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

FRANCESCO CAROTTA & AI: 16. CHAT – ΑΛΕΞΑΜΕΝΩC CEBETE ΘΕΟΝ Roman Trophies, the Cross, and the Alexamenos Graffito This chat examines possible connections between Roman military symbolism, early Christian representations of the cross, the Alexamenos graffito, and the Roman imperial background of Nativity imagery. Its central claims concern the visual resemblance between Roman tropaea and crucified figures, alternative readings of the Alexamenos inscription, the possible Roman-imperial origins of the ox, donkey, and manger motif, and the application of Gérard Genette’s concept of transposition diégétique to the formation of Christian narratives. 1. Roman military trophies resemble crucified figures The discussion begins with Minucius Felix, 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 consisting of wooden frames decorated with captured armour, shields, helmets, and weapons—could visually resemble a human figure attached to a cross. A bronze statuette of a Roman trophy is discussed as an illustration: its cuirass, outstretched sleeves, greaves, and helmet may create the impression of a clothed human body on a cross-shaped frame. The text also cites Tertullian, Apologeticum 16, who similarly describes Roman military standards, banners, and camp insignia as decorated crosses. In this reading, early Christian writers turned a pagan accusation against Christians—that they worshipped a cross—back upon Roman military religion itself. Key point: The resemblance between Roman trophies, military standards, and crucified figures is explicitly discussed in early Christian apologetic literature. 2. The Alexamenos graffito: questioning the traditional interpretation The Alexamenos graffito, generally dated to the Roman imperial period, shows a human figure with raised arms facing a crucified figure with an animal head. The inscription is conventionally read as “Alexamenos worships his god.” The text challenges this standard interpretation on several grounds: The animal’s head: The author argues that the short, upright ears and facial proportions resemble those of a horse or mule more closely than those of a donkey. The Greek inscription: The word σεβετε (sebete) is read as a second-person plural imperative, “worship!”, rather than as a misspelling of σέβεται (sebetai), “he worships.” The absence of an article: The inscription has θεον (theon), not τον θεον (ton theon), which the author suggests fits a magical or ritual formula better than a reference to a specific Christian deity. Alternative readings of ΑΛΕΞΑΜΕΝΩC: The author proposes that Alexamenos need not be a personal name, but could be read as an adverbial form, ἀλεξαμένως (alexamenōs), meaning approximately “protectively,” “apotropaically,” or “imploringly.” The phrase would then mean something like: “Imploringly, worship the god!” Alternative imagery: Two non-Christian interpretations are considered: a representation of the Egyptian deity Seth-Typhon, often associated with equine or asinine features, or a scene derived from Roman mime theatre. On this reading, the graffito need not depict a Christian being mocked by a fellow Roman. The author argues that the traditional interpretation depends on a circular association between the image, ancient accusations of “donkey-worship” (onolatry), and Tertullian’s account of a caricature called Onocoetes. 3. The ox, the donkey, and Roman Nativity imagery A further argument concerns the ox and donkey traditionally shown beside the infant Jesus. These animals do not appear in the canonical infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke in the manger scene. They are first explicitly placed there in the apocryphal Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, chapter 14, which describes the ox and donkey worshipping the child and connects the scene to Isaiah 1:3. The text proposes a Roman imperial background for this imagery, linking it to traditions surrounding 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 tradition concerning Octavian’s victory at Actium involves an encounter with a donkey named Nikon, “Victor.” The feeding trough: Suetonius, Life of Augustus 6, describes a small room resembling a storeroom (cella penuaria) connected with Augustus’s infancy and regarded by local people as his birthplace. The proposed interpretation is that Christian Nativity imagery reworked Roman imperial birth and victory traditions into a new narrative centred on Jesus. In this view, the manger, ox, and donkey transform symbols associated with Augustan birth and triumph into signs of a rival, Christian claim to universal salvation. 