Persia 42: Heirs of Alexander and the Desposyni
The murder of Alexander’s heirs by Cassander created a precedent that needed to be fulfilled in Julio-Claudian (at least in their way of thinking). The heirs of one of the Julio-Claudian Dioscuri twins, Jesus and Paul, would have to be eliminated. The outcomes were reversed in the Julio-Claudian repetition. As it turned out, it was Paul that died without a natural heir rather than Jesus. This prepared the way for the descendants of Jesus to become the dominant dynasty as the descendants of Ptolemy had become in the generations after the death of Alexander the Great. Upon the death of Domitian, the younger son of Jesus, Josephes/Josephus was declared Emperor under the name of Nerva. He in turn elected another heir of Jesus, Trajan as his successor.
The only real controversy stemmed from the fact that the heirs of Jesus were through Mary Magdalene/Salome and that only two of the sons (Jesus Justus and Josephes) were by Jesus. The “firstborn” son of Mary Magdalene was probably the true son of John the Baptist (Philip II), although reckoned as the “eldest son” of Jesus. The appointment of Trajan by Nerva reflects an agreement between the heirs of Jesus and those of John to share power. It probably only postponed an inevitable death struggle between the two. Which one emerged victorious is not yet clear, but it seems to be reflected in Renaissance paintings where the infant John is depicted as the superior of Jesus. Regardless, any descendant of John could also be considered a descendant of Jesus (by virtue of the rights of an “eldest son”).
When Constantine declared Christianity a Roman state religion, representatives of the Desposyni, the so-called heirs of Jesus, asked to have their status confirmed. However, Pope Silvester rejected them. It would be Constantine alone who would be acknowledged as heir to the Messianic line, not only as a descendant of the Apostles and of Jesus, but as a very Christ. All other Desposyni claimants were subordinated to him and would be considered potential threats if they did not recognize the legitimacy and authority of Constantine over both the Empire and over the Church.
Note: For Constantine’s claim as descendant of the Apostles and as the Christ, see:
Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, pp 158-9.
Royal family members were murdered and executed, however we can now conclude that this occurred far less frequently than previously thought. For example, it is now obvious that Herod the Great did not murder his wife Mariamne. Mariamne (Roman Scribonia) was only removed from the Jerusalem scene so that she could become the wife of Caesar Augustus. Herod and Caesar also shared another wife, who was called Doris in Jerusalem but Livia Drusilla in Rome. Herod did not likely literally kill his “wicked” second and third “sons” either. These princes may have been summoned to Rome as the new heirs of Augustus, primarily because their mother was the daughter of Caesar Augustus, Julia, and their Roman identities were Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar. It is only by merging the two families that the real history can finally be discerned. What’s more, if at least some of these horrific deaths were faked, Herod the Great was perhaps not quite the monster he has been made out to be.
Other so-called deaths after the passing of Herod the Great can also be dismissed as play-acting. It has already been shown that Tiberius did not literally execute the two oldest sons of Germanicus (although he probably did authorize the murder of Germanicus himself). The same can be deduced in the case of Philip II (“John the Baptist”) either. It was far more likely to have been staged, because this particular prince had another and more illustrious calling to fulfill. As the son of the royal “fifth son” (i.e., the Issachar/Philip I), Philip II was fated to become a Great King. (The son of an Issachar/Osiris often did attain kingship even though this usually did not result in a lasting dynasty.)
Herodian Philip II was made out to be the only “son” and heir of Herodian Philip I. This endowed Philip II with a highly distinguished fate, because the “son” and heir of Philip of Macedon had been none other than Alexander the Great, who first succeeded to a regional kingship in Greece and then became Great King over the Persian Empire. Philip II was then something of a “twin” to both Jesus and Paul in this particular role. Like Alexander the Great, Philip II succeeded Philip I as a regional king in Israel. The expectation was that he would eventually become Roman Emperor, even if he did not establish a lasting dynasty, and even as Alexander the Great did not establish a lasting dynasty. Therefore, for Philip II to have literally died in the 30’s A.D. would have frustrated his royal career path.
