I know that most scholars raise their eyebrows when I claim that the wicked Emperor Commodus had a heavy influence over the Roman Church and was ultimately responsible for the 'success' of Irenaeus' 'fourfold canon' - i.e. the rest of the bishop's were too frightened to stand up to his reforms because he had 'friends in high places.' Let's begin by putting out the facts that are difficult for even the most pious of critics to dispute (if they are even capable of rational thought):
(a) the period of Commodus' rule (177 - 192 CE) represented a golden age for the Catholic Church while for everyone else it was a blood bath including members of older Christian traditions.
(b) Commodus' beloved mistress Marcia was a Christian who actively worked with the Roman bishop to free Christians from punishment in the mines, some of these individuals liberated by Marcia ended up sitting on the Episcopal throne of Rome as Catholic Popes.
(c) it was in the Commodian period that a number of the most important 'rules' of Christianity were founded including how to celebrate, calculate and interpret the most important holy day in the Christian calendar - Easter.
(d) there is no reference to our 'gospel in four' before Irenaeus and Irenaeus can't cite a witness before him who used this canon of texts, not even his beloved master Polycarp.
(e) Irenaeus responds to Marcionite charges that Catholics were in the pocket of Commodus by saying 'well at least we help the poor.' [AH iii.25.1 - 5]
(f) it was in this period that both 'Victor' and Irenaeus are said to have been the first to use Latin - the language of the aristocracy - in Church services. In previous ages Greek, Syriac and possibly Aramaic had been employed in Rome.
(g) Irenaeus repeatedly makes the argument that those who go beyond the orthodoxy he establishes in his canon expose themselves to 'dangers' and 'punishments which are imminent.'
(h) Irenaeus repeatedly promotes Church membership as a way to avoid persecution, it is likened to a 'safe harbor' in turbulent waters.
(i) Origen seems to intimates that Irenaeus 'harmonized' all the gospels
It is noteworthy that To Theodore was likely written in this period and the underlying brutality of the age undoubtedly explains why Alexandrian authorities like Clement and Origen accepted Irenaeus' reforms in the first place (and had to maintain their original 'preferred' gospel text in secret).
There are a number of traditions which point to Commodus' direct rule over the Church but one of the most obvious are the images of Hercules which appear on the earliest throne of St. Peter illustrated with detailed images of the twelve labors of Hercules and six astrological symbols.
Pretty strange for the most holy Episcopal chair in the world. You'd have expected an image of Jesus or the apostle Peter right?Of course the tourists don't see all these pagan symbols. The chair is obscured within a massive place setting designed in the seventeenth century:
The idea that Commodus identified himself as the living embodiment of Hercules is well established. Romanus Hercules appears among his titles as given by Dio, LXXII.15.5, and also in an inscription of Dec. 192; see CIL XIV.3449 = Dessau, Ins. Sel. 400. He had the lion's skin and club, the attributes of Hercules, carried before him in the streets (Dio, LXXII.17.4), and had himself portrayed as Hercules on coins (Cohen III2 p251 f., nos. 180‑210), and in statues (c.ix.2; Dio, LXXII.15.6), e.g. the famous bust in the Capitoline Museum, Rome.
Hercules' most familiar title is that of 'Hercules Victor.' As Halmott notes Commodus appeared in public as a gladiator, naturally with due precautions: Commodus gained the victor's prize no less than 735 times." In order to connect this idea of Commodus as Hercules Victor to the Pope in the period who was called 'Victor' we need to cite a longer section from the Historia Augusta on the Emperor's life:He was called Britannicus by those who desired to flatter him, whereas the Britons even wished to set up an emperor against him. He was called also the Roman Hercules, on the ground that he had killed wild beasts in the amphitheatre the Lanuvium; and, indeed, it was his custom to kill wild beasts on his own estate. He had, besides, an insane desire that the city of Rome should be renamed Colonia Commodiana. This mad idea, it is said, was inspired in him while listening to the blandishments of Marcia. [HA 8:4-6]
The reference here to Lucius Commodus Britannicus is paralleled by a story in the Liber Pontificalis (the Book of Popes) about Pope Eleutherius' conversion of a 'king Lucius' of Britain during the early reign of Commodus. Eleutherius:
received a letter from king Lucius Britannicus asking him to appoint a way by which Lucius might become a Christian [LP 14]
So it is at least conceivably (if Roman churches imitated the early lay out of Coptic churches) - you could have had a Roman Church of St. Peter with the chair of St. Peter hidden behind a veil. Irenaeus, the deacon or 'servant' of the Church was Commodus' "face" to the world. He acted in the capacity of 'mediator' to Commodus' severity.
Lucius Commodus we might imagine was told by Marcia that he represented 'the God of the Christians' which was sure to have made him very happy. Commodus already held the title of Pontifex Maximus of the traditional Roman religion (this was later adapted by subsequent Popes). His throne's occultation behind the veil undoubtedly meant he didn't have to attend any or all of the Christian services.
Commodus was identified as 'Victor' owing to his traditional identification of himself with Hercules (the temple of Hercules 'Victor' [first century B.C.] is shown on the right). Gnostic views of 'another God' higher than the Lord of this world were necessarily punished owing to their perceived implications of undermining his authority (and not recognizing 'Victor' as the living presence of God).
