Once again, I am writing my post well after midnight. Once again I am posting on ProofOfBrain. But it is so late that I am not sure if my brain is still functioning.
Fortunately, i am close to ending my exploration of political history.
I believe that a great deal of modern politics is rooted in interpretations of ancient politics. The easiest way to figure out what is going on today is to discuss ancient history.
I've been told that some of the characters one encounters in the Bible and other historical texts were not historical people but were archetypes.
In Platonic philosophy "arche" means origin. The concept of archetype fits well within the framework of Platonic idealism.
The use of archetypes in literature helps people discuss ideas. Archetypes are especially useful in discussing spiritual matters. In this post I want to show how one can use archetypes.
I actually have no problem with archetypes because archetypes allow people to discuss the way that different ideas interact. So it is sometimes easier to understand the interplay between different ideas when one sees the ideas presented on stage by actors.
Unfortunately, the archetypes presented in history never match up with reality. I've been struggling to find a way to introduce this concept.
Fortunately for me @zuerich correctly pointed out two mistakes that I made in my post to summarize Roman History.
The first mistake is that I kept refering to Julius Caesar as Caesar. Julius Caesar never was Caesar. He was assassinated on the Ides of March before realizing his imperial ambitions.
Caesar was never Caesar.
This historical fact is one of those confusing items that muck up discussions of history. While Julius is considered the archetype of Caesar. He never was officially crowned as Caesar.
Since the state is the ultimate arbiter of reality, Wikipedia editors do not list Julius among the Caesars.
This question of archetypes is made more confusing by a bizarre statement made by Caesar while he was planning an invasion of Parthia.
Apparently his followers wanted Caesar to declare himself king. Realizing that this would be a political blunder Caesar is reported to have said: "I am not King, I am Caesar."
One can take that sentence in many different directions.
When Gaius Octavius (63 BC 14 AD) gained power he took the name Caesar Augustus. This emphasized that he based his role on the ambitions of Caesar and emphasized that the ruler of Rome was something different from the position of King.
I find the archetype of "Caesar" to be very useful. For example there were times when Trump appeared to behave like Caesar. At times Biden appears to act more like a Caesar than a president.
I believe that holding Julius Caesar as the archetype of Caesar is useful even though Caesar never was Caesar for it was Caesar's imperial ambition which defined the role.
I suspect that the long list of people who took the title Caesar would agree with my assessment.
The Deification of Vespasian and Titus
A second mistake I made was that I implied that Titus was Emperor when he invaded Jerusalem and destroyed the second temple.
The actual events unfolded as follows: Judea rebelled in 66 AD. Vespasian led an invasion of Judea but returned to Rome after Nero committed suicide.
Vespasian became Caesar in 70 AD and his son Titus continued the war. Titus invaded Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple and the city in 70 AD.
Titus became Caesar on his father's death in 79 AD. Titus built a Temple to Vespasian. Vespasian was officially deified in 81 AD.
The Cult of Caesar is likely to have deified everything related to the people bearing the title of Caesar. This would include the careers of people before they bore the title.
The destruction of the Second Temple involved two Roman Emperors who were deified by the state.
Theologians concern themselves with spiritual matters and not the petty details of history. While Titus was not officially Caesar when he destroyed the Temple, the Temple was destroyed by the efforts of the position Caesar.
Jewish tradition held that the Temple was the house of God. The Jewish scriptures claim that God physically resided in The Temple.
Man could not possibly destroy the building occupied by God.
The scriptures claim that God was upset with the transgressions of Judea and left the First Temple before the Babylonian captivity. God was not in the First Temple when King Nebuchadnezzar II invaded Jerusalem and destroyed the city.
Caesar would not have been able to destroy the Second Temple if God was in the Second Temple.
The oldest copies of the New Testament were not transcribed until well after the destruction of the Second Temple. There is a chance that the story of Christ was designed to explain the destruction of the Temple.
Many ancient cultures including Rome, Greece and Egypt had a habit of declaring their political leaders as gods. The Cult of Caesar would declare that certain men became gods. The Christian tradition speaks of a monotheistic God becoming man.
It is an interesting juxtaposition that is best understood in terms of archetypes.
Other Archetypes and the Judgement of Nations
Regardless of how one feels about the use of archetypes in political and theological discussion, people who study history need to be aware of the concept. Many political philsophies seem to take the use of archetypes seriously.
I wanted to write a few other examples about a few other uses of archetypes in the Bible. I am not completely of my references and it is now 4:00 AM. So I deleted the last section of this post.
The point I wanted to make with this post is that many of the debates that occur today started with discussions of archetypes from the Bible. It is a really long and involved discussion.
I might add the last section as a comment in the morning.
I wanted to make a picture of Julius Caesar questioning his identity: The meme would be a bust of Julius Caesar asking: "If I am not Caesar; then who am I?"
