{"id":2661,"date":"2006-02-08T14:31:05","date_gmt":"2006-02-08T19:31:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/67.225.164.17\/~chronarchy\/?p=2661"},"modified":"2026-03-16T11:02:53","modified_gmt":"2026-03-16T15:02:53","slug":"esus-and-jesus-a-false-connection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/67.225.164.17\/~chronarchy\/esus-and-jesus-a-false-connection\/","title":{"rendered":"Esus and Jesus: a false connection"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Back in the early 2000’s, I received a lot<\/i>\u00a0of inquiries about whether Jesus is Esus, whether Esus is Jesus, or whether we should be able to look at Esus as some sort of “pre-Jesus Jesus” who taught monotheism to the Celts.<\/p>

Most of this, of course, doesn’t really deserve serious consideration. I got so many inquiries that I decided, primarily, to address the Esus-Jesus bit in FAQ form.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

A Question of Names<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

But look at the names! Jesus and Esus are obviously the same name\/word\/person!<\/strong><\/p>

It’s a painfully obvious mistake, I’m afraid. Remember that “Esus” and “Jesus” are not only derived from entirely different languages, but from entirely different language families. Esus, of course, is Indo-European. Jesus has a Semitic derivation.<\/p>

Jesus is derived from the Hebrew name, “Joshua”.<\/p>

LLat\u00a0I\u00ebsus<\/b><\/i>\u00a0< Gk.\u00a0I\u00ebsous<\/b><\/i>\u00a0< Heb.\u00a0Y\u00ebs\u00fba’<\/b><\/i>\u00a0<\u00a0y\u00ebh\u00f4s\u00fba’<\/b><\/i>, Joshua<\/p>

Joshua, of course, means “YHVH is salvation”, coming from a combination of\u00a0yeh\u00f4<\/b><\/i>, which is a shortened form of YHVH, and\u00a0*s\u00fba’<\/b><\/i>, meaning “salvation”.<\/p>

For all derivations, check the\u00a0American Heritage College Dictionary<\/i>.<\/p>

When the Greeks transliterated it, it took the Hebrew name for Jesus and made it look Greek. “Jesus” is, at its root, Semitic.<\/p>

Esus, on the other hand, is directly from a Proto-Indo-European root. Most likely, this root is\u00a0*hes-<\/b><\/i>, meaning “lord”. This brings up another argument: that both names mean “lord”: they do not. As shone above, “Jesus” means “Joshua”, not “Lord”.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

What about Zeus?<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

But look at the name Zeus! Jesus derives from that!<\/strong><\/p>

Sir James George Frazer makes this argument. Jesus, apparently, can be connected to Dionysus,\u00a0Apollo, Asklipeus and Zeus. I don’t really have the time to go over all of them, so we’ll focus on Zeus:<\/p>

You cannot find “Jesus” in “Zeus”. Perhaps you can find “Zeus” in Jesus, but there is no Jesus in Zeus.<\/p>

I would say that the simplest solution, though, is that there is a coincidental similarity that is, at best, accidental. The person doing the transliteration probably just put a Greek ending on his best guess on what the transliteration was supposed to be for the first part. Now, whether it was later used in a comparative sense is moot: I cannot believe that someone intentionally made the name look like Zeus, mostly because it really, really doesn’t look at thing like Zeus, nor would it sound anything like “Zeus”, so far as I can tell.<\/p>

Now, here’s the big problem: even if the name “I\u00ebsous<\/i>” is derived from “Zeus”, how does it then become “Esus?” That “Y\u00ebs\u00fba’<\/i>” might be transliterated as “Esus” is, honestly, a silly notion. And that “I\u00ebsous<\/i>” would have been transliterated into “Esus” is, while slightly less silly, more unlikely: the word “I\u00ebsous<\/i>” would have needed to occur before “Esus” could be derived from it, and the Celts were well-known to have a knowledge of Greek as a language.<\/p>

Now, even if we assume that Esus is a reasonable derivation from Jesus, remember that\u00a0Zeus derives from the common Indo-European root\u00a0dyeu-<\/i><\/b>. So are many other IE names, such as “devah<\/i>” in Sanskrit and “Asmodeus” in Avestan. Would you insinuate that there is also a “Jesus” there, that the demon Asmodeus is another form of Jesus?<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

What About the Time Period?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Okay, let’s pretend that maybe the name “Esus” is somehow derived from “Jesus”.<\/strong><\/p>

Sure, I can play that game: If “Esus” is derived from a Latinization of the Semitic name “Y\u00ebs\u00fba’<\/i>“, then we have to ask: can it possibly fit the time period?<\/p>

The Parisii\u00a0nautes altar<\/a>\u00a0was erected sometime between AD 14-37. The inscription on the altar clearly dates this, as it says, “Erected in the reign of Tiberius Caesar.”<\/p>

