command, as Suetonius ("Claudius," § 28) and Victor ("Epit." § 4) distinctly point out. Felix exercised, as Tacitus says, "the royal prerogative in a slavish sense, with all manner of cruelties and excesses"; it was he who excited the bitter feelings of the Jewish patriots to the highest pitch, and for this even his patron Jonathan reproached him in the end.

….

He sent the chief of the Zealots, Eleazar b. Dinai, in chains to Rome, while taking relentless measures against his followers, whom he denounced as robbers, crucifying them in countless numbers ("B. J." ii. 3, § 2; "Ant." xx. 8, § 5).

 

On the other hand, he tolerated the much more formidable Sicarii, and used them for his own purposes, as, for instance, in the murder of Jonathan (ib.). He also proceeded rigorously against the would be prophets that were disturbing the peace with their fanaticism, especially against an Egyptian Jew who, with several thousand followers, attempted to drive the Roman garrison from Jerusalem, but who was defeated ("B. J." ii. 13, §§ 4-5; "Ant." xx. 8, § 6; comp. Acts xxi. 38; Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl."ii. 21). His term of office was practically a reign of anarchy; for even the high-priestly families were at war with the lower priests ("Ant." xx. 8, § 8; "Vita," § 3)”.

 

Jonathan (High Priest) Explained

“Felix disliked Jonathan, because he often got criticized by the latter about governing the Jewish affairs, and threatened to be reported to Caesar if not doing well as the priest was the one who made the recommendation to Caesar to send Felix to be the procurator of Judea. Felix persuaded one of Jonathan's most trusted friends, Doras, a citizen of Jerusalem, to hire robbers to kill Jonathan by promising to give a large sum of money. Doras arranged for some hired men to mingle with the worshippers in the Temple in Jerusalem, while they hid daggers under their garments.

 

These assassins succeeded in killing Jonathan during a Jewish festival and were never caught. …. The main source that mentions this high priest is the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus”.

 

Why Charles Martel did not inherit the “hammer” of Judas Maccabeus

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

“Ninth-century chroniclers, who interpreted the outcome of the battle

as divine judgment in his favour, gave Charles the nickname Martellus 

(“The Hammer”), possibly recalling Judas Maccabeus (“The Hammerer”)

of Maccabean revolt”.

 

Wikispeedia

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

Just as he was surrounded by adversity on all sides, according to what has been recounted of his exploits, so does the Frankish king, Charles Martel, need to face most rigorous scrutiny from history, chronology and archaeology.

 

He (c. 688-741 AD) is supposed to have lived during that most dubious of centuries, the C7th AD (and on into the C8th): 

   

Scrutinising the C7th AD for its conundrums and anachronisms

 

(4) Scrutinising the C7th AD for its conundrums and anachronisms

 

It is in that century, presumably, that we encounter such historical impossibilities and duplicates as, for instance, the Prophet Mohammed:

 

Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History

 

(4) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History

 

and a ‘new’ Nehemiah:

 

Supposedly two officials ‘Nehemiah’ occupying BC time and AD time

 

(4) Supposedly two officials 'Nehemiah' occupying BC time and AD time

 

and that impossibly marvellous Byzantine emperor, that composite of all composites, Heraclius:

 

Something almost miraculous about our emperor Heraclius

 

(4) Something almost miraculous about our emperor Heraclius

 

Moreover, Charles Martel is considered to have given rise to the Carolingian dynasty, to Pepin (his son) and Charlemagne (his grandson), C8th AD, another era that is replete with problems. Charlemagne, for instance, appears to have been a breathtaking composite along lines similar to the emperor Heraclius. And there are enormous archaeological difficulties associated with him as well.

On these, see e.g.my article:

 

Solomon and Charlemagne

 

(4) Solomon and Charlemagne

 

which article does not, however, exhaust all of the problems as we are going to find.

 

To the C7th AD, then, have been attributed some marvellously colourful characters, and Charles Martel, so admired by Catholics, for instance, does not disappoint in this regard.

 

“The hammer” of God

 

“Other views link the name [Maccabee] with a root that means “to extinguish”,

since the Maccabees extinguished the Greek persecution, or with makkav,

“a hammer”; Judah, like Charles Martel, was the hammer of his enemies”.