This source on Latin epigraphy says that Commodus was Pater patriae and Pontifex maximus in 177, Pius in 183, Britannicus in 184, Felix in 185, Invictus Romanus Hercules in 192. The coin of Commodus on the right has the legend - 'Marcus COMMODVS ANToninus Pius FELIX AVGustus BRITannicus.'Let's not forget that the Roman Episcopacy identifies 'Pius' to have been a previous occupant of the Roman throne in a period which exactly corresponds to Antoninus 'Pius' who was Commodus' grandfather.
Now let's deal with the last reference in the Historia Augusta, the idea that Commodus had "an insane desire that the city of Rome should be renamed Colonia Commodiana [after him]. This mad idea, it is said, was inspired in him while listening to the blandishments of Marcia.
The fact that Marcia his influential Christian concubine was the inspiration behind this idea makes it seem at least possible that the introduction of the never before heard 'Gospel of Luke' represented a Holy Scripture introduced by Irenaeus at Marcia's instigation (I have argued at length elsewhere that the original bundling of the book of Acts was with a single, long gospel of John).
Luke was pronounced Lukius in the period which makes the association with Lucius Commodus possible. As Irenaeus himself notes against the Marcionites in Book III of his Against the Heresies:
It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth. And if indeed Marcion's followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying the perfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger to which they are exposed. [AH iii.14.4]
It is worth noting that it is well established that during Commodus' mad rule EVERYTHING in the Empire was renamed 'Lucius' 'Commodus' or some other aspect of the Emperor's name. The city of Rome, the Empire, the months of the year were all renamed - why is it so bizarre that the same might have been true for the hitherto unknown apostolic figure 'Lukius'?
There an unlimited number of coins from the period of Commodus which identify the Emperor as 'Victor' including the coin to the left here - 'Sestertius Obv: LAVRELCOMMODVSAVGTRPV - Laureate, draped bust right. Rev: IOVIVICTORIIMPIIICOSIIPP - Jupiter seated left, holding Victory and scepter; S C across fields. 179-180 (Rome)
Other Commodus Coins with the title 'Victor include this coin from early in his reign (see right). We see a Laureate head of Commodus facing r. encircled by L AVREL COMMODVS AVG TR P V on the obverse and Jupiter, naked to waist, seated l. on throne holding Victory on r.hand, and vertical sceptre in l. Yet another example of this coin (which is so common in the period most have little value) is the represented below:
On the obverse - Commodus Æ sestertius. 179-180 AD. L AVREL COMMODVS AVG TR P V, laureate draped bust right. On the reverse IOVI VICTORI IMP III COS II P P S-C, Jupiter seated left, holding Victory & scepter.I don't know how many examples I need to put forward to demonstrate the underlying idea that IF Commodus sat enthroned ANYWHERE it would have been natural to associate that place with the title 'Victor.' Commodus the young son of one of the greatest Emperors in the history of Rome - that of the deified Marcus Aurelius - would naturally have been drawn to Hercules as a half-man, half-human hoping to equal the greatness of his divine father Zeus.
So that's my theory about how the original throne of St. Peter - the one that 'Victor' must be imagined to have sat on - happened to have all those images of Hercules on it. The association between Irenaeus the promoter of the fourfold canon and this enthroned 'Victor' - viz. Commodus - also explains (at last!) how the current New Testament canon gained universal assent among Christians from all different centers all over the Empire so quickly after the idea just 'popped in Irenaeus' head.
Indeed for those who still want to imagine that these ideas are 'a stretch' let's consider the alternative:
Irenaeus said 'let there be four gospels' and everyone saw that he had 'the Holy Spirit' and they all lived happily ever after. The End.
It is now the job of scholars to make THAT fairy tale sound scientific and rational.
Ok, you're right. Commodus as 'Victor' is completely ridiculous ...
Additional note: if you are one of those people who merely regurgitates information gleaned off the internet you will probably end up convinced that Charles the Bald 'made' the throne for the Pope in the ninth century. The truth is that there almost as many theories about the manufacture of the throne as there are ivory plates on the front of the relic.
Stiverd is as certain (as I am) that the ivories came from another object (another chair of St. Peter?) and were fixed to a new frame:
The ivory ornaments themselves again, are of two distinct kinds of workmanship. Those which cover the front panel of the chair are square plates of ivory disposed in three rows, six in a row. The two upper rows have the Labors of Hercules engraved on them with thin laminae of gold lit into the lines on the engraving. The six lower plates have figures probably intended for constellations. Some of them are put upside down, and their present use is evidently not that for which they were originally intended. The other ivories on the contrary fit exactly the portions of acacia which they cover with the architecture of which they correspond and they appear to have been made on purpose and never to have been used for ornamenting any other article. They consist of bands of ivory not engraved but sculpted in relief and represent combats of beasts, centaurs and men ... The Labors of Hercules are of a much more ancient date but De Rossi does not think of them as old as the first century ... [p. 151]
The real question is why would the Vatican have accepted - or why would someone have manufactured a chair with mythological images at a later date? It doesn't make sense. The only possibility is that AT AN EARLY DATE the images were established as belonging to or associated with St. Peter or his successors and so were not removed owing to their perceived holiness.
If you want to know the truths behind Christianity BEFORE ALL THE ROMAN COUNTERFEITING buy my book, the Real Messiah here