4. Bethlehem and Velitrae: a proposed linguistic connection The text also proposes that Bethlehem may be understood as a Semitized transformation or anagram of Velitrae, the Italian town associated with Augustus’s origins. The suggested sequence is: VELITRAE → Βηθλεέμ / Bethlehem The author presents this as a possible example of ancient syncretistic wordplay: a Roman place associated with Augustus’s birth would have been linguistically recast as a Judaeaan place-name meaning “house of bread.” This proposed connection is intended to support the broader thesis that the Christian birth narrative translates Augustan traditions into a Semitic and biblical setting. This remains a speculative philological hypothesis rather than an established etymology. 5. Caesar, Nazareth, and Ravenna The text extends the same anagrammatic method to the name Nazareth. It proposes a connection between Ravenna—the city from which Julius Caesar began his march across the Rubicon—and Nazareth: RAVENNA → NAZARETH In this proposed reconstruction, Caesar is associated with “Jesus of Nazareth,” while Augustus is associated with the infant in the manger at Bethlehem. The author thus reads the Christian father-and-child pattern as a transposed version of the Julian-Augustan relationship: Caesar as divine father, Augustus as adopted son and world ruler. As with the Bethlehem–Velitrae proposal, this is presented as a speculative linguistic and literary hypothesis, not as a mainstream historical conclusion. 6. Genette: transposition rather than revolution A major addition to the discussion concerns Gérard Genette’s theory of hypertextuality, especially his concept of transposition diégétique proximisante. In Palimpsestes (1982), Genette argues that a hypertext commonly transposes the story-world of its hypotext in order to bring it closer to, and make it more relevant for, a new audience. The text applies this model to early Christian narrative formation. Rather than describing the Gospels as a revolutionary invention ex nihilo, it proposes that they may represent a conservative act of cultural translation: established imperial narratives were relocated geographically, socially, and linguistically into a Semitic and eastern Mediterranean setting. Examples of this proposed “proximizing transposition” include: The Augustan cella penuaria becomes the Christian manger or stable. The imperial birthplace at ad capita bubula becomes Bethlehem. The Actium donkey Nikon becomes the donkey at the Nativity. The Sidus Iulium, the comet associated with Julius Caesar’s apotheosis, becomes the Star of Bethlehem. The imperial euangelion, the “good news” of Augustus’s birth and rule, becomes the Christian “Gospel.” The divine conception of Augustus as son of Apollo becomes the virginal conception of Jesus. The intended audience, in this hypothesis, includes the descendants of Roman, Gallic, and Germanic veterans settled in the eastern Mediterranean, particularly in regions such as Samaria/Sebaste. For such audiences, familiar Roman-imperial narratives could be made meaningful in a new Semitic and biblical environment. Key point: In this framework, Christian narrative formation is understood not primarily as revolution, but as proximizing transposition: the preservation and relocation of existing imperial myths under changed cultural conditions. 7. The broader hypothesis: reinterpretation of Roman symbols The underlying theme connecting these arguments is that early Christianity may have appropriated, transformed, and recontextualized Roman imagery, military symbolism, and imperial traditions. The text brings together several types of evidence: Literary evidence: Minucius Felix and Tertullian explicitly compare Roman military symbols with crosses. Iconographic evidence: The form of the Roman tropaeum and the ambiguous animal-headed figure in the Alexamenos graffito invite further investigation. Epigraphic and linguistic evidence: The grammar and possible adverbial reading of σεβετε, as well as the proposed Velitrae–Bethlehem and Ravenna–Nazareth connections, are offered as grounds for reconsidering standard interpretations. Religious and imperial traditions: Stories about Augustus’s infancy, divine conception, victory, comet, and euangelion are compared with later Christian Nativity and Gospel imagery. Narratological evidence: Genette’s concept of proximizing diegetic transposition is used to explain how imperial narratives might have been adapted for a new eastern Mediterranean audience. ___________________ Chats (AI) 1-15: https://zenodo.org/records/23616659 carotta.de