The logical (although completely shocking) Roman identity of Philip II was Claudius (as in Emperor Claudius), who was the grandson of Roman Drusilla even as Philip II was grandson of Herodian Doris through her son Antipater. As Emperor, Claudius restored the Greek Eleusinian Mysteries which commemorated the death of Dionysos (Osiris). As a young prince, Claudius was put under the “yoke” of a “mule-driver”. (The mule or ass is associated with Osiris/Dionysos.) Although prone to stuttering, Claudius eventually became an effective public speaker. However, when Claudius pressed too hard for high office, Tiberius pushed him into obscurity for the rest of the reign. It was at this time an uncomely John the Baptist came out of the “wilderness” with his simple but forceful message. Claudius’, it would appear, were the foreign and stammering lips that were “chosen” to speak to the Jewish people about their “promised Messiah”. (Isaiah 28:11)
The birth of Claudius is placed in 10 B.C., which is closer to three years rather than three months before the earliest likely date for the birth of Jesus. However, the relative births of these two figures may have been telescoped in the Gospels. It is also quite possible that Roman chronology is mistakenly offset relative to Herodian chronology by at least a few years during this time period. (However, see note below on this subject.)
Claudius first became a father in the 20’s A.D. to a son named Drusus that died about the age of 14. In the 30’s A.D. came the scandalous “execution” of John the Baptist, but not before he was given the opportunity to sire another son by the young Salome/Mary Magdalene. If not successful, by tradition, a son would have been sired “posthumously” for him (by Jesus, as Horus the Elder produced an heir for the murdered Osiris). This son, by whichever father, became known as Herod Timothy. In the New Testament, Timothy (a.k.a. Timotheus) is referred to as a soon-to-come Messianic figure, whose advent would end a great tribulation of the faithful. (See references below.) Typologically, Timothy was a Horus-the-Younger son of Osiris born after his death.
Philippians 2:19 “But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state.””
1Cor 4:17 “For this cause [that you have not many fathers] have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son …”
1Cor 16:10 “Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear …”
1 Th 3:1-2 “For when we could no longer forbear, we … sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God …”
1 Th 3:6 “But now when Timotheus came from you unto us, and brought us good tidings …”
Heb 13:23 “Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.”
Only a month after becoming Emperor, Claudius was recognized as the father of another son, Britannicus, who we must now suspect was not an infant at this time, but had been born at least a few years earlier (that is, if he was one and the same as the prince Herod Timothy). Even after Claudius put away the mother of Brittanicus in favor of Agrippina (and her son Nero), there were rumors that Brittanicus might yet be reinstated as successor. This hope was dashed (at least temporarily) when Claudius was murdered by Agrippina and Britiannicus was either also killed or stripped of his royal status in Rome.
Note: The enemies of Claudius would have tried to typecast Claudius as a new Philip Arrhidaeus son of Philip of Macedon, who was killed by Cassander before he could reach the age of succession.
Note: There appears to be a recurring pattern with births in the John line. First, the birth of John the Baptist is possibly portrayed in the Gospels as later than it actually was in the Gospels. Then, the putative son of John is passed off as a newborn when he probably was not. We encountered something similar with a much later king named John, King John of England who had two birth dates that were separated by about three years! Possibly this indicates a tradition about Horus-the-Younger being passed off as an infant heir of Osiris when he was in reality born up to a few years prior to the death of Osiris!
Note: Emperor Trajan was probably the son of Herod Timothy/Britannicus, therefore Claudius/John the Baptist may in fact have established a true and lasting dynasty after all.
Note: Claudius encouraged the belief in Rome that he was the biological/true “son of God”, that is, the deified Caesar Augustus. John the Baptist of the Gospels was also the product of a “miraculous” birth involving the “Angel Gabriel” as agent of “the Lord”).
Note: Paul was flattering himself somewhat by calling (Herod) Timothy his “son”.
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.