Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the Methuselah Lazarus the same as the Biblical Lazarus?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    So I think an important fact to consider is that things are rarely ret-conned in Vampire. The contradictions are usually deliberate, to highlight the murky nature of Kindred History. Many things are believed to be true, but the further back you go the harder it becomes to pin down exactly what happened. Even those that lived through it tend to be sketchy on the details the more time passes. Hell Humans can edit their remembered History over a few short years, coming to believe they witnessed things that never happened.

    With that in mind, it is entirely conceivable that the things stated to be truth in the fiction may not have happened as they state it. Vampires have a tendency to cling to certainty about what they believe, regardless of the truth. So the question of when Lazarus was embraced becomes more variable the further back you go.
    Angelique being Embraced in a Christian Monastery for instance. It was more than likely true, but it could also be true she was embraced in a different religious building, that she converted to Christianity then clearly remembers being Embraced in a Christian Monastery to fit her new paradigm. This is probably not the case, but does highlight how selective editing is more than likely in play in much of Kindred history.

    Comment


    • #47
      Okay

      I lost track of most of this argument, but one thing seems clear: if there’s a book that says that Lazarus was Embraced during the first century CE (around the time of Jesus), then he’s probably the same person as the guy from the Bible. (Idk for sure cause I haven’t read all the older books.) I mean, the Lamiae could be a much more recent bloodline. There’s no reason they have to be from Ancient Greece. All the rest is just speculation based on the fact that vampires of his Generation and power level usually tend to be a lot older.

      Is there an actual official book that tells you when Lazarus was Embraced?


      The die is cast. - Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon

      Comment


      • #48
        Well, no, not necessarily; as we said, it wasn't exactly a unique name at the time.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Penelope View Post
          Okay

          I lost track of most of this argument, but one thing seems clear: if there’s a book that says that Lazarus was Embraced during the first century CE (around the time of Jesus), then he’s probably the same person as the guy from the Bible. (Idk for sure cause I haven’t read all the older books.) I mean, the Lamiae could be a much more recent bloodline. There’s no reason they have to be from Ancient Greece. All the rest is just speculation based on the fact that vampires of his Generation and power level usually tend to be a lot older.

          Is there an actual official book that tells you when Lazarus was Embraced?
          I looked it up, his Embrace date in A World of Darkness 2nd Edition, Page 112
          "Lazarus, a Jew Embraced early in the first century A D , was one of the more prominent Cappadocians to settle Egypt"

          Even if he was embraced earlier I think the implication at the time was for him to be the same as, or inspiration for, Lazarus in the Bible.
          Ultimately however it was left vague for ST's to decide if they wanted to make him that or not. For my own cannon he is, as the Bible tells some of the truth of history, but is Heavily revised, edited, or downright fabricated. But I also favour having mythological or legendary figures being one Supernatural or another in my games, I know other's prefer to downplay the number of figures who are Supernaturals.

          Comment


          • #50
            True...

            But what if it was the same guy? Remember, Cappadocius was the Antediluvian of Death and he literally wanted to become God. What if he Embraced Lazarus because he wanted to see what would happen if you Embraced someone who had cheated death and been resurrected by God himself?

            Fuck. I just realized that Alucard is Dracula spelled backwards.


            The die is cast. - Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon

            Comment


            • #51
              Mithras304 thanks. That definitely clarifies things.


              The die is cast. - Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Penelope View Post
                True...

                But what if it was the same guy? Remember, Cappadocius was the Antediluvian of Death and he literally wanted to become God. What if he Embraced Lazarus because he wanted to see what would happen if you Embraced someone who had cheated death and been resurrected by God himself?
                That would make a lot of sense! Though the reference to Lazarus rising from the dead in the Bible could just be how the Embrace was interpreted by Mortals.

                Originally posted by Penelope View Post
                Fuck. I just realized that Alucard is Dracula spelled backwards.
                Yea it took me longer than I care to admit to realise the same...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Mithras304 View Post
                  I looked it up, his Embrace date in A World of Darkness 2nd Edition, Page 112
                  "Lazarus, a Jew Embraced early in the first century A D , was one of the more prominent Cappadocians to settle Egypt"

                  Even if he was embraced earlier I think the implication at the time was for him to be the same as, or inspiration for, Lazarus in the Bible.
                  Ultimately however it was left vague for ST's to decide if they wanted to make him that or not. For my own cannon he is, as the Bible tells some of the truth of history, but is Heavily revised, edited, or downright fabricated. But I also favour having mythological or legendary figures being one Supernatural or another in my games, I know other's prefer to downplay the number of figures who are Supernaturals.

