FRANCESCO CAROTTA & AI: 16. CHAT – ΑΛΕΞΑΜΕΝΩC CEBETE ΘΕΟΝ

FRANCESCO CAROTTA & AI: 16. CHAT – ΑΛΕΞΑΜΕΝΩC CEBETE ΘΕΟΝ Roman Trophies, the Cross, and the Alexamenos Graffito The chat explores connections between Roman military symbolism, early Christian representations ofthe cross, and the interpretation of the Alexamenos graffito. Its most striking points concern the visual resemblance between Roman tropaea and crucified figures, the symbolism of the ox and donkey in the Nativity tradition, and alternative readings of an image traditionally regarded as an anti-Christian caricature. 1. Roman military trophies resemble crucified figures The starting point is a passage from Minucius Felix’s Octavius 29.8: “Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it.” The argument is that Roman tropaea, victory monuments made from wooden frames decorated with captured armour, helmets and weapons, could visually resemble a human figure attached to a cross. The text also cites Tertullian, who compares Roman military standards and banners to decorated crosses. Key point: The resemblance between the Roman trophy and the crucified figure is explicitly discussed in early Christian literature. 2. The Alexamenos graffito: is the traditional interpretation correct? The graffito, generally dated to the Roman imperial period, depicts a human figure with raised arms facing a crucified, animal-headed figure. Its inscription is conventionally interpreted as “Alexamenos worships his god.” The text challenges this interpretation on three grounds: The animal’s head: The author argues that its short, upright ears resemble those of a horse or mule more than a donkey. The Greek inscription: The word sebete (σέβετε) is interpreted as a plural imperative meaning “worship!” rather than the con-ventional reading that Alexamenos “worships” his god. Alternative imagery: Two possibilities are proposed: a representation of the Egyptian deity Seth-Typhon or a scene derived from Roman mime theatre. The text therefore questions whether the graffito necessarily depicts a Christian being mocked by a fellow Roman. 3. The ox, the donkey and the Roman origins of the Nativity imagery A further argument concerns the ox and donkey traditionally depicted beside the infant Jesus. The Pseudo Matthew Gospel, chapter 14, explicitly describes both animals worshipping the child and connects them to Isaiah 1:3. However neither animal appears in the canonical birth narratives of Matthew and Luke in this scene. The text proposes a Roman imperial background for this imagery, connecting it with traditions about Octavian Augustus: The ox: Augustus’s birthplace was associated with the Roman place-name ad capita bubula (“at the ox heads”). The donkey Nikon: A story associated with Octavian’s victory at Actium reveals of an encounter with a donkey named Nikon, meaning “Victor.” The feeding trough: Suetonius, Life of Augustus 6, describes a small room resembling a storeroom (cella penuaria) associated with Augustus’s infancy and believed by local people to be his birthplace. The proposed interpretation is that Christian Nativity imagery reworked Roman imperial birth and victory traditions into a new cohesive narrative centred on Jesus. 4. Bethlehem and Velitrae: a proposed linguistic connection The text also proposes that Bethlehem may be a Semitized anagram or transformation of Velitrae, the town associated with Augustus’s origins. The suggested connection is intended to reinforce the broader thesis that the Christian birth narrative reworks Augustan traditions, including the feeding trough, the ox and the donkey. 5. The broader hypothesis: reinterpretation of Roman symbols The underlying theme connecting these arguments is that early Christianity may have appropriated and transformed Roman imagery, military symbolism and imperial traditions. The text brings together three types of evidence: Literary evidence: Minucius Felix and Tertullian explicitly compare Roman military symbols with crosses. Iconographic evidence: The form of the tropaeum and the ambiguous animal-headed figure in the Alexamenos graffito invite further investigation. Religious and imperial traditions: Stories about Augustus’s infancy and victory are compared with later adapted Christian Nativity imagery. Taken together, these parallels suggest questions worth investigating about the relationship between Roman imperial culture and an early Christian representation. Chat 1-15: https://zenodo.org/records/23616659 carotta.de