 

OzTorah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Maccabeus

 

In the early days of the rebellion, Judah received a surname Maccabee. Several explanations have been put forward for this surname. One suggestion is that the name derives from the Aramaic maqqaba (“makebet” in modern Hebrew), “hammer” or “sledgehammer” (cf. the cognomen of Charles Martel, the 8th century Frankish leader), in recognition of his ferocity in battle. Others believe it is in reference to his weapon of choice.

 

It is also possible that the name Maccabee is an acronym for the Torah verse Mi kamokha ba’elim Adonai, “Who among the gods is like you, O Adonai?”, his battle-cry to motivate troops. (Exodus 15:11). Rabbi Moshe Schreiber writes that it is an acronym for his father’s name Mattityahu Kohen Ben Yochanan. Some scholars maintain that the name is a shortened form of the Hebrew maqqab-ya ¯hû (from na ¯qab, ‘‘to mark, to designate’’), meaning ‘‘the one designated by Yahweh.’ ….

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel

“The victory at the battle near Poitiers and Tours would later earn Charles the cognomen “Martellus” (L., and so “Martel”, Fr.: “the hammer”) from 9th century chroniclers who, in the view of Pierre Riche, “seem to have been… recalling Judas Maccabaeus, ‘the Hammerer,'” of 1 Maccabees, “whom God had similarly blessed with victory” ….”

….

Twelve years later, when Charles had thrice rescued Gaul from Umayyad invasions, Antonio Santosuosso noted when he destroyed an Umayyad army sent to reinforce the invasion forces of the 735 campaigns, “Charles Martel again came to the rescue.” ….

 

Mackey’s comment: Make a note of Umayyad, here, which will sound the death knell for any hope of historicity for Charles Martel.

 

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/b/Battle_of_Tours.htm

The Battle of Tours ( October 10, 732), often called Battle of Poitiers and also called in Arabic بلاط الشهداء (Balâṭ al-Shuhadâ’) The Court of Martyrs was fought near the city of Tours, close to the border between the Frankish realm and the independent region of Aquitaine. The battle pitted Frankish and Burgundian forces under Austrasian Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel against an army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by ‘Abd-al-Raḥmān al-Ghāfiqī, Governor-general of al-Andalus. The Franks were victorious, ‘Abd-al-Raḥmān was killed, and Martel subsequently extended his authority in the south. Ninth-century chroniclers, who interpreted the outcome of the battle as divine judgment in his favour, gave Charles the nickname Martellus (“The Hammer”), possibly recalling Judas Maccabeus (“The Hammerer”) of Maccabean revolt.

 

Details of the battle, including its exact location and the exact number of combatants, cannot be determined from accounts that have survived.

 

As later chroniclers increasingly came to praise Charles Martel as the champion of Christianity, pre-20th century historians began to characterize this battle as being the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam. “Most of the 18th and 19th century historians, like Gibbon, saw Poitiers (Tours), as a landmark battle that marked the high tide of the Muslim advance into Europe.” Leopold Von Ranke felt that “Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world.”

While modern historians are divided as to whether or not the victory was responsible — as Gibbon and his generation of historians claimed — for saving Christianity and halting the conquest of Europe by Islam, the battle helped lay the foundations for the Carolingian Empire, and Frankish domination of Europe for the next century. “The establishment of Frankish power in western Europe shaped that continent’s destiny and the Battle of Tours confirmed that power.”

 

https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2017/12/judah-the-maccabee-judah-the-mace-man/

In a 2011 article on the subject, Mitchell First argues persuasively, based on an analysis of ancient Greek and Latin orthography, that the kuf spelling is the older one.

He also agrees with the now commonly accepted theory, first put forth by the American Bible scholar Samuel Ives Curtiss, Jr. in 1876, that makkabi derives from Hebrew makevet or its Aramaic cognate makava, a hammer or mallet. First writes:

 

As to why Judah was called by this name, one view is that the name alludes to his physical strength or military prowess. But a makevet/makava is not a military weapon; it is a worker’s tool. Therefore, it has been suggested alternatively that the name reflects that Judah’s head or body in some way had the physical appearance of a hammer. 

 

Interestingly, the Mishnah at B’khorot 7:1 lists one of the categories of disqualified priests as ha-makavan [“the hammerhead”], and the term is explained in the Talmud as meaning one whose head resembles a makava. Naming men according to physical characteristics was common in the ancient world.

 

The derivation of makkabi from makevet or makava certainly makes better sense than any of the contending explanations.

What I would take issue with is the assertion made by First and others before him that since a hammer “is not a military weapon,” Judah Maccabee must have been likened to one because of his physical appearance, or else because of his physical power or strength of character.

 

The fact of the matter is that in both ancient and medieval times, hammers were military weapons. First himself mentions the French warrior Charles Martel, “Charles the Hammer,” the grandfather of Charlemagne, best known for stemming the Muslim advance into Europe at the Battle of Tours in 734. While this epithet, too, may have referred only to Charles’s prowess as a commander, the martel de fer or “iron hammer” was a feature of medieval warfare. Typically, it was mace-like or club-like at one end and pointed like a pickax at the other, and it was most commonly wielded by mounted cavalry to smash the armor of enemy soldiers.

 

http://aramaicherald.blogspot.com/2010/11/hammer-of-god_17.html

…. Two individuals in history have been known as “The Hammer of God”: Judah Maccabee and Charles Martel. The title “Maccabee” was given to Judah the son of Mattityahu Bar Hashmonay. (Judas Maccabeus is another way of saying Judah Maccabee.)

….

Judah Maccabee fought against the tyrannical Seleucid Greeks beginning in the year 167 BC [sic].

 

Centuries later, after defeating a massive Moslem army in central France, Charles the son of Pepin was called “Martel,” meaning “The Hammer” in Latin. Charles the Hammer beat back an invasion of Europe by the Muslim Empire in October 732 AD. Charles Martel defeated the Moslems at the Battle of Tours (also known as the Battle of Poitiers). ….

 

The acute Umayyad Problem

 

Archaeology associated with the so-called Umayyad caliphate of Islam, but actually dating closer to the time of Jesus Christ, turns out to be utterly devastating for the historicity of Mohammed and the so-called caliphates (e.g. Rashidun and Umayyad):

 

Umayyads as Nabataean Arabs

 

(5) Umayyads as Nabataean Arabs

 

This fundamental level evidence also kills stone dead any hope that Charles Martel, alleged to have fought the Umayyads, could have been a genuine historical person.

 

Later, the Abbasid caliphate, associated with Charlemagne – through that fictious ‘Arabian Nights’ character, Harun al-Raschid – will come crashing down as well, along with its supposed capital city of Baghdad:

 

Original Baghdad was Jerusalem

 

(5) Original Baghdad was Jerusalem

 

 

Related article:

 

Maccabeans and Crusaders, Seleucids and Saltukids (Seljuks)

 

(5) Maccabeans and Crusaders Seleucids and Saltukids Seljuks

 

 

Egyptian and Mexican linguistic correspondences

 

More Egyptian and Mexican linguistic correspondences

from Charles W. Johnson

 

 

“A similar pattern was noted in previous Earth/matrix studies

regarding Nahuatl, where the omission of the letter “L” in Nahuatl

produced word roots in ancient Kemi hieroglyphs.”.

 

Charles William Johnson

 

 

 

 

Ancient Egyptian and Purépecha eBook : Charles William Johnson: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store

 

Ancient Egyptian and Purépecha 

 

by Charles William Johnson (Author)  Format: Kindle Edition

---

 

The author examines the linguistic correspondence between the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and the language generally known as Purépecha of Mexico. The origins of the Purépecha language and its people are not known by scholars. Some students attribute the origins of the Purépecha to the people of ancient Peru. In this comparative linguistic study, there exist numerous linguistic correspondences between the phonemes and morphemes of the Purépecha language with the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

 

Due to the extent of the cited linguistic correspondences Charles William Johnson (www.earthmatrix.com) suggests that some kind of contact possibly existed between the two referenced cultures prior to their known history. It is shown that the coincidence of correspondences concern words in Purépecha who initial phoneme is dropped and then Kemi word words appear. Linguistic correspondence, then, is based in this case on discernible patterns of word constructs.

 

A similar pattern was noted in previous Earth/matrix studies regarding Nahuatl, where the omission of the letter “L” in Nahuatl produced word roots in ancient Kemi hieroglyphs.

 

If the patterns of linguistic comparisons illustrated in this study are reflexive of contact between these two ancient peoples, then the historical record itself must be reconsidered.