If we presume that Christ was crucified in about 33-36 AD, and that what we now call the Gospel was written down immediately after in Greek, we have to wonder how quickly it would have made it to Gaul. That’s a long way to go, honestly. Paul doesn’t start traveling until about 48 AD, over 10 years after Tiberius ceases his reign. It’s not until about ten years after that he finally makes it to Rome.<\/p>

There’s another problem, though: In 1987, a metal detectorist in modern-day Austria (ancient Noricum) found a bronze statue base (the statue was missing). The inscription on it has been identified as an inscription to Esus, and has been dated back to at least 150 BCE. This pushes the god-name “Esus” into the clear “before Christ” era of history.<\/p>

If we’re bound to and stuck with the idea that the name “Esus” is some form of Jesus, then we’re going to have to assume that the Greeks called someone else (an earlier person) “I\u00ebsous<\/i>“, and that this person was important enough to be called “I<\/i>\u00eb<\/i>sus<\/i>” in the Latin world, and then had their name changed yet again in Gaul to Esus.<\/p>

Of course, perhaps we’re thinking of Jesus going to Gaul early in his life (which, admittedly, makes less sense to me, I think). If that’s the case, then why don’t we get a Gallicized version of “Y\u00ebs\u00fba’<\/i>” instead? “Esus” doesn’t seem like the likely candidate for a rough translation. It makes sense that\u00a0Y\u00ebs\u00fba’<\/i>\u00a0going into Greek would become\u00a0I\u00ebsous<\/i>, but I don’t see the sense in\u00a0Y\u00ebs\u00fba’\u00a0<\/i>going into Gaulish directly as\u00a0Esus<\/i>. In essence, I see a number of skipped steps there. Perhaps a more pressing question, though, is to wonder why there’s no direct evidence in manuscripts to this spelling of “Jesus”?<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Nautes Pillar as Confirmation of Station<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The\u00a0Nautes Pillar<\/a>\u00a0(Pillar of the Boatmen) shows the most important deities in Gaul, and Esus is represented as being like Jupiter, and so if Esus and Jesus are related, this shows his importance.<\/strong><\/p>

Not exactly. The Parisii nautes altar contains a sort of local pantheon, I think, rather than a “pecking order” sort of importance. The altar itself really a pillar, quite tall, that displays many, many different deities (perhaps 15-16, or more). Esus, Iovis, and Volcanus are (likely) not at the top, but Cernunnos (likely) is. Whether that makes Cernunnos more important or less is difficult to say.<\/p>

But if the pillar includes “important” deities in general, then we need to think about the other deities on it as important as well: Castor and Pollux, I’m afraid, hardly seem like they were “on the level” with Iovis and the “Mars” deity on the column. Further, the nautes <\/i>themselves are represented. . . so representation on the pillar does not make one automatically a powerful or important deity.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Nautes Pillar as Mystery Key<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The\u00a0Nautes Pillar<\/a>\u00a0(Pillar of the Boatmen) is a sort of “key” that links the Gaulish deities with the Roman ones, so Esus=Jesus=Jove\/Cernunnos.<\/strong><\/p>

As to the possibility of the pillar being a sort of translation device, then we need to think about the positioning of the deities. I’d also question whether such a device would be needed, honestly, especially if we’re talking about a religion that’s “in transition”. . . Why build a monument (perhaps the more pertinent question is “why only one?”) to serve as translation? And why doesn’t it appear anywhere else?<\/p>

If Cernunnos is Jupiter, then why is he not on the same block? Especially if Esus is Volcanus (who he is across from) or Jovis (who he is next to)? What do the bull and the cranes have to do with this? I don’t think that the translation theory of the pillar can explain it well. It falls short in too many places. I don’t see a logical connect between Esus and Volcanus, or between Jupiter and Tarvos Trigaranus, which is what I’d expect. I suppose you could try and read it down, but then it becomes a Rubics cube, and we’ve got four deities that we need to compare, sometimes showing up in pairs with consorts.<\/p>

As for the location, yes, it was found under the choir at Notre Dame. I’d say that the location, though, was of “extreme importance” because of who built it, not because it was important across Gaul. The sailors who erected it were rich. . . This much is obvious. They erected the pillar in a location that it could be seen by everyone in their tribe, and it promoted their standing in the community.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

The Caesar Connection<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\"Cover
“Jesus Was Caesar,” by Francesco Carotta<\/figcaption><\/figure>

But Jesus is really C. Iulius C\u00e6sar!<\/strong><\/p>

Oh, that’s a good one! Really good! *laughs*<\/p>

Wait, you’re serious? Okay, well: let’s address it seriously, then.<\/p>

This argument stems from the work of Francesco Carotta, an Italian “philosopher and linguist.” His position is that the “Jesus myth” is a European construct, and that Jesus and Caesar share some very similar traits. Among those mentioned are:<\/p>