Littlejohn

.

Dio Cassius: a 'strange' anomaly ...

Dio Cassius, in his Roman History, recorded a warning to the Jews of the roman diaspora launched by Claudius in 41-42. However, the same historian NOTHING tells us about the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49-50 commissioned by the Emperor, due to the riots caused by a 'certain' 'impulsore Chresto' ...

How is this possible? ... Yet, an expulsion in 'mass' of roman citiziens is an event far more important than just a warning, such as the one he recorded ...

What lies behind all this? .. What answer gave critics and scholars to this puzzling singularity? .. There may be behind all this a reality that we still do not know, but which, however, is likely to be explained, through a review of historical facts, especially for as regards the true origins of the cult Catho-Christian? (or Catholic-Christian, if you prefer)

.

Littlejohn

HE HAS NOT done it intentionally, but for one merely historical reason... Revealing that reason, it means to reveal at least 50% of the content of my book, and frankly this not I can afford it ...

.

Littlejohn

.
AMBIGUITY OF A HISTORIC STEP

.
It is need to be very careful in assessing in a useful way the passage inserted by Suetonius in his 'Vita Claudii', concerning the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, since it, as was the case for almost all the texts of antiquity after 63 ac(*), has been heavily interpolated to bend history to the needs of the counterfeiters who founded the Catho-Christianity.

To understand these interpolations, we have two distinct directions. The first one is provided by the historian Dio Cassius, which recorded the admonition to the Jews by Claudius, shortly after his inauguration as emperor (41-42). However, Dione NOTHING tells us of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49-50. How is this possible? .. Yet the event of a mass expulsion is significantly more important than just a 'warning'! ...

The second indication comes instead from the church historian Orosius, the 'factotum' of Augustine. He tells us that Josephus agrees with Suetonius about the year of the expulsion of the Jews: the 9th year of Claudius (from which the date of 49-50). However, as we know, none of this is found in the works of G. Flavio, today available at the international erudition: a clear sign that Orosius had available Joseph's copies of works very different by the our . Why, then, this passage was removed from the work of the jewish historian? .. What has driven the counterfeiters to do it? ...

In addition to this, Orosius clearly identifies Chresto with Christ, the alleged 'instigator' which caused riots in the Rome of the first century. But this does not seem to import anything to the historical pro-denominational or sectarian, who say definitely that the Chresto could not be Jesus, because, as 'teach' the Gospels, Jesus had died in the thirties. This is a typical mental aberration of those historians who prepend their own dogma of faith, to the study and to the interpretation of historical events ...

_____________________________

(*) - as is known, in 63 B.C. happened the conquest of Palestine by the legions of Pompey the Great.
.