                  Well, Cappadocius sired Caias, then Japeth and Lazarus. all before speaking with Zoroaster and Buddha. That's 1000 BC at the very least. Clanbook Cappadocian pg. 12.

                  A World of Darkness 2nd ed came out in June 1996, Clanbook Cappadocian came out in March 1997.

                  - Saga
                  Last edited by Saga; 01-26-2020, 01:27 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Saga View Post


                    Well, Cappadocius sired Caias, then Japeth and Lazarus. all before speaking with Zoroaster and Buddha. That's 1000 BC at the very least. Clanbook Cappadocian pg. 12.

                    A World of Darkness 2nd ed came out in June 1996, Clanbook Cappadocian came out in March 1997.

                    - Saga
                    The phrasing in Clanbook Cappadocian is vaugue as to when this occured, it seems to just list Childer he sired over the years, not the he definitely Sire them before talking to Zoroaster and Buddha. Again this plays into what I said earlier about deliberately working in contradictory information to obfuscate History.

                    But as to the question of which book states the date of his embrace then it's A World of Darkness 2nd Ed, as Clanbook Cappadocian doesn't state a date, but leaves it vague and down to how you interpret the text. As to whether you believe the date given in A World of Darkness 2nd Ed, that again ties into the deliberate contradictions that muddy Kindred History.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Mithras304 View Post
                      The phrasing in Clanbook Cappadocian is vaugue as to when this occured, it seems to just list Childer he sired over the years, not the he definitely Sire them before talking to Zoroaster and Buddha. Again this plays into what I said earlier about deliberately working in contradictory information to obfuscate History.

                      But as to the question of which book states the date of his embrace then it's A World of Darkness 2nd Ed, as Clanbook Cappadocian doesn't state a date, but leaves it vague and down to how you interpret the text. As to whether you believe the date given in A World of Darkness 2nd Ed, that again ties into the deliberate contradictions that muddy Kindred History.
                      I agree with you, it's vague. In the end, we choose our own canon history, we take it or leave it what's been published.

                      - Saga

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Penelope View Post
                        Okay

                        I lost track of most of this argument, but one thing seems clear: if there’s a book that says that Lazarus was Embraced during the first century CE (around the time of Jesus), then he’s probably the same person as the guy from the Bible. (Idk for sure cause I haven’t read all the older books.) I mean, the Lamiae could be a much more recent bloodline. There’s no reason they have to be from Ancient Greece. All the rest is just speculation based on the fact that vampires of his Generation and power level usually tend to be a lot older.

                        Is there an actual official book that tells you when Lazarus was Embraced?
                        Here's another possibility that might work depending on the type of game you're running.
                        Jesus cured Lazarus' vampirism and then Cappadocius Embraced him again to see if he could.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by False Epiphany View Post
                          I always thought Samiel killing Tzimisce was pretty plausible. He was one of Saulot's oldest childer and one of the Second City's fiercest warriors. He quite likely had higher Strength, Melee, and physical Disciplines than many Antediluvians did.
                          Let me add that in the "Dark Ages Clan Novel: Tzimisce", the Dracon described how Antonius once hit him with greater strength than his sire.
                          Now, obviously, the canonicity of this statement is dubious and it's entirely possible than the Tzimisce Antediluvian was holding back, but here's another instance of a Methuselah who seemed to have better Strength than him/her/it.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post
                            Here's another possibility that might work depending on the type of game you're running.
                            Jesus cured Lazarus' vampirism and then Cappadocius Embraced him again to see if he could.
                            I love that idea! Not sure it entirely fits the meta, but the idea alone is brilliant!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post
                              Let me add that in the "Dark Ages Clan Novel: Tzimisce", the Dracon described how Antonius once hit him with greater strength than his sire.
                              Now, obviously, the canonicity of this statement is dubious and it's entirely possible than the Tzimisce Antediluvian was holding back, but here's another instance of a Methuselah who seemed to have better Strength than him/her/it.

                              Also last time Dracon was hit by the Eldest was probably prehistory, a lot of time passed and the Eldest could conceivably hit way harder. But punching hard was not its strong suite, it could rip and cut and mutate and burn, but as far as strength without growing huge goes its probably pretty middling.


                              It is a time for great deeds!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Being something of an asinine jerk, Lazarus is not even the biblical figure's real name, but a latinization of Eleazar that became popular in the western world around the time the Vulgate was published, at some point of the late 4th